Abundance

Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson

The United States has adopted a lawyer-centric regulation system that slows progress and makes development slow and expensive. Much of the problem comes originally from the left. Activists successfully argued that laws originally written to apply to the government would apply to private parties also (as they were enabled by the government.) Environmental studies and the like become a way to quash development, while also taking time and money. Further "good intentions" also drive up costs. Government funds typically come with many compliance requirements that all cost money. These may include building standards, the type of people that can be hired, local outreach and impact and much more.

California high speed rail is case in point. Billions have been spent and there is still no rail line. China could easily build 400 miles of high speed rail for the cost that California has spent to build nothing. California started planning for high speed rail before China did. Today China has 30,000 miles. California has none.

This book is written by liberals and aimed at liberals. The right is occasionally mentioned when they intentionally dismantle programs (such as when Reagan ended solar subsidies.) The right has also learned the bureaucratic was of the left. Rather than fight all plans, they just require more studies.

There are examples when things have got done quickly. Operation Warp Speed delivered COVID vaccines much quicker than usual. However, a lot of groundwork had been made. The concept of an mRNA vaccine had been proposed decades earlier, but rejected (for being "different" and "not as good"). However, some companies were still running with it and ready to leap. The government helped provide funding and regulatory guarantees and then got out of the way. The vaccines were developed, tested and manufactured quickly and helped save many lives. (This is in contrast to the overly cautious approach to testing in the pandemic which lead to greater viral spread and cost many lives.) Another case mentioned was replacement of a damaged section of I-95. The government got out of the way and was able to build a replacement quickly.

The biggest problem with the narrative is the value judgement of "what is good". The interstate highway system was seen as something very good, yet it destroyed cities and lead to dependence on cars. Many of the future scenarios envision massive public building projects to expand solar, high speed rail and other green technology. Will these pan out? Or will some of the negatives outnumber the positives? Or will it be something that is outdated? There is danger in subsidies targeting the wrong thing or missing the mark. They mention renewables are much cheaper than fossil fuels. Yet use of solar died off when subsidies were dropped. Why was this? If industry relies on subsidies, it is open to changing whims of government. If it is a pure cost benefit, it is much clearer. Blue states tend to pass laws and subsidies for renewables, but red states have become the leaders in bringing on new renewable capacity.

The book also discusses science and innovation. There is a lot of money sloshing around and many publications. However, very little of it is useful. There is a reluctance to fund younger scientists or projects that differ significantly from the status quo. (There are some interesting quotes from James Evans on the sociology of science.) Like in the case of infrastructure projects, there is a desire to ensure that money does not go to waste. However, this is carried to far and ends up creating the waste.

Hit Makers: The Science of Popularity in an Age of Distraction

Viral popularity is rarely achieved by small-scale word-of-mouth propagation. Most commonly, there are a few "superspreaders" that broadcast something to their fan base. A video is much more likely to become popular if Justin Bieber gushes about it to his fanbase than if 20 average Joe's like it.

Popularity is often based on luck and popularity rather than quality. An example was given of a "hit ranking" algorithm. It looks at just the musical nature of a song to rank its hit potential. Most actual hits have acceptable scores, but not necessarily near the top. A song must not be awful. Beyond that, other factors come into play. Some songs may be more heavily promoted. Others may be liked by influences with large audiences. A song by a popular artist is more likely to be a hit than one by an unknown artist. Simply being popular can lead to more popularity.

A hit relied on both familiarity and novelty. People like things that they are familiar with. However, they also tire of the same thing. Having just enough novelty with the familiarity helps to create a hit. An artist with past success can afford to take significant artistic risks because they already have an audience that will listen to them. A new artist will often need to be more familiar to be able to gain an audience.

With the ease of producing media today, gatekeepers have become more important. People tend to like things that other people like. Having charts or other sources tell them what media to consume is helpful, especially with all the media out there.

Taste and fashion changes over time. Laugh tracks went in and out of fashion in comedies. Rock around the Clock flopped at first, but became a mega-hit after being included in Blackboard Jungle. Star Wars was made because Lucas couldn't get the rights to make a Flash Gordon movie. Flash Gordon was made because they couldn't get the rights to John Carter. Yet recently, John Carter was one of the biggest hollywood flops. 

The right thing and the right time can become a hit. Trying to identify the key elements of a hit from the item itself can be a fool's errand. Everything around it plays a role.