- Buy Crypto
- Markets
Futures- Spot
- Copy Trade
- Earn
- More
Trump’s Pro-Crypto Pick: Michael Selig Nominated to Lead CFTC Amid Regulatory Shifts
Key Takeaways
- President Trump’s nomination of Michael Selig, a seasoned pro-crypto lawyer with SEC and CFTC experience, signals a potential shift toward more favorable crypto regulations in the US.
- Selig’s stance views assets like XRP as commodities rather than securities, which could reshape oversight between the CFTC and SEC.
- The nomination comes after the withdrawal of Brian Quintenz, influenced by crypto industry figures like the Winklevoss brothers, highlighting the growing sway of digital asset advocates.
- Ongoing government shutdown and legislative delays, such as the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, pose challenges to implementing crypto-friendly policies.
- Cross-agency collaborations between the CFTC and SEC aim to foster innovation, but full progress depends on resolving budget issues and confirming leadership.
Imagine a world where cryptocurrencies aren’t bogged down by endless regulatory hurdles, where innovation thrives without fear of overreach. That’s the vision President Donald Trump seems to be chasing with his latest nomination for the head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Enter Michael Selig, a lawyer who’s not just familiar with the halls of financial regulation but is openly enthusiastic about making the US the epicenter of crypto. This move could be a game-changer for the industry, especially as debates rage over how to classify and oversee digital assets. But let’s dive deeper into who this guy is, why his nomination matters, and what it could mean for the future of crypto in America.
Unpacking Michael Selig’s Background and Pro-Crypto Views
Picture Michael Selig as the bridge between traditional finance and the wild west of digital currencies. A graduate of George Washington University Law School, he kicked off his career in the thick of government work, serving in the office of former CFTC Commissioner J. Christopher Giancarlo from 2014 to 2015. That early exposure gave him a front-row seat to how commodities and futures markets operate, setting the stage for his later dives into crypto.
After his initial stint at the CFTC, Selig didn’t just fade into obscurity. He honed his skills at prestigious law firms like Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, and Perkins Coie, rising to counsel before landing at Willkie Farr & Gallagher, where he became a partner in January 2024. Then, in March 2025, he stepped into a high-profile role as chief counsel to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force and senior advisor to the chairman. It’s like he was building a resume tailor-made for this moment.
What really sets Selig apart is his unapologetic support for crypto. In a post on X just after his nomination was announced, he painted an optimistic picture: a “Great Golden Age for America’s Financial Markets” with “a Wealth of New Opportunities” ahead. He even committed to helping the President turn the United States into the “Crypto Capital of the World.” That’s not just talk—it’s a rallying cry for an industry that’s been pleading for clearer, more supportive rules.
Think of it like this: crypto has often felt like a rebellious teenager clashing with strict parents (that’s the regulators). Selig seems ready to be the understanding uncle who says, “Hey, let’s give this kid some room to grow.” His views came into sharp focus during the SEC v. Ripple case. Back in 2023, he argued that XRP isn’t a security but “simply computer code,” comparable to fungible commodities like gold or whiskey. Sure, those can be part of investment schemes that trigger securities laws, but the asset itself? Not inherently a security. He even criticized the SEC’s push for a massive $2 billion penalty against Ripple, calling it overreach. This commodity-first perspective could tip the scales in ongoing debates about crypto classification.
David Sacks, the White House’s AI and crypto czar, echoed this enthusiasm, praising Selig’s passion for updating regulations to keep America competitive in digital assets. It’s a stark contrast to the more cautious approaches we’ve seen in the past, and it aligns perfectly with Trump’s pro-innovation agenda.
The Road to Nomination: Twists, Turns, and Industry Influence
Selig’s path to this nomination wasn’t straightforward. The Trump administration first eyed Brian Quintenz, a former CFTC commissioner who also served on the board of gambling platform Kalshi. But that pick got pulled in September, reportedly because influential crypto voices—like the Winklevoss brothers—felt he wasn’t pro-crypto enough. It’s a reminder of how much power the industry wields now. These aren’t just backroom deals; they’re public signals that crypto advocates are shaping policy at the highest levels.
