How will AI affect cities and travel?
COWEN: In the 5 percent [economic growth] scenario — put aside San Francisco, which is special — but do cities become more or less important? Clearly, this city might become more important. Say, Chicago, Atlanta, what happens?
CLARK: I think that dense agglomerations of humans have significant amounts of value. I would expect that a lot of the effects of AI are going to be, for a while, massively increasing the superstar effect in different industries. I don’t know if it’s all cities, but I think any city which has something like a specialism — like high-frequency trading in Chicago or certain types of finance in New York — will continue to see some dividend from sets of professionals that gather together in dense quantities to swap ideas.
COWEN: Could it just be easier to stay at home, and more fun? I find I’m an outlier, but my use of AI — I either want to go somewhere very distant and use the AI there to learn about, say, the birds of a region, or I want to stay at home. It’s a barbell effect. The idea of driving 35 minutes to Washington, DC — that seems less appealing than it used to be.
That is from my Conversation with Jack Clark of Anthropic.
Emergent Ventures, 42nd cohort
Chris Wong, University of Chicago, non-invasive blood glucose monitor.
Akira Li., 17, Sydney, Australia, quantum computing.
Jon Sine, Washington DC, to study China.
Alex Kesin, San Francisco, Substack on pharma, drugs, the FDA and other biomedical issues.
Stephen Voss, northern Virginia, photography of northern Virginia data centers.
Liam Baldwin, Atlanta, economics videos on YouTube.
Juan Cruz Lopez del Valle, Boston University, and Argentina, for general research support in behavioral political economy and a DC trip.
Teo Kitanovski, Nashville, North Macedonia, prosthetics and bionic arms.
Kristina Fort, Prague, center for progress studies.
Abi Olvera, writing and thinking about progress, WDC.
Jonathan O’Brien, Australia, #6394, progress movement for Australia.
Emma Nicolai, London, and possibly Stanford, space and satellites.
Bahadir Sirin, Stockholm/Brussels, a Brussels conference on progress and progress studies.
Will Maclean, London, greater energy and architectural efficiency.
Solomiia Kozolup, Kyiv, film and Ukrainian cultural heritage.
Elasticities and incidence
President Trump’s budget proposes a significant rethink of federal rental assistance programs, consolidating a number of them — and cutting them by more than $26 billion — next fiscal year. Many experts previously told The New York Times that this could result in low-income Americans losing access to federal housing benefits.
Here is more from the NYT. If you are a YIMBY type, odds are you should favor this, since some of the subsidy gain likely would end up captured by landlords.
Friday assorted links
1. Rohit on working with LLMs.
2. Learning to reason for long-form story generation.
3. Anthropic looking to hire economic wisdom.
4. “We’re [Stripe] partnering with Ramp to launch stablecoin-backed cards, first in Latin America.”
6. AI Agatha Christie is teaching an online writing course (NYT). The family is on board.
7. Olivier Blanchard on convergence in macroeconomics. I read this all as “we still do not understand very much” perhaps more than he intended?
8. “The Trump administration has announced its intention to repeal the Biden administration’s AI Diffusion Rule.” Important.
10. Non-tariff barriers in the US-UK trade deal (Bloomberg). And one British perspective.
Major reforms at the NSF
The National Science Foundation (NSF), already battered by White House directives and staff reductions, is plunging into deeper turmoil. According to sources who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, staff were told today that the agency’s 37 divisions—across all eight NSF directorates—are being abolished and the number of programs within those divisions will be drastically reduced. The current directors and deputy directors will lose their titles and might be reassigned to other positions at the agency or elsewhere in the federal government.
The consolidation appears to be driven in part by President Donald Trump’s proposal to cut the agency’s $9 billion budget by 55% for the 2026 fiscal year that begins on 1 October. NSF’s decision to abolish its divisions could also be part of a larger restructuring of the agency’s grantmaking process that involves adding a new layer of review. NSF watchers fear that a smaller, restructured agency could be more vulnerable to pressure from the White House to fund research that suits its ideological bent.
As soon as this evening, NSF is also expected to send layoff notices to an unspecified number of its 1700-member staff. The remaining staff and programs will be assigned to one of the eight smaller directorates. Staff will receive a memo on Friday “with details to be finalized by the end of the fiscal year,” sources tell Science. The agency is also expected to issue another round of notices tomorrow terminating grants that have already been awarded, sources say. In the past 3 weeks, the agency has pulled the plug on almost 1400 grants worth more than $1 billion.
