Category: Current Affairs
My Conversation with the excellent Dan Wang
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Tyler and Dan debate whether American infrastructure is actually broken or just differently optimized, why health care spending should reach 35% of GDP, how lawyerly influences shaped East Asian development differently than China, China’s lack of a liberal tradition and why it won’t democratize like South Korea or Taiwan did, its economic dysfunction despite its manufacturing superstars, Chinese pragmatism and bureaucratic incentives, a 10-day itinerary for Yunnan, James C. Scott’s work on Zomia, whether Beijing or Shanghai is the better city, Liu Cixin and why volume one of The Three-Body Problem is the best, why contemporary Chinese music and film have declined under Xi, Chinese marriage markets and what it’s like to be elderly in China, the Dan Wang production function, why Stendhal is his favorite novelist and Rossini’s Comte Ory moves him, what Dan wants to learn next, whether LLMs will make Tyler’s hyper-specific podcast questions obsolete, what flavor of drama their conversation turned out to be, and more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: When will Chinese suburbs be really attractive?
WANG: What are Chinese suburbs? You use this term, Tyler, and I’m not sure what exactly they mean.
COWEN: You have a yard and a dog and a car, right?
WANG: Yes.
COWEN: You control your school district with the other parents. That’s a suburb.
WANG: How about never? I’m not expecting that China will have American-style suburbs anytime soon, in part because of the social engineering projects that are pretty extensive in China. I think there is a sense in which Chinese cities are not especially dense. Indian cities are much, much more dense. I think that Chinese cities, the streets are not necessarily terribly full of people all the time. They just sprawl quite extensively.
They sprawl in ways that I think the edges of the city still look somewhat like the center of the city, which there’s too many high-rises. There’s probably fewer parks. There’s probably fewer restaurants. Almost nobody has a yard and a dog in their home. That’s in part because the Communist Party has organized most people to live in apartment compounds in which it is much easier to control them.
We saw this really extensively in the pandemic, in which people were unable to leave their Shanghai apartment compounds for anything other than getting their noses and mouths swabbed. I write a little bit about how, if you take the rail outside of major cities like Beijing and Shanghai, you hit farmland really, really quickly. That is in part because the Communist Party assesses governors as well as mayors on their degree of food self-sufficiency.
Cities like Shanghai and Beijing have to produce a lot of their own crops, both grains as well as vegetables, as well as fruits, as well as livestock, within a certain radius so that in case there’s ever a major devastating war, they don’t have to rely on strawberries from Mexico or strawberries from Cambodia, or Thailand. There’s a lot of farmland allocated outside of major cities. I think that will prevent suburban sprawl. You can’t control people if they all have a yard as well as a dog. I think the Communist Party will not allow it.
COWEN: Whether the variable of engineers matters, I went and I looked at the history of other East Asian economies, which have done very well in manufacturing, built out generally excellent infrastructure. None of these problems with the Second Avenue line in New York. Taiwan, like the presidents, at least if we believe GPT-5, three of them were lawyers and none of them were engineers. South Korea, you have actually some economists, a lot of bureaucrats.
WANG: Wow. Imagine that. Economists in charge, Tyler.
COWEN: I wouldn’t think it could work. A few lawyers, one engineer. Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, he’s a lawyer. He thinks in a very lawyerly manner. Singapore has arguably done the best of all those countries. Much richer than China, inspired China. Why should I think engineers rather than just East Asia, and a bunch of other accompanying facts about these places are what matter?
WANG: Japan, a lot of lawyers in the top leadership. What exactly was the leadership of Hong Kong? A bunch of British civil servants.
COWEN: Some of whom are probably lawyers or legal-type minds, right? Not in general engineers.
WANG: PPE grads. I think that we can understand the engineering variable mostly because of how much more China has done relative to Japan and South Korea and Taiwan.
COWEN: It’s much, much poorer. Per capita manufacturing output is gone much better in these other countries.
And:
WANG: Tyler, what does it say about us that you and I have generally a lot of similar interests in terms of, let’s call it books, music, all sorts of things, but when it comes to particular categories of things, we oppose each other diametrically. I much prefer Anna Karenina to War and Peace. I prefer Buddenbrooks to Magic Mountain. Here again, you oppose me. What’s the deal?