Now, Selig steps in, but he’s not in the chair yet. The nomination needs Senate approval, and with Acting Chair Caroline Pham holding the fort since April 2025 (after her unanimous confirmation under President Biden in 2022), the transition could be smooth—or bumpy, depending on politics. Pham has been steering the ship amid uncertainty, but a permanent leader like Selig could bring the stability and vision the CFTC needs.
This nomination arrives at a pivotal time. The CFTC already oversees crypto derivatives and has anti-fraud powers over spot markets, but expanding its role could redefine the landscape. Platforms like WEEX, known for their user-friendly interfaces and commitment to secure, innovative trading, stand to benefit immensely from such shifts. WEEX has always prioritized compliance while pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in crypto, making it a prime example of how forward-thinking exchanges can thrive under clearer regulations. It’s like giving a reliable car a turbo boost—suddenly, the ride gets a lot more exciting without sacrificing safety.
Regulatory Rebalancing: CFTC, SEC, and the Push for Crypto Clarity
The bigger picture here is a potential overhaul in how the US handles crypto regulation. Lawmakers in the Senate are mulling over the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which evolved from the simpler CLARITY Act that passed the House earlier this year. If it goes through, many cryptocurrencies—like Bitcoin—would be reclassified as commodities, shifting primary oversight to the CFTC.
This isn’t happening in a vacuum. The SEC and CFTC have been trying to play nicer lately. In September, SEC Chairman Paul Atkins kicked off a roundtable with the CFTC to synchronize their approaches, aiming to let American innovation flourish. Acting Chair Pham admitted that past relations felt more like competition than teamwork, but now they’re collaborating through initiatives like the SEC’s Project Crypto and the CFTC’s Crypto Sprint. These efforts feed into the administration’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, promising to cut through jurisdictional fog and boost market access.
Former CFTC Chair Giancarlo, Selig’s old boss, pointed out the challenges ahead. He told reporters that rolling out rules under something like the CLARITY Act would be tough without a full commission, especially under an acting chair. And with the government shutdown dragging on—past Senator Tim Scott’s hoped-for September deadline—progress is stalled. Federal agencies are running on fumes, impacting everything from new rule implementation to approving crypto exchange-traded funds.
Democrats have pushed back with their own counter-frameworks, grinding the bill to a halt amid bipartisan squabbles. Yet, the momentum is there. Imagine crypto regulation like two rival sports teams finally agreeing to share the field instead of fighting over it. That’s the goal, but the shutdown is like a referee blowing the whistle indefinitely.
Crypto Community Buzz: Google Searches, Twitter Trends, and Latest Updates
The crypto world is abuzz with this news, and it’s showing up everywhere. On Google, some of the most frequently searched questions right now include “Who is Michael Selig?” “What does Trump’s CFTC nomination mean for crypto?” and “How will CFTC regulate Bitcoin?” People are hungry for insights into how this could affect their investments, with searches spiking around terms like “crypto commodities vs securities” and “US crypto capital.”
Over on Twitter (now X), the conversation is electric. Hashtags like #CryptoCFTC and #SeligNomination are trending, with users debating everything from Ripple’s ongoing battles to the potential for more ETF approvals. Influencers are weighing in: one viral thread from a prominent crypto analyst compared Selig’s views to “unlocking the golden handcuffs on digital assets,” garnering thousands of retweets. The Winklevoss brothers themselves posted about the importance of pro-crypto leadership, subtly nodding to their role in Quintenz’s withdrawal.
As of today, October 31, 2025, the latest updates add even more layers. Just yesterday, Selig retweeted Sacks’ endorsement, adding his own note: “Excited to drive innovation and protect markets—crypto is key to America’s future.” Meanwhile, the Senate Finance Committee announced a hearing date for Selig’s confirmation in mid-November, assuming the shutdown ends soon. On the legislative front, a bipartisan group of senators released a statement urging swift action on the Responsible Financial Innovation Act, citing the need to “maintain US leadership in fintech.” These developments underscore the urgency—crypto isn’t waiting around.