Here is more information, this story is still developing…
Solve for the electoral energy equilibrium
I know many Democrats have been heartened by recent electoral wins by the Labor Party in Australia and the Liberal Party in Canada, both boosted by anti-Trump sentiment.
But Labor prime minister Anthony Albanese views Australia as an energy-producing country, and while they have taken measures to boost renewables deployment and electric cars, they’re not seeking to curb coal mining or exports. Similarly, Mark Carney went to Alberta to proclaim his desire to make Canada an “energy superpower” that would “recognize that we are home to an abundance of conventional — that means oil and gas — conventional and clean energy resources.” I think that part where he went off script and clarified that by conventional he meant oil and gas is important. The prepared text was sort of doing dog whistle moderation, but he wanted people to hear his message clearly: that, while his strongest interest is in facilitating clean energy deployment, he intends to keep selling the world oil and gas as long as oil and gas are useful.
Everybody knows you’re not winning in Colorado, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, or Alaska on a message of shutting down fossil fuels. But if you’re not winning those states, you don’t have a majority. Instead of the national party adopting a message that’s toxic in those states and then recruiting candidates who try to distance themselves from it, the solution is for the national party to adopt the same kind of messages that work for the center-left in Canada and Australia and Norway.
That is from (partially gated) Matt Yglesias.
Is classical liberalism for losers?
That is the topic of my latest column for The Free Press. Excerpt, starting with the point that the New Right has an obsession with seizing political power:
There are two essential problems with yelling “Rule!”
The first is that your side will not win every election. It’s a reliable assumption that, on average, “the other side,” whoever that may be, is going to win half of the time.
If you build up executive power, or state power more generally, in the service of your ends, the chances are pretty high that those same powers someday will be used against you. Democrats are enraged at Trump’s use of executive orders and executive power more broadly, but that did not begin with Trump. Consider how Barack Obama seized the power to provide legal status to illegal immigrants, or how Joe Biden sought to extinguish all those student loans, without buy-in from Congress. The point is that Trump stepped into a system that had already been transformed, and he is now using it to his own ends.
Or to take another example: Many Democrats hate DOGE, but in fact it is a repurposed version of a 2014 President Obama creation, namely the United States Digital Service, which initially was designed to improve the IT capabilities of the federal government. Ask yourself which Trump initiatives someday will be repurposed in an analogous fashion.
If your fundamental beliefs are in individual liberty, responsibility, and toleration, the escalation of state power, across competing administrations, is unlikely to prove your friend over time.
The second problem is that rule by the political right is not necessarily better than rule by the political left, even if you have basic right-leaning sympathies, as I do on a large number of issues, especially in the economic realm. But even on economics, the Trump administration is bringing depredations, such as the very high proposed tariff rates, that we would not have seen under a typical Democratic administration. Circa May 2025, I feel less economically free than I did under the Biden administration.
Such problems are all the more true when a given side wins a series of successive political victories.
Power corrupts; the right is not immune to that truism. For instance, the Republican Party typically has been a vehicle for fiscal conservatives, at least on paper and in rhetoric. Yet under the Republican trifectas of both George W. Bush and the first Trump administration, both spending and debt rose dramatically. When you get to be the one spending the money, it is hard to exercise restraint.
I go on to argue that classical liberalism in fact does win a series of periodic transformative victories, even though at many historical moments it is relatively dormant in influence. It is the way to be a real winner.
Definitely recommended, of real importance.
Jony Ive and Patrick Collison
The new Pope
Has taken a class in real analysis.
Globalization did not hollow out the U.S. middle class
From Noah Smith:
Trade deficits are an even smaller amount of GDP. U.S. imports of manufactured goods minus exports are equal to about 4% of GDP per year. Our trade deficit with China is about 1% of GDP.
In terms of imported components, America manufactures most of what it uses in production. China’s exports to the U.S. are actually more likely to be intermediate goods rather than the consumer goods we see on the shelves of Wal-Mart — another thing the typical narrative misses. But even so, China makes only about 3.5% of the intermediate goods that American manufacturers need
…trade deficits and manufacturing aren’t as tightly linked as most people seem to think. France has become steadily less manufacturing-intensive since 1960, despite the fact that it historically had very balanced trade, and even ran big trade surpluses in the 90s and 00s. Meanwhile, out of all the countries on the chart, Japan has done the best job of preserving its manufacturing share since 2010, despite running a trade deficit over that time period.