COWEN: I don’t think the differences are that big. For instance, if we ask ourselves, what’s the relative ranking of Chengdu plus Chongqing compared to the rest of the world? We’re 98.5% in agreement compared to almost anyone else. When you get to the micro level, the so-called narcissism of petty differences, obviously, you’re born in China. I grew up in New Jersey. It’s going to shape our perspectives.
Anything in China, you have been there in a much more full-time way, and you speak and read Chinese, and none of that applies to me. I’m popping in and out as a tourist. Then, I think the differences make much more sense. It’s possible I would prefer to live in Shanghai for essentially the reasons you mentioned. If I’m somewhere for a week, I’m definitely going to pick Beijing. I’ll go around to the galleries. The things that are terrible about the city just don’t bother me that much, because I know I’ll be gone.
WANG: 98.5% agreement. I’ll take that, Tyler. It’s you and me against the rest of the world, but then we’ll save our best disagreements for each other.
COWEN: Let’s see if you can pass an intellectual Turing test. Why is it that I think Yunnan is the single best place in the world to visit? Just flat out the best if you had to pick one region. Not why you think it is, but why I think it is.
Strongly recommended, Dan and I had so much fun we kept going for about an hour and forty minutes. And of course you should buy and read Dan’s bestselling book Breakneck: China’s Quest to Engineer the Future.
The MR Podcast: Debt!
On The Marginal Revolution Podcast this week, Tyler and I discuss the US debt. This is our final podcast of the year. Here’s one bit:
TABARROK: I do agree that it is puzzling that the interest rate on bonds is so low. Hanno Lustig and his co-authors have an interesting paper on this. They point out that not only is it the case that we have all of this debt with no plans to pay it, as far as we can tell right now, but the debt is not a very good asset in the sense that when will the debt be paid? If it is going to be paid, it’s going to be paid when the times are good. That means that you’re being paid when GDP is higher and the marginal utility money is low.
When is the debt not paid? When does it get bigger? It means when the economy is doing poorly. The debt as an asset has the opposite kind of structure than you would want. It’s not like gold, which arguably goes down in good times and goes up in bad times. You get some nice covariance to even out your portfolio. The debt as an asset is positively correlated with good times, and that’s bad. You should expect the interest rates to be much, much higher than they actually are.
COWEN: The easy out there is just to say it’s always going to be paid. Let me give you a way of reconceptualizing the problem. The Hanno Lustig paper, which is called “US Public Debt Valuation Puzzle,” like a lot of work on debt, it focuses on flows. There’s the rate of interest, there’s government spending. If you look at stocks, look at the stock of wealth in the United States. A common estimate from the past was wealth is six to eight times higher than GDP. That’s a little misleading. How do you value all the wealth? How liquid is it?
Still, we all know there’s a lot more wealth than GDP. If your economy stays at peace, if anything, that ratio rises. You build things, they’re pretty durable. None of it is destroyed by bombs. We’re just headed to having more and more wealth. If you take, say, 100% debt-to-GDP ratio, and you think wealth is six to eight times higher, what’s our debt-to-wealth ratio? Well, it’s going to depend what kind of wealth, how liquid, blah, blah, blah. Let’s say it’s like 20%. Let’s say you had a debt ratio of 20% to your wealth at some point in the history of your mortgage. I bet you did. You weren’t worried. Why should the US be worried?
TABARROK: The US is a much longer-lived entity, presumably, than I am.
COWEN: That’s right. You could have 200% debt-to-GDP ratio. In terms of your debt-to-wealth ratio, again, it’s somewhat arbitrary, but say it’s 40% to 50% that might be on the high side. It’s not pleasant, but I’ve been in that situation with mortgages.
Here’s the episode. Subscribe now to take a small step toward a much better world: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube.
Pharma supply is elastic
The crux of the problem is that the IRA imposes price caps that shorten the effective life of a patent and applies those price controls even to later-approved uses. Thirteen years after FDA approval, biologics, which are typically infused or injected, become subject to price controls. For small-molecule drugs, typically pills or tablets, the window is only nine years. The clock starts at a drug’s first approval, leaving a follow-on or alternative use, approved years later, an insufficient period to make up the cost of research.
