All of US manufacturing went to China because labor was cheaper.
You can't build things when you don't have a robust manufacturing base
The US, Australia and probably most developed countries have declining productivity in construction.
(1985) https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w1555/w1555...
(2025) https://www.nber.org/digest/202502/stagnation-us-constructio...
That shouldn't be tied to China. Indeed arguably China might help with cheaper materials potentially.
1940s: Peaked at 94% in 1944–1945. 1950s: Remained high, peaking around 91%. 1960s: Started at 91% and dropped to 70% by 1965. 1970s: Remained around 70%. 1980s: Dropped from 70% to 50%, ending at 28%. 1990s: 31% to 39.6%. 2000s: Decreased from 39.6% to 35%. 2010s: Ranged from 35% to 39.6%. Current (2020s): 37%.
Also, in 1930 it was low as well.
So it looks like the years in which we did the things Gary wants us to do again in his essay were all done during periods of time in which we taxed the super rich heavily.
This seems at odds with this from him: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/garrytan_larry-and-sergey-can...
I agree that we should do big things for the greater good. That's an easy sell for everyone.
The real conversation needs to be about who pays for it, and how.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S
The top quintile of income earners in the US pay 34% of all taxes. The next quintile 26% .
https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/federal/who-pays-taxe...
US Federal spending was 7 Trn in 2025. This is surely enough to fund things.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
That is more than the total GDP of any country except China and the US itself.
My point wasn’t that government lacked revenue in aggregate, but that many of the periods people point to as examples of large national projects coincided with higher marginal tax rates on top earners.
The interesting question isn’t just how much is collected, but how the burden is distributed and what tradeoffs people are willing to accept going forward.
If you want a fair tax that treats everybody equally you want a flat consumption tax. No tax to make money. Just taxed when you spend money. Rich people spend more money so they pay more taxes. It can't be avoided by taking a dollar salary or using assets as equity for loans that dont get taxed.
As an aside, billionaires pay the same taxes you do on income. Demanding a wealth tax on billionaires is foolish. Every tax ever devised was sold as a tax on the rich. Look where we are now, forced to give a third or more of our labor to an entity that half the country likes on a good year.
The broader conversation I’m interested in is how we realistically fund large public efforts today and what mix of taxation or spending people think is fair and sustainable.
Fossil fuel can't compete with wind and solar so instead it spends its resources trying to kneecap them rather than innovate.
PE buys up all off an industry in an area and puts the price squeeze on the consumers.
B2B has transitioned from one time sales to a focus on MRR.
Microsoft jams copilot into everything whether it makes sense or not so that it can goose the usage numbers for investors.
Google is incentivized to push ad clicks over legitimate results because it has no real competition.
I could go on for pages and pages. Industry consolidation is what's destroying innovation.
Because every new technology is sold as a way to fire people and not “grow the pie”. What do you expect?
Rich folk don’t like it when poor people get more. It’s not partisan, it’s class based.
elites figured out that usury was easier than manufacturing, so they financialized the economy
When we were selling our first startup, we hired an "expert" to value our company. He started the discussion with "what is the valuation you're looking for?"
Then he started playing games with his "model" in Excel.
The difference between industrial capitalism and financial capitalism is Excel.
deadbabe•1h ago
basket_horse•1h ago
jacquesm•1h ago
tastyfreeze•1h ago
Over time we learn to build structures that last a long time and require less maintenance. Unfortunately, building codes are often very specific. Sometimes requiring specific materials. Using a different material requires proving it is a suitable replacement before construction. We have to allow builders to take risks. Sometimes we get a Tacoma Narrows bridge, sometimes we get a Hoover dam. But, the builders have to be able to try new things even if we get a few stinkers once and awhile.
owenthejumper•1h ago
You didn't read the article. It talks a lot about housing, high speed rail. Those are just two things we could be building right now.