Excellent throughout, do read the whole thing.
Thursday assorted links
This is Vindication???
Joe Nocera has a strange piece in the Free Press arguing that the “godfathers of protectionism” have been vindicated. It begins with a story about how Dani Rodrik couldn’t get a famous economist to endorse his book Has Globalization Gone Too Far? because doing so would arm the barbarians. Well give that reluctant economist a Nobel! because they were obviously correct. Tyler made the same point in his debate with Rodrik. Rodrik had no answer.
The piece is strange because there is little to no connection with any data; just assertion, vibe, and non-sequitur. Most bizarrely but hardly alone was this bit:
In the 1980s, Prestowitz was an official in Ronald Reagan’s Commerce Department, back when Japan, not China, was the trading partner the U.S. most feared. Japanese autos, televisions, washing machines, and all sorts of consumer electronics were flooding into the U.S., forcing American auto makers to close factories and even putting U.S. companies like Zenith out of business. Yet Japan was using tariffs and other less obvious trade barriers to prevent U.S. companies from exporting many of their products to Japan. It was protecting certain key industries from foreign competition.
This was not how the rules of free trade were supposed to work. Prying that market open, forcing Japan to play by the same rules as the U.S., was Prestowitz’s job.
He found it deeply frustrating. “Every time we completed a trade negotiation,” Prestowitz told me, “some economist would turn out a model to show that the deal was going to create X number of American jobs and would reduce the trade deficit by Y. And it never happened.”
Even more galling, he said, “The conventional response among economists was that it didn’t matter.” After all, even if Japan was keeping U.S. products out of its market, America still benefited from low-cost imports. Prestowitz has a vivid memory of a conversation he once had with Herbert Stein, President Richard Nixon’s former chief economist. “The Japanese will sell us cars,” Stein told him with a shrug, “and we’ll sell them poetry.”
Prestowitz also remembers the abuse he took for his views. “I was a Japan-basher, a protectionist, and so on,” he said. Paul Krugman, who was not yet a New York Times columnist but was already an influential economist, called Prestowitz “an intellectual snake-oil salesman” in a book he wrote called Pop Internationalism. The book, published in 1997, consisted of a half-dozen essays, each of which brutally attacked one or another of the handful of people who dared to say that globalization was less than perfect. (He described then-Labor Secretary Robert Reich as “not a serious thinker,” and Lester Thurow, the best-selling author and Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist, as “silly.”)
When I asked Prestowitz recently if he felt vindicated, he admitted that he did, but added that “I also feel a sense of loss that it took us so long to face reality and at such cost.”
Well here is data on GDP per capita in real terms in Japan and the United States since 1990. This is vindication???!
Or how about this:
No one anymore, on the left or the right, denies that globalization has fractured the U.S., both economically and socially. It has hollowed out once-prosperous regions like the furniture-making areas of North Carolina and the auto manufacturing towns of the Midwest.
Well the far left and the far right agree that America has become fractured and hollowed out, the Bernie Sanders-Donald Trump horseshoe. But both are wrong. For the rest of us in the happy middle, consider this–Hickory, North Carolina, once known as the furniture capital of the United States, did face some hard times. But in 2023 Travel and Leisure magazine named Hickory the most beautiful and affordable place to live in the United States! Writing:
Located in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, Hickory is a family-friendly destination known for its ample hiking trails and Southern charm. Currently ranked as the cheapest place to live in the U.S., Hickory has a median home price of $161,000. This affordable neighbor to the east of Asheville and north of Charlotte is popular with retirees, but it’s also becoming more attractive to young families; a steady stream of residents has been flocking here for its newfound fame as a technological hub for Google and Apple.
Doesn’t sound hollowed out to me.
The godfathers of protectionism haven’t been vindicated—but if they want to claim credit for President Trump’s tariff binge they’re welcome to it.
Addendum: Hat tip to Scott Lincicome on Hickory and do read Jeremy Horpedahl for details on the distribution of wages. Did you know, for example, that median weekly earnings for full time workers who graduated high school but are without a college degree are at an all time high? Switched earlier current for constant $2021 dollars in graph.