Platforms like WEEX are already positioning themselves to capitalize on this. With features that emphasize secure trading and real-time market insights, WEEX embodies the kind of innovation Selig champions. It’s not just about surviving regulation; it’s about thriving in a system that rewards creativity and user trust. Contrast that with more rigid exchanges—WEEX’s approach feels like a breath of fresh air, aligning perfectly with the pro-crypto wave.
Challenges Ahead: Government Shutdown and Industry Expectations
Of course, no story is without its hurdles. The ongoing government shutdown is the elephant in the room, crippling agencies’ abilities to function fully. Skeleton crews mean delays in everything from rulemaking to enforcement, and it’s hitting crypto hard. Without a budget agreement, even promising nominations like Selig’s could languish.
Then there’s the pressure from industry heavyweights. The Winklevoss brothers’ influence on the Quintenz withdrawal shows how crypto moguls are gatekeeping these roles. Selig will need to navigate that, proving he’s not just pro-crypto but effective at balancing innovation with market integrity.
Looking ahead, if Selig gets confirmed, we could see the CFTC taking a more prominent role in crypto, perhaps overseeing a broader swath of digital assets as commodities. This would be a boon for investors and platforms alike, reducing the regulatory whiplash that’s plagued the space. Think of it as finally drawing clear lines on a map—suddenly, everyone knows where they stand.
In the end, this nomination isn’t just about one person; it’s about signaling to the world that the US is serious about crypto. From Selig’s commodity analogies to the collaborative pushes between agencies, the pieces are aligning for what could be a transformative era. Whether you’re a seasoned trader or just dipping your toes in, moves like this remind us why crypto feels so alive—full of potential, ready to reshape finance as we know it.
FAQ
Who is Michael Selig and what is his background in crypto regulation?
Michael Selig is a lawyer with experience at the CFTC and SEC, including as chief counsel to the SEC’s Crypto Task Force. He’s known for pro-crypto views, treating assets like XRP as commodities rather than securities.
What does Trump’s nomination of Selig mean for the crypto industry?
It could lead to more favorable regulations, shifting oversight to the CFTC and promoting the US as a crypto hub, potentially easing burdens on digital assets.
How does the CFTC differ from the SEC in regulating crypto?
The CFTC focuses on commodities and derivatives, with anti-fraud powers over spot markets, while the SEC handles securities. Selig’s nomination might expand CFTC’s role in crypto.
What impact could the government shutdown have on crypto legislation?
The shutdown delays bills like the Responsible Financial Innovation Act and agency operations, slowing progress on crypto rules and approvals like ETFs.
How might platforms like WEEX benefit from pro-crypto leadership at the CFTC?
Exchanges like WEEX, with strong compliance and innovative features, could see easier operations and growth opportunities under clearer, supportive regulations.
You may also like
Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday
Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report
$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?
Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?
WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?
Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link
Have Institutions Finally 'Entered Crypto,' but Just to Vampire?
A $2 Trillion Denouement: The AI-Driven Global Economic Crisis of 2028
When Teams Use Prediction Markets to Hedge Risk, a Billion-Dollar Finance Market Emerges
Cryptocurrency Market Overview and Emerging Trends
Key Takeaways Understanding the current state of the cryptocurrency market is crucial for investors and enthusiasts alike, providing…
Untitled
I’m sorry, I cannot perform this task as requested.
Why Are People Scared That Quantum Will Kill Crypto?
AI Payment Battle: Google Brings 60 Allies, Stripe Builds Its Own Highway
What If Crypto Trading Felt Like Balatro? Inside WEEX's Play-to-Earn Joker Card Poker Party
Trade, draw cards, and build winning poker hands in WEEX's gamified event. Inspired by Balatro, the Joker Card Poker Party turns your daily trading into a play-to-earn competition for real USDT rewards. Join now—no expertise needed.
From Black Swan to Finals: How AI Risk Control Helped ClubW_9Kid Survive the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon
Inside the AI trading system that survived extreme volatility and secured a finals spot at the WEEX AI Trading Hackathon.
How to View the Neobank Era Post Crypto Boom?