Two weeks ago, a study I conducted with colleagues at the University of Chicago appeared in Health Affairs. It reveals how much these provisions harm cancer research. In reviewing every Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drug between 2000 and 2024, we found a large part of innovation in cancer treatment takes place after a therapy is first approved. About 42% of the 184 cancer therapies that were initially approved during that period had follow-on approvals—involving new uses or “indications” for an existing drug—such as treating additional cancer types or being used earlier in the disease, when treatment outcomes tend to be better.
This cumulative progress through follow-on discoveries is a big driver of new cancer treatments, the largest drug class making up about 35% of the overall FDA pipeline. Cancer drugs are generally first tested in patients with late-stage disease, after which the drug is studied for use in earlier stages of that cancer and for new uses, including treating other cancers. Our study found that 60% of follow-on drugs treated earlier stages than the initial drugs. This is important because treating earlier stages is often more successful than when a cancer has spread more.
But that cumulative progress depends on incentives for sustained research well after the first FDA approval—often years of additional trials and investments. And those incentives were killed by the IRA.
The Dells add to Trump Accounts
I wrote that Trump Accounts Are A Big Deal. These accounts give U.S. citizen’s born between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2028, $1000 invested in a low-cost, diversified U.S. stock index fund. Well, the accounts just got bigger. Michael and Susan Dell are donating $6.25 billion to seed accounts with $250 for children born before Jan. 2025, up to ten years of age:
The Dells have committed to seed Trump accounts with $250 for children who are 10 or under who were born before Jan. 1, 2025. According to Invest America, the pledged funds will cover 25 million children age 10 and under in ZIP codes with a median income of $150,000 or less.
“We want to help the children that weren’t part of the government program,” Dell said.
The People’s Republic of Santa Monica
Here’s a video from real estate investor and youtuber Graham Stephan. He’s explaining (starting at 7:23) why he is selling a home in Santa Monica instead of renting it out–it’s the rent control laws, of course. The laws are strongly biased against landlords. Perhaps landlords should be a protected class.
Everything he says about the law, by the way, is accurate. I was initially skeptical (as was Google Gemini) that homes had to be rented unfurnished. Why would that stupidity be a law? But no, it’s accurate. Apparently, the idea is to make it more difficult to rent to temporary residents.
To preserve rental housing for permanent residents, all rental units must be rented unfurnished for an initial term of not less than one year and only to natural persons intending to use the unit as their primary residence.
Here’s Google Gemini summarizing, once I corrected it on the unfurnished home law.
The speaker’s understanding of the Santa Monica Rent Control and Just Cause laws is highly accurate in almost all respects:
Subject to Rent Control (7:50): Accurate. A non-primary residence built before 1979 is typically subject to the law.
Indefinite Tenancy (8:50): Accurate. Tenants gain “permanent right” to occupancy as eviction is limited to specific “just causes.”
Rent Increase Limit ($60/AGI) (8:13): Accurate. The annual rent increase is capped by a fixed, low dollar amount (the AGI), which closely aligns with the speaker’s figure.
No Eviction to Sell (8:57): Accurate. Selling the property is not a “just cause” for eviction.
Owner Move-In (OMI) Requirements (9:14):Accurate. Eviction for OMI requires paying substantial relocation fees, re-offering the unit if re-rented within two years, and prohibits eviction during the school year.
Furnished Home Prohibition (9:56):Accurate. Santa Monica requires rental units to be initially rented unfurnished to permanent residents.
Hat tip: Naveen Nvn who also says this video is worth watching.
Make Africa Healthy Again
In the late 1990s, South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki decided that mainstream science had AIDS wrong. A small circle of “truth-tellers” convinced him that AIDS came from poverty and malnutrition, not a virus. He warned that anti-retroviral therapy (ART) was toxic and that pharmaceutical companies were poisoning Africans for profit.
His government stalled the rollout of ART. Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang pushed garlic, beetroot, and lemon as medicine. “Nutrition is the basis for good health,” she said, insisting that exercise and diet, not Western drugs, were the real treatment. She warned that antiretrovirals had side effects, including cancer, that the establishment was hiding. When scientists showed data, she waved it off: “No churning of figures after figures will deter me from telling the truth to the people of the country.”
The result was a public health disaster: hundreds of thousand of preventable deaths (see also here and here).