Avoiding pharma dependence on China
Research-intensive pharmaceutical companies have also warned that low prices paid by European health systems are driving new drug discovery efforts to the US and China.
China. Here is the FT source, with plenty of interesting additional information. It is a common charge that libertarians or classical liberals had no suggested remedy for the growing U.S. dependence on China in biomedical supply chains. But of course we did. Many of us have been saying, for many years, that Europe should be paying much higher prices for pharma contracts. That in turn would have allowed more pharma production to have remained with our European allies, to our benefit and theirs. We also have been wanting to make it much easier to build and maintain pharma factories in the United States. Here is o3 on all the legal and regulatory obstacles to building pharma plants in the United States.
As a good rule of thumb, when someone says “group X never has dealt with problem Y,” usually it is wrong. (One possible remedy here is to do an o3 search.) A corollary principle is when someone says “Tyler Cowen never has dealt with problem Y” that usually is wrong too.
My excellent Conversation with Jack Clark
This was great fun and I learned a lot, here is the audio, video, and transcript. Here is part of the episode summary:
Jack and Tyler explore which parts of the economy AGI will affect last, where AI will encounter the strongest legal obstacles, the prospect of AI teddy bears, what AI means for the economics of journalism, how competitive the LLM sector will become, why he’s relatively bearish on AI-fueled economic growth, how AI will change American cities, what we’ll do with abundant compute, how the law should handle autonomous AI agents, whether we’re entering the age of manager nerds, AI consciousness, when we’ll be able to speak directly to dolphins, AI and national sovereignty, how the UK and Singapore might position themselves as AI hubs, what Clark hopes to learn next, and much more.
An excerpt:
COWEN: Say 10 years out, what’s your best estimate of the economic growth rate in the United States?
CLARK: The economic growth rate now is on the order of 1 percent to 2 percent.
COWEN: There’s a chance at the moment, we’re entering a recession, but at average, 2.2 percent, so let’s say it’s 2.2.
CLARK: I think my bear case on all of this is 3 percent, and my bull case is something like 5 percent. I think that you probably hear higher numbers from lots of other people.
COWEN: 20 and 30, I hear all the time. To me, it’s absurd.
CLARK: The reason that my numbers are more conservative is, I think that we will enter into a world where there will be an incredibly fast-moving, high-growth part of the economy, but it is a relatively small part of the economy. It may be growing its share over time, but it’s growing from a small base. Then there are large parts of the economy, like healthcare or other things, which are naturally slow-moving, and may be slow in adoption of this.
I think that the things that would make me wrong are if AI systems could meaningfully unlock productive capacity in the physical world at a really surprisingly high compounding growth rate, automating and building factories and things like this.
Even then, I’m skeptical because every time the AI community has tried to cross the chasm from the digital world to the real world, they’ve run into 10,000 problems that they thought were paper cuts but, in sum, add up to you losing all the blood in your body. I think we’ve seen this with self-driving cars, where very, very promising growth rate, and then an incredibly grinding slow pace at getting it to scale.
I just read a paper two days ago about trying to train human-like hands on industrial robots. Using reinforcement learning doesn’t work. The best they had was a 60 percent success rate. If I have my baby, and I give her a robot butler that has a 60 percent accuracy rate at holding things, including the baby, I’m not buying the butler. Or my wife is incredibly unhappy that I bought it and makes me send it back.
As a community, we tend to underestimate that. I may be proved to be an unrealistic pessimist here. I think that’s what many of my colleagues would say, but I think we overestimate the ease with which we get into a physical world.
COWEN: As I said in print, my best estimate is, we get half a percentage point of growth a year. Five percent would be my upper bound. What’s your scenario where there’s no growth improvement? If it’s not yours, say there’s a smart person somewhere in Anthropic — you don’t agree with them, but what would they say?
Interesting throughout, definitely recommended.
Wednesday assorted links
1. Interview with Galen Strawson, including about panpsychism.
2. Botched Dublin pipe bomb drone attack, neighborly feud edition. Solve for the equilibrium.
3. Claims that spicy food is good for you.
4. Unparalleled misalignments. Amazing what people will spend time on.
5. Why didn’t tariffs help the dollar?
6. Reforming naval shipbuilding.
7. The cardinals are watching Conclave to learn things.