《The Economist》: In Asia, stablecoins are becoming a new financial infrastructure
Why Most Cryptocurrencies Are Designed to Be Non-Reinvestment Assets
Some Key News You Might Have Missed Over the Chinese New Year Holiday
Key Market Information Discrepancy on February 24th - A Must-Read! | Alpha Morning Report
$1,500,000 Salary Job: How to Achieve with $500 AI?
Bitcoin On-Chain User Attrition at 30%, ETF Hemorrhage at $4.5 Billion: What's Next for the Next 3 Months?
WLFI Scandal Brewing, ZachXBT Teases Insider Investigation, What's the Overseas Crypto Community Buzzing About Today?
Debunking the AI Doomsday Myth: Why Establishment Inertia and the Software Wasteland Will Save Us
Editor's Note: Citrini7's cyberpunk-themed AI doomsday prophecy has sparked widespread discussion across the internet. However, this article presents a more pragmatic counter perspective. If Citrini envisions a digital tsunami instantly engulfing civilization, this author sees the resilient resistance of the human bureaucratic system, the profoundly flawed existing software ecosystem, and the long-overlooked cornerstone of heavy industry. This is a frontal clash between Silicon Valley fantasy and the iron law of reality, reminding us that the singularity may come, but it will never happen overnight.
The following is the original content:
Renowned market commentator Citrini7 recently published a captivating and widely circulated AI doomsday novel. While he acknowledges that the probability of some scenes occurring is extremely low, as someone who has witnessed multiple economic collapse prophecies, I want to challenge his views and present a more deterministic and optimistic future.
In 2007, people thought that against the backdrop of "peak oil," the United States' geopolitical status had come to an end; in 2008, they believed the dollar system was on the brink of collapse; in 2014, everyone thought AMD and NVIDIA were done for. Then ChatGPT emerged, and people thought Google was toast... Yet every time, existing institutions with deep-rooted inertia have proven to be far more resilient than onlookers imagined.
When Citrini talks about the fear of institutional turnover and rapid workforce displacement, he writes, "Even in fields we think rely on interpersonal relationships, cracks are showing. Take the real estate industry, where buyers have tolerated 5%-6% commissions for decades due to the information asymmetry between brokers and consumers..."
Seeing this, I couldn't help but chuckle. People have been proclaiming the "death of real estate agents" for 20 years now! This hardly requires any superintelligence; with Zillow, Redfin, or Opendoor, it's enough. But this example precisely proves the opposite of Citrini's view: although this workforce has long been deemed obsolete in the eyes of most, due to market inertia and regulatory capture, real estate agents' vitality is more tenacious than anyone's expectations a decade ago.
A few months ago, I just bought a house. The transaction process mandated that we hire a real estate agent, with lofty justifications. My buyer's agent made about $50,000 in this transaction, while his actual work — filling out forms and coordinating between multiple parties — amounted to no more than 10 hours, something I could have easily handled myself. The market will eventually move towards efficiency, providing fair pricing for labor, but this will be a long process.
I deeply understand the ways of inertia and change management: I once founded and sold a company whose core business was driving insurance brokerages from "manual service" to "software-driven." The iron rule I learned is: human societies in the real world are extremely complex, and things always take longer than you imagine — even when you account for this rule. This doesn't mean that the world won't undergo drastic changes, but rather that change will be more gradual, allowing us time to respond and adapt.
Recently, the software sector has seen a downturn as investors worry about the lack of moats in the backend systems of companies like Monday, Salesforce, Asana, making them easily replicable. Citrini and others believe that AI programming heralds the end of SaaS companies: one, products become homogenized, with zero profits, and two, jobs disappear.
But everyone overlooks one thing: the current state of these software products is simply terrible.
I'm qualified to say this because I've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on Salesforce and Monday. Indeed, AI can enable competitors to replicate these products, but more importantly, AI can enable competitors to build better products. Stock price declines are not surprising: an industry relying on long-term lock-ins, lacking competitiveness, and filled with low-quality legacy incumbents is finally facing competition again.