A reminder of what happens when authority trades evidence for ideology.
Europe’s first elephant sanctuary
Portugal’s Alentejo region is set to become home to a groundbreaking project – Europe’s first sanctuary for elephants that have lived in captivity.
Set across 402 hectares between Vila Viçosa and Alandroal, the vast refuge will welcome its first residents – elephants from zoos and circuses across Europe – in early 2026. The initiative is led by the non-profit organisation Pangea, registered in Portugal and the UK, with support from local councils and national environmental authorities such as Directorate-General for Food and Veterinary (DGAV) and the Institute for Nature Conservation and Forests (ICNF).
The land was purchased in 2023 by the non-profit, which has been busy preparing it for the elephants…
In a statement, Pangea explained that the project consists of creating a natural space for “elephants in a vulnerable situation”, so that the animals can “move freely, feed and socialise, just as they would in their wild habitat”.
Here is the full story. About thirty elephants are slated to end up there. Henry Mance at the FT notes:
The elephants will have 850 acres to roam — more than 200 times the size of Tierpark Berlin zoo’s elephant enclosure or 28 times that of the UK’s Whipsnade Zoo.
And:
The median lifespan for African elephants in a Kenyan national park was three times that of those in European zoos.
Will this prove financially sustainable? Replicable? Finding an area with enough water was one of the major constraints.
*FDR: A New Political Life*
From historian David T. Beito, here is one excerpt:
FDR gave unquestioning support to President Wilson’s crackdown on free speech during World War I, including his enforcement of the Sedition and Espionage Acts. According to Kenneth S. Davis, Roosevelt “went along with prevailing trends in the realm of the national spirit, uninhibited by any strong ideological commitment to the Bill of Rights.” After reading about the conviction of the publisher of an antiwar socialist pamphlet, for example, he sent a congratulatory letter to the federal prosecutor…
There is much more here than just the standard market-oriented “Roosevelt had bad economic policies” line, and the more left-leaning critique of Roosevelt on segregation and the southern coalition. For instance, Roosevelt supported policies that required the telegram companies to keep copies of all telegrams sent, and he used the FCC licensing process to help keep radio in his corner politically.
There is more. It can be said that this book offers a very negative view of FDR.
Does drug interdiction work?
From GPT 5.1 Pro:
“In the economic literature, the dominant story is:
-
Prohibition and enforcement do make illegal drugs much more expensive than they would be in a legal market.
-
But marginal increases in interdiction (seizing shipments, crop eradication, etc.), especially in the Andes, have not produced sustained higher prices or lower quantities in consumer markets.
-
Instead, retail, purity‑adjusted prices for cocaine and heroin show large long‑run declines (1980s–2000s) and then roughly flat or drifting patterns at historically low levels, while global production and consumption reach record highs. Reuters+4whitehouse.gov+4whitehouse.gov+4
So between your two stylized options—“successfully limit quantity and raise prices” vs. “long‑run steady decline in prices”—the long‑run price data look a lot more like the second story, with only temporary interruptions from big interdiction pushes.”
There is much more at the link. Blowing up a few boats is not going to change that logic.
I hope this is stupid and bad enough to change some things
Hegseth order on first Caribbean boat strike, officials say: Kill them all…As two men clung to a stricken, burning ship targeted by SEAL Team 6, the Joint Special Operations commander followed the defense secretary’s order to leave no survivors.
Here is the full article, of course that is a war crime.
Thanksgiving and the Lessons of Political Economy
Time to re-up my 2004 post on thanksgiving and the lessons of political economy. Here it is with no indent:
It’s one of the ironies of American history that when the Pilgrims first arrived at Plymouth rock they promptly set about creating a communist society. Of course, they were soon starving to death.
Fortunately, “after much debate of things,” Governor William Bradford ended corn collectivism, decreeing that each family should keep the corn that it produced. In one of the most insightful statements of political economy ever penned, Bradford described the results of the new and old systems.
[Ending corn collectivism] had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been by any means the Governor or any other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble, and gave far better content. The women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability; whom to have compelled would have been thought great tyranny and oppression.
The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labours and victuals, clothes, etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.
