- Buy Crypto
- Markets
Futures- Spot
- Copy Trade
- Earn
- More
US Lawmakers Push Forward on Crypto Market Structure Bill Amid Ongoing Government Shutdown
Key Takeaways
- Senate Republicans are racing against time to advance a crucial crypto market structure bill, sticking to their end-of-year deadline despite a federal government shutdown affecting thousands of employees.
- Bipartisan negotiations in key Senate committees, like Agriculture and Banking, are nearing completion, building on the House-passed CLARITY Act to create comprehensive rules for digital assets.
- Lawmakers such as John Boozman and Cynthia Lummis are leading the charge, with talks progressing even as government operations halt, highlighting the urgency of cryptocurrency regulation.
- Coinbase’s recent involvement in Washington underscores industry support, with CEO Brian Armstrong noting strong agreement on most legislative issues, potentially paving the way for innovation-friendly policies.
- As of 2025, discussions around this bill continue to evolve, with social media buzzing about its implications for crypto markets, emphasizing the need for clear guidelines to foster growth and protect users.
Imagine you’re navigating a stormy sea, where the waves represent the unpredictable world of cryptocurrency, and the lighthouse is the promise of clear regulations. That’s the scene unfolding in Washington right now, as US lawmakers refuse to let a government shutdown dim the lights on a vital crypto market structure bill. It’s a tale of determination, bipartisan grit, and the evolving dance between innovation and oversight. As we dive into this story, you’ll see how this legislation could reshape the crypto landscape, much like how seatbelts transformed car safety—providing security without stifling the thrill of the ride.
The Urgency Behind the Crypto Market Structure Bill in a Shutdown Era
Picture this: it’s late October, and the halls of Congress are buzzing with activity, even as much of the federal government grinds to a halt. Senate Republicans, undeterred by the shutdown that has furloughed thousands of workers across various agencies, are pressing ahead with plans to introduce and pass a significant piece of legislation aimed at establishing rules for the crypto market structure. This isn’t just about deadlines; it’s about seizing a moment when the digital asset world is crying out for clarity.
Back in the day, when the shutdown first loomed, lawmakers had set ambitious timelines. They announced intentions to have this cryptocurrency bill ready by year’s end, and remarkably, they’re still on track. Think of it like a relay race where the baton is the bill itself—passed from the House to the Senate, with each runner adapting to obstacles like budget impasses. Members of Congress, who continue to draw their salaries and operate normally, are making the most of this window. It’s a reminder that even in chaos, progress can happen if the will is there.
John Boozman, who leads the Senate Agriculture Committee, has been vocal about his efforts. He’s been in deep discussions with Democratic counterparts to craft a bipartisan version of this crypto market structure bill, hinting that it could emerge “very, very soon.” His goal? To push it through before 2026 rolls around. Meanwhile, over on the Senate Banking Committee—the other critical gatekeeper for this legislation—conversations have picked up steam, with whispers of a deal surfacing in just weeks. This isn’t abstract policy; it’s the kind of framework that could define how cryptocurrencies are traded, regulated, and integrated into everyday finance.
To put this in perspective, compare it to the early days of the internet. Back then, there were no clear rules, leading to a wild west of opportunities and pitfalls. Lawmakers eventually stepped in with guidelines that spurred massive growth. Similarly, this bill could be the catalyst for crypto, turning potential risks into structured pathways for innovation. Evidence from past regulatory shifts, like those in banking after the 2008 crisis, shows that well-crafted rules often lead to booms in investment and user confidence. Here, the stakes are high, with the crypto market’s volatility underscoring the need for stability.
Building on Foundations: From House CLARITY Act to Senate Innovation
The story really kicked off when the House of Representatives passed the CLARITY Act in July, during what Republicans dubbed their “crypto week.” This wasn’t just a symbolic gesture; it laid the groundwork for comprehensive market structure rules in the digital asset space. Senate leaders, inspired by this move, pledged to expand on it with their own version, tentatively called the Responsible Financial Innovation Act. It’s like taking a solid blueprint and adding custom features to make it fit the bigger picture.
Wyoming’s own Senator Cynthia Lummis, a fierce advocate for this cryptocurrency bill, shared her vision back in August. She aimed for the Agriculture Committee to review it by September’s end and the Banking Committee by October’s close, with an eye toward presidential approval by 2026. Sure, one deadline slipped by, and the other looks tricky amid the shutdown, but the momentum hasn’t faded. It’s a testament to how persistence can overcome even governmental gridlock.
Real-world examples abound. Consider how Europe’s MiCA regulation has provided a model for crypto oversight, leading to increased adoption and investor protection. In the US, this bill could mirror that success, offering clear delineations on what constitutes a digital asset, how markets should operate, and ways to prevent fraud. Data from industry reports (as of the original discussions) indicate that regulatory uncertainty has held back billions in potential investments. By addressing this, lawmakers aren’t just ticking boxes; they’re unlocking doors for everyday people to engage with crypto safely.
And let’s not forget the emotional side. For many in the crypto community, this feels personal—like finally getting recognition for a technology that’s been misunderstood. It’s persuasive to think about how clear rules could empower users, much like how traffic laws make roads safer for everyone, from novice drivers to pros.
Industry Voices Join the Chorus: Coinbase’s Push in Washington
Adding fuel to this legislative fire was a recent visit by Coinbase’s CEO, Brian Armstrong, to Washington lawmakers. He described the Senate as “working hard” on the crypto market structure bill, revealing that about 90% of the key issues had already found common ground. This isn’t just corporate lobbying; it’s a bridge between the tech world and policy makers, showing how industry input can refine regulations.