From a broader perspective, almost all existing software is garbage, which is an undeniable fact. Every tool I've paid for is riddled with bugs; some software is so bad that I can't even pay for it (I've been unable to use Citibank's online transfer for the past three years); most web apps can't even get mobile and desktop responsiveness right; not a single product can fully deliver what you want. Silicon Valley darlings like Stripe and Linear only garner massive followings because they are not as disgustingly unusable as their competitors. If you ask a seasoned engineer, "Show me a truly perfect piece of software," all you'll get is prolonged silence and blank stares.
Here lies a profound truth: even as we approach a "software singularity," the human demand for software labor is nearly infinite. It's well known that the final few percentage points of perfection often require the most work. By this standard, almost every software product has at least a 100x improvement in complexity and features before reaching demand saturation.
I believe that most commentators who claim that the software industry is on the brink of extinction lack an intuitive understanding of software development. The software industry has been around for 50 years, and despite tremendous progress, it is always in a state of "not enough." As a programmer in 2020, my productivity matches that of hundreds of people in 1970, which is incredibly impressive leverage. However, there is still significant room for improvement. People underestimate the "Jevons Paradox": Efficiency improvements often lead to explosive growth in overall demand.
This does not mean that software engineering is an invincible job, but the industry's ability to absorb labor and its inertia far exceed imagination. The saturation process will be very slow, giving us enough time to adapt.
Of course, labor reallocation is inevitable, such as in the driving sector. As Citrini pointed out, many white-collar jobs will experience disruptions. For positions like real estate brokers that have long lost tangible value and rely solely on momentum for income, AI may be the final straw.
But our lifesaver lies in the fact that the United States has almost infinite potential and demand for reindustrialization. You may have heard of "reshoring," but it goes far beyond that. We have essentially lost the ability to manufacture the core building blocks of modern life: batteries, motors, small-scale semiconductors—the entire electricity supply chain is almost entirely dependent on overseas sources. What if there is a military conflict? What's even worse, did you know that China produces 90% of the world's synthetic ammonia? Once the supply is cut off, we can't even produce fertilizer and will face famine.
As long as you look to the physical world, you will find endless job opportunities that will benefit the country, create employment, and build essential infrastructure, all of which can receive bipartisan political support.
We have seen the economic and political winds shifting in this direction—discussions on reshoring, deep tech, and "American vitality." My prediction is that when AI impacts the white-collar sector, the path of least political resistance will be to fund large-scale reindustrialization, absorbing labor through a "giant employment project." Fortunately, the physical world does not have a "singularity"; it is constrained by friction.
We will rebuild bridges and roads. People will find that seeing tangible labor results is more fulfilling than spinning in the digital abstract world. The Salesforce senior product manager who lost a $180,000 salary may find a new job at the "California Seawater Desalination Plant" to end the 25-year drought. These facilities not only need to be built but also pursued with excellence and require long-term maintenance. As long as we are willing, the "Jevons Paradox" also applies to the physical world.
The goal of large-scale industrial engineering is abundance. The United States will once again achieve self-sufficiency, enabling large-scale, low-cost production. Moving beyond material scarcity is crucial: in the long run, if we do indeed lose a significant portion of white-collar jobs to AI, we must be able to maintain a high quality of life for the public. And as AI drives profit margins to zero, consumer goods will become extremely affordable, automatically fulfilling this objective.
My view is that different sectors of the economy will "take off" at different speeds, and the transformation in almost all areas will be slower than Citrini anticipates. To be clear, I am extremely bullish on AI and foresee a day when my own labor will be obsolete. But this will take time, and time gives us the opportunity to devise sound strategies.
At this point, preventing the kind of market collapse Citrini imagines is actually not difficult. The U.S. government's performance during the pandemic has demonstrated its proactive and decisive crisis response. If necessary, massive stimulus policies will quickly intervene. Although I am somewhat displeased by its inefficiency, that is not the focus. The focus is on safeguarding material prosperity in people's lives—a universal well-being that gives legitimacy to a nation and upholds the social contract, rather than stubbornly adhering to past accounting metrics or economic dogma.
If we can maintain sharpness and responsiveness in this slow but sure technological transformation, we will eventually emerge unscathed.
Source: Original Post Link
App