*The Coming Prosperity*

The author is the highly intelligent Philip Auerswald and the subtitle is How Entrepreneurs are Transforming the Global Economy.  I am less optimistic about the next ten years, but this is a very well-argued book.  I am hoping to have a chance to work more with Phil, my colleague at George Mason, in the near-term future.


According to his blog (also titled The Coming Prosperity), this video sums up his thinking behind the book in 10 impassioned minutes. Recommended: https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=OPYzl7npf24

The Forest metaphor is pretty weak

Rob, Thanks for the endorsement. A bit of context: The audience was congressional staffers. We were a full hour into this lunch time event when my turn came. My colleagues Brink Lindsey and Amy Wilkinson had already covered all the policy play-by-play. So there was a bit of an opening for color commentary (a.k.a. wake-up call). Full video for the event is here: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/innovation-and-entrepreneurship-the-right-combination-for-growth

CBBB, Fair enough! I'll keep that in mind. None of the material in this talk is actually from the book, so I'm good there ;) This talk is, however, synchronous with The Coming Prosperity in terms of broad themes. But more like a preface than a summary.

Japan seems pretty good at making robots and cars and selling them through out the world without a lot of immigrants.

If economics doesn't deal well with changes to PSST, how do people know, formally?

Talking about prosperity and how bad/good situation we are in, have you seen this?


Seems likely that the 20th century will prove an anomaly.

"Seems likely that the 20th century will prove an anomaly."

It's unlikely that mankind will ever be anywhere near as poor as almost any point before the 17th century. So I would expect the 20th century to be a middle point in the trend line of ever rising prosperity. It's possible that the 20th century might be the deepest inflection point of rising wealth, but I think it will turn out to be the 21st century.

"The Continuing Prosperity of the Few"
There fixed it.

Aren't you lucky to be one of those Few then.

JWatts: Exactly.

CBBB: Keep in mind that a person at the poverty line in the United States is in the top 14% of the global income distribution. Squabbles inside the country club shouldn't distract you from the epochal transformations happening outside of it.

"Squabbles inside the country club" probably refers to the vast anger that most Americans feel about stubbornly high US unemployment, increasing income inequality, deindustrialization of America, and declining opportunity for most of our children. The new globalization is not the only process at work, but it is near the top.

What do you mean the few?
On New Year's Eve I was reduced to drinking 2nd rate Canadian Rye and Cordon Negro.

OMG. I'm so sorry. I didn't know.

He pretty much argues directly against 'The Great Stagnation'. Which I tend to agree with. I think the ability to watch Philip Auerswald on YouTube or to read this blog is proof against any modern stagnation. The technological changes may not be showing up directly in the GDP, but they are certainly vastly improving the quality of life.

No, the Great Stagnation is totally wrong and Phillip Auerswald's argument seems a lot more realistic - except I think distributional issues are going to mean relatively few people will benefit from new innovations, inventions, and businesses.
I mean you can talk about Steve Jobs all you want but I personally have barely benefited from the iPod, iPhone, iPad, or any of these other mobile technologies.

+input this URL:

=== http://www.heyheytrading.com/ ====
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan s-h-o-e-s)

( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
=== http://www.heyheytrading.com/ ====
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)

(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
=== http://www.heyheytrading.com/ ====
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(UG G b-o-o-t)

Send Christmas Gifts. Buy more to send.


I am less optimistic about the next ten years, but this is a very well-argued book.

Since its thesis is exact opposite of your TGS, you seem to be thinking that the author is dead wrong but "this is a very well-argued book". A very interesting definition of "well-argued" you have!

Comments for this post are closed