Among Bradford’s many insights it’s amazing that he saw so clearly how collectivism failed not only as an economic system but that even among godly men “it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them.” And it shocks me to my core when he writes that to make the collectivist system work would have required “great tyranny and oppression.” Can you imagine how much pain the twentieth century could have avoided if Bradford’s insights been more widely recognized?
Addendum: Today (2025) I would add only that the twenty-first century could avoid a lot of pain if Bradford’s insights were more widely recognized.
“Why ‘Humane’ Immigration Policy Ends in Cruelty”
That is the title of my latest Free Press column, which is interesting throughout. Here is one bit from it:
Behind any immigration debate is an uncomfortable truth: In rich, successful democracies, every workable immigration policy, over enough time, offends liberal instincts or public opinion—often both. We oscillate between compassion and coercive control, and the more we do of one, the more we seem to need some of the other.
The dilemma: Due to the ever-rising numbers of migration to the United States, the enforcement of immigration restrictions has to become more oppressive and more unpleasant as time passes. The alternative course, which is equally unpleasant, is that immigration increases to levels that voters find unacceptable, and we fall under the rule of anti-immigrant parties—which are illiberal on many other issues as well.
The news gets worse. The more pro-immigration you are and the more you allow some foreigners to enter this country, the more others on the outside will wish to come too. Unless you are going to open the border entirely (not a good idea), you will end up having to impose increasingly harsh measures on illegal arrivals, and tougher and tougher restrictions on potentially legal applicants. The liberals in essence become the illiberals.
So I mourn our ongoing and intensifying moral dilemma. At the margin, there are so many people who want to come here (a sign of American success, of course) that there is no kind and gentle way to limit their numbers to a level the public finds acceptable.
And this:
A third alternative is to slow the intake. Keep it fast enough for America to remain “a nation of migrants,” but slow enough to avoid major backlash or to asymptotically approach open borders.
That sounds pretty good, right? But here is the illiberal catch: Given the growing attractiveness of migration to America, penalties and enforcement have to get tougher each year. There are no ways to send large numbers of people back that are not cruel and coercive. There are also few ways to keep people out that do not involve the extensive presence of coercive police, border arrests, imprisonment, and other unpleasant measures.
We might decide to let in more migrants, but still we will end up being cruel to the would-be migrants at the margin. And as demand to migrate continues to rise, we have to be increasingly coercive over time.
That does not have to mean masked ICE men grabbing people randomly off the streets (which leads to violating the constitutional rights of mistakenly identified citizens), but one way or another it is going to involve threats of violence against actual human bodies. That can mean turning away boats full of desperate people, flying people back home, putting them in interim jails, and in general treating them in ways I find deeply unpleasant and disturbing. It is no accident that the Biden administration could not completely avoid the Trumpian policy of separating illegal migrants from the children that accompany them.
Definitely recommended, one of my more interesting pieces this year.
Side-Walking Problems
Local Law 11 requires owners of New York City’s 16,000-plus buildings over six stories to get a “close-up, hands-on” facade inspection every five years. Repair costs in NYC’s bureaucratic and labor-union driven system are very high, so the owners throw up “temporary” plywood sheds that often sit there for a decade. NYC now has some 400 miles of ugly sheds.
The ~9,000 sheds stretching nearly 400 miles have installation costs around $100–150 per linear foot and ongoing rents of about 5–6% of that per month, implying something like $150 million plus a year in shed rentals citywide.
Well. at last something is being done! The sheds are being made prettier! Six new designs, some with transparent roofs as in the rendering below are now allowed. Looks nice in the picture. Will it look as nice in real life? Will it cost more? Almost certainly!
To be fair, City Hall is cracking down as well as doubling down: new laws cut shed permits from a year to three months and ratchet up fines for letting sheds linger. That’s a good idea. But the prettier sheds are the tell. Instead of reevaluating the law, doing a cost-benefit test or comparing with global standards, NYC wants to be less ugly.
How about using drones and AI to inspect buildings? Singapore requires inspections every 7 years but uses drones to do most of the work with a follow-up with hands-on check. How about investigating ways to cut the cost of repair? The best analysis of NYCs facade program indicates something surprising–the problem isn’t just deteriorating old buildings but also poorly installed glass in new buildings, thus more focus on installation quality is perhaps warranted. Moreover, are safety resources being optimized? Instead of looking up, New Yorkers might do better by looking down. Stray voltage continues to kill pets and shock residents. Manhole “incidents” including explosions happen in the thousands every year! What’s the best way to allocate a dollar to save a life in NYC?