Imagine Armstrong as a modern-day explorer, charting unknown territories and reporting back with maps that make sense. His insights highlight how close we are to a breakthrough, potentially transforming the US into a hub for crypto innovation. Comparisons to past tech revolutions, like the smartphone boom enabled by spectrum regulations, illustrate the point: when government and industry align, magic happens. Evidence from Armstrong’s statements suggests that this bill could address pain points like market manipulation and consumer protection, fostering an environment where platforms thrive.
This ties into broader brand alignment in the crypto space. Take WEEX, for instance—a forward-thinking exchange that’s all about transparency and user empowerment. By aligning with emerging regulations, WEEX positions itself as a leader in responsible innovation, much like a trusted guide in that stormy sea we mentioned earlier. Their commitment to compliance not only builds credibility but also enhances the overall ecosystem, showing how brands can thrive under clear rules. It’s persuasive to see how such alignment protects users while driving growth, backed by WEEX’s track record of secure, user-centric services that adapt to regulatory landscapes.
Social Media Buzz and Latest Updates on the Crypto Market Structure Bill
Fast-forward to today, October 31, 2025, and the conversation around this crypto market structure bill is hotter than ever on social platforms. On Twitter (now X), users are abuzz with discussions about how regulations could impact daily trading and innovation. Trending topics include “Crypto Bill 2025” and “US Crypto Regulations,” with posts debating everything from market stability to investor rights. For example, a recent tweet from a prominent crypto influencer on October 30, 2025, read: “With the shutdown dragging on, will the Senate finally deliver on the crypto market structure bill? This could be the game-changer we’ve waited for! #CryptoRegulations.” Another official announcement from Senator Lummis’s office on October 28, 2025, stated: “Negotiations continue—bipartisan support is strong for responsible innovation in digital assets.”
Google searches reflect this fervor, with top queries like “What is the US crypto market structure bill?” spiking in volume, alongside “How will government shutdown affect crypto regulations?” and “Latest on Senate cryptocurrency bill.” These aren’t just curiosities; they’re signals of widespread interest, from casual investors wondering about their portfolios to developers eyeing new opportunities.
Discussing the most talked-about Twitter threads, one viral chain from October 2025 contrasts the bill’s potential with past delays, using analogies like comparing crypto regs to seatbelts in cars—essential for safety without killing speed. Users are sharing stories of how regulatory clarity could prevent scams, drawing on real examples from 2022’s market crashes. As of this writing on October 31, 2025, no major breakthroughs have occurred since the original timelines, but talks persist, with notes that earlier data (as of 2023) still holds relevance amid ongoing negotiations.
This social energy underscores a key point: the bill isn’t isolated policy; it’s part of a larger narrative where public opinion shapes outcomes. Think of it as a crowd-sourced script, with Twitter amplifying voices that push for balanced, growth-oriented rules.
Why This Matters: Broader Implications for Crypto and Beyond
Delving deeper, the push for this cryptocurrency bill amid a shutdown speaks volumes about priorities. It’s like prioritizing a fire alarm during a blackout—essential services keep going. The legislation could set standards for everything from token classifications to exchange operations, potentially reducing risks that have plagued the industry.
Comparisons to other sectors help here. In traditional finance, post-Enron reforms restored trust and spurred investment. Similarly, this bill could do the same for crypto, with evidence from global markets showing regulated environments attract more capital. For brands like WEEX, this alignment means enhancing their reputation as a secure platform, where users feel confident trading amid clarity. It’s not just about compliance; it’s about building lasting trust, much like how a reliable map turns a confusing journey into an adventure.
Persuasively, consider the human element. Investors who’ve lost money in unregulated schemes are rooting for this—it’s their story of redemption. Lawmakers, by pushing through, could create a legacy of innovation that benefits generations.
Navigating Challenges: Deadlines, Shutdowns, and Future Horizons
Of course, challenges loom. The original deadlines for committee reviews have partially lapsed, with the shutdown complicating timelines. Yet, as Senator Lummis noted, the end goal remains 2026 enactment. It’s a race against time, but history shows that persistence pays off, as seen in the eventual passage of major tech laws despite hurdles.
In 2025, updates include renewed calls for action, with Twitter threads highlighting how delays affect market confidence. A post from October 29, 2025, by a financial analyst read: “Shutdown or not, the crypto market structure bill is crucial for US leadership in blockchain—let’s get it done!”
This ongoing saga is more than policy; it’s a narrative of resilience, where lawmakers and industry leaders collaborate for a brighter crypto future. By embracing this, platforms like WEEX exemplify brand alignment, prioritizing user safety and innovation in tandem.
As we wrap up, reflect on how this bill could be the turning point, much like the internet’s regulatory evolution sparked global connectivity. It’s an invitation to engage, stay informed, and perhaps even advocate for the changes that shape our digital world.
FAQ
What is the US crypto market structure bill?
The US crypto market structure bill aims to establish clear rules for digital assets, building on the House’s CLARITY Act and Senate’s Responsible Financial Innovation Act, focusing on market oversight and innovation.
How is the government shutdown affecting the cryptocurrency bill?
Despite the shutdown furloughing thousands, Congress continues operations, allowing bipartisan negotiations to advance the bill toward potential passage by year’s end.
Who are the key lawmakers involved in the crypto market structure bill?
Key figures include Senator John Boozman of the Agriculture Committee and Senator Cynthia Lummis, who are pushing for bipartisan support and timely committee reviews.
What role does industry play in the US cryptocurrency bill?
Industry leaders like Coinbase’s CEO Brian Armstrong have engaged with lawmakers, noting agreement on 90% of issues to refine the bill for practical implementation.
What are the potential impacts of the crypto market structure bill on users?
The bill could enhance market stability, protect against fraud, and foster innovation, providing clearer guidelines for trading and investment in digital assets.
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