And like, you know, we think a lot about this question of, you know, what remains in the labor market, given like AGI is a general replacement of human labor.

So a couple things there.

As you probably know, the history of technological progress does involve an enormous amount of churn, job loss, various sectors have been almost completely replaced.

And when these occurred, people at the time could not have imagined the jobs that exist today that replaced those that were lost right so when most people were farmers they probably couldn't imagine a large manufacturing sector and when manufacturing became dominant they couldn't imagine jobs as you know pet psychologist and all these other things that have cropped up so um i think you know at one level that's We've consistently underestimated the ability of the economy to create new jobs.

Now, there is a good counter argument to that.

AI is different in that it's potentially replacing almost any type of human labor.

That's quite different from other technological innovations.

Is it because of the O-ring theory that you need to replace all the components? Is it because of that reason? I

Okay

... a counterintuitive area, and I think most listeners understand interest rates better than QE.

So with interest rates, you have the same problem.

Sometimes you'd look at a low interest rate policy and see very expansionary results, so much so that people sort of think of low interest rates intuitively as a easy money policy.

So you might see rapid growth.

Other times, you might see low interest rate policy lasting for decades, like in Japan, and very little growth.

And again, the question is: Why does it seem to work in some cases and not in others? And that's because it's, I think, wrong to think about interest rates itself as a policy.

Yeah