Instead of dealing the with the tough but serious problems, NYC has decided to put on the paint.
*The Age of Disclosure*
I have now watched the whole movie. The first twenty-eight minutes are truly excellent, the best statement of the case for taking UAPs seriously. It is impressive how they lined up dozens of serious figures, from the military and intelligence services, willing to insist that UAPs are a real phenomenon, supported by multiple sources of evidence. Not sensor errors, not flocks of birds, and not mistakes in interpreting images. This part of the debate now should be considered closed. It is also amazing that Marco Rubio has such a large presence in the film, as of course he is now America’s Secretary of State.
You will note this earlier part of the movie does not insist that UAPs are aliens.
After that point, the film runs a lot of risks. About one-third of what is left is responsible, along the lines of the first twenty-eight minutes. But the other two-thirds or so consists of quite unsupported claims about alien beings, bodies discovered, reverse engineering, quantum bubbles, and so on. You will not find dozens of respected, credentialed, obviously non-crazy sources confirming any of those propositions. The presentation also becomes too conspiratorial. Still, part of the latter part of the movie remains good and responsible.
Overall I can recommend this as an informative and sometimes revelatory compendium of information. It does not have anything fundamentally new, but brings together the evidence in the aggregate better than any other source I know,and it assembles the best and most credible set of testifiers. And then there are the irresponsible bits, which you can either ignore (though still think about), or use as a reason to dismiss the entire film. I will do the former.
My very fun Conversation with Blake Scholl
Here is the audio, video, and transcript. This was at a live event (the excellent Roots of Progress conference), so it is only about forty minutes, shorter than usual. Here is the episode summary:
Blake Scholl is one of the leading figures working to bring back civilian supersonic flight. As the founder and CEO of Boom Supersonic, he’s building a new generation of supersonic aircraft and pushing for the policies needed to make commercial supersonic travel viable again. But he’s equally as impressive as someone who thinks systematically about improving dysfunction—whether it’s airport design, traffic congestion, or defense procurement—and sees creative solutions to problems everyone else has learned to accept.
Tyler and Blake discuss why airport terminals should be underground, why every road needs a toll, what’s wrong with how we board planes, the contrasting cultures of Amazon and Groupon, why Concorde and Apollo were impressive tech demos but terrible products, what Ayn Rand understood about supersonic transport in 1957, what’s wrong with aerospace manufacturing, his heuristic when confronting evident stupidity, his technique for mastering new domains, how LLMs are revolutionizing regulatory paperwork, and much more.
Excerpt:
COWEN: There’s plenty about Boom online and in your interviews, so I’d like to take some different tacks here. This general notion of having things move more quickly, I’m a big fan of that. Do you have a plan for how we could make moving through an airport happen more quickly? You’re in charge. You’re the dictator. You don’t have to worry about bureaucratic obstacles. You just do it.
SCHOLL: I think about this in the shower like every day. There is a much better airport design that, as best I can tell, has never been built. Here’s the idea: You should put the terminals underground. Airside is above ground. Terminals are below ground. Imagine a design with two runways. There’s an arrival runway, departure runway. Traffic flows from arrival runway to departure runway. You don’t need tugs. You can delete a whole bunch of airport infrastructure.
Imagine you pull into a gate. The jetway is actually an escalator that comes up from underneath the ground. Then you pull forward, so you can delete a whole bunch of claptrap that is just unnecessary. The terminal underground should have skylights so it can still be incredibly beautiful. If you model fundamentally the thing on a crossbar switch, there are a whole bunch of insights for how to make it radically more efficient. Sorry. This is a blog post I want to write one day. Actually, it’s an airport I want to build.
And;
COWEN: I’m at the United desk. I have some kind of question. There’s only two or three people in front of me, but it takes forever. I notice they’re just talking back and forth to the assistant. They’re discussing the weather or the future prospects for progress, total factor productivity. I don’t know. I’m frustrated. How can we make that process faster? What’s going wrong there?
SCHOLL: The thing I most don’t understand is why it requires so many keystrokes to check into a hotel room. What are they writing?
What are they writing?