12 Comments

Thanks, I bought the ebook. You write "“Unfortunately, recent trends as of 2022 suggest that stagnant economic growth may be spreading to the United States.” Why is this unfortunate? Isnt it normal everywhere in life that growth stops? For example, we are happy when little children grow, but once our teenage son reaches 6ft7 we are quite happy that it stops.

Expand full comment

What do the causes that were responsible for creating wealth tell us about the best ways to maintain our wealth?

Expand full comment
author

Thanks for the comment.

That is the subject of my second book and many of my Substack columns:

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/s/promoting-progress

In summary, keep the focus on the 5 keys…

Expand full comment

Thanks. The second book would be Promoting Progress?

Expand full comment
author

Correct.

Expand full comment

I still need to do a write up on the Five Keys for Risk+Progress. I think they are a useful model for thinking about what creates and sustains material progress. I am wondering though, if 2, 3, and 4 could be condensed into one?

1 and 5 pertain to energy, energy is what we use to counter entropy. These are clearly distinct from the rest. I also think it is useful to differential fossil fuels from corn, because we can't drink the former. But 2, 3, and 4 seem almost to be three sides of the same coin. A decentralized political system, one that allows each individual the freedom to solve problems, would naturally have cities that engage in trade, including a value-added export industry.

Is there a specific reason you kept these distinct from one another?

Expand full comment

I broadly agree with you, JK. When I look at this list I see two preconditions which point at energy and three which point toward effective complex adaptive societies.

My other concern is that it seems to neglect (or at least downplay) the role of technology and science.

I would frame the keys to progress as creating effective societies where we solve problems at a faster rate than they (problems) are created. This requires accessing energy at an increasing rate, which in the 19th century meant more effective agriculture and fossil fuels. Going forward, the key is energy in general, with fossil fuels just an example of one alternative.

As to the three organizational or social factors, I would reframe these around the synergistic interplay of the three major institutions of science, representative government, and freed markets. I think freed markets is a broader and yet more succinct summary of how properly functioning markets can create decentralized problem solving networks (where export industries and trade-based cities are just specific manifestations).

Magoon’s framing seems to imply that the scientific method just emerges from trade based cities with decentralized government. If so, I disagree, and progress would have been choked off over a century ago without scientific advance.

Expand full comment
author

I am not sure that you can really test your hypothesis:

“ solve problems at a faster rate than they (problems) are created”

And the rest of your statements do not seem directly related to you first statement.

Expand full comment

It isn’t a hypothesis, it is a definition or framing device for understanding. If you took two steps forward in the desired direction and the wind blew you three steps back did you make progress? No, by definition.

If you work to add a new room to your house and in the process start a fire which burns the house down, did you make progress? No, you lost ground.

If we improve our productivity per acre short term and it leads to the long term destruction of all the farmland and we starve to death long term, then we have not made progress. We all died.

Energy is necessary to discover how to solve problems and then to repeat, preserve and spread the solutions. Science, representative governments and free markets are similarly problem solving and solution spreading mechanisms.

That said, solving problems often leads to or even creates new problems and negative externalities. Hence, real progress involves taking into consideration the net effects.

Is that clearer?

Expand full comment
author
Jul 23·edited Jul 23Author

Thanks for the comment.

Technology plays a key role in “How Progress Works”, so I do not ignore it.

https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/cp/146250059

Markets have existed for hundreds of thousands of years without producing material progress. They only deliver material progress when the 5 keys exist.

I think that the role of science in promoting technological innovation is exaggerated. Technology does more to promote science than vice versa.

And there have been many cases where authoritarian regimes create economic growth, but then transition to representative government long afterwards.

Fossil fuels are more than just an example. They are the only energy source that have enabled nations to industrialized (though some have supplemented it with nuclear and hydro).

Expand full comment

Thanks for the dialogue.

I didn’t say you ignore technology, I said you downplayed it, as it is not in your 5 keys, but instead emerges downstream from them (please correct me if wrong).

I didn’t say anything about markets, which have of course existed since before history. I referenced “freed markets.” This refers to the modern institution built upon property rights, rule of law, freedom of entry and competition and the sub institutions of banking, finance and modern corporations. This is a much rarer set of conditions which has only developed to its greatest extent in the past century or so.

I didn’t just mention science, I mentioned science (the scientific method) and technology together. I agree that they codeveloped. I stand by the statement that absent science, technological progress would have petered out generations ago.

Finally, I agree that, as a matter of history, fossil fuels was the path forward. It isn’t necessarily moving forward. Wouldn’t you agree? The key is energy and always has been.

I hope you find this feedback productive. As you will have noticed, I agree with 99% of what you write. The 1% where I disagree might just offer a tiny bit of value for further refining your ideas, or at least addressing obvious opportunities for further explanation.

Expand full comment
author

Don’t be afraid to disagree. These are really tough topics with a huge number of colinear causal variables.

Yes, a new energy source replacing fossil fuels is possible, but I think many people mistakenly believe that we are already there with wind and solar.

I think that we have a disagreement over the relative importance of science and institutions, but that is OK.

Expand full comment