Keen On America

Andrew Keen

Nobody asks sharper or more impertinent questions than Andrew Keen. In KEEN ON, Andrew cross-examines the world’s smartest people on politics, economics, history, the environment, and tech. If you want to make sense of our complex world, check out the daily questions and the answers on KEEN ON. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best-known technology and politics broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running show How To Fix Democracy and the author of four critically acclaimed books about the future, including the international bestselling CULT OF THE AMATEUR. Keen On is free to listen to and will remain so. If you want to stay up-to-date on new episodes and support the show please subscribe to Andrew Keen’s Substack. Paid subscribers will soon be able to access exclusive content from our new series Keen On America. keenon.substack.com

  1. 6 HR AGO

    The Innovation Paradox Undermining the Digital Revolution: How Magical Technology Isn't Translating into Miraculous Economic Progress

    It’s the most curious paradox of today’s digital revolution. While the computers, the internet, smartphones and AI all appear magical, they haven’t actually translated into equally magical economic progress. That, at least, is the counter-intuitive argument of the Oxford economist Carl Benedikt Frey whose new book, How Progress Ends, suggests that the digital revolution isn’t resulting in an equivalent revolution of productivity. History is repeating itself in an equally paradoxical way, Frey warns. We may, indeed, be repeating the productivity stagnation of the 1970s, in spite of our technological marvels. Unlike the 19th-century industrial revolution that radically transformed how we work, today's digital tools—however impressive—are primarily automating existing processes rather than creating fundamentally new types of economic activity that drive broad-based growth. And AI, by making existing work easier rather than creating new industries, will only compound this paradox. It might be the fate of not just the United States and Europe, but China as well. That, Frey warns, is how all progress will end. 1. The Productivity Paradox is Real Despite revolutionary digital technologies, we're not seeing the productivity gains that past technological revolutions delivered. It took a century for steam to show its full economic impact, four decades for electricity—but even accounting for lag time, the computer revolution has underperformed economically compared to its transformative social effects. 2. Automation vs. Innovation: The Critical Distinction True progress comes from creating entirely new industries and types of work, not just automating existing processes. The mid-20th century boom created the automobile industry and countless supporting sectors. Today's AI primarily makes existing work easier rather than spawning fundamentally new economic activities. 3. Institutional Structure Trumps Technology The Soviet Union succeeded when scaling existing technology but failed when innovation was needed because it lacked decentralized exploration. Success requires competitive, decentralized systems where different actors can take different bets—like Google finding funding after Bessemer Ventures said no. 4. Europe's Innovation Crisis Has a Clear Diagnosis Europe lags in digital not due to lack of talent or funding, but because of fragmented markets and regulatory burdens. The EU's internal trade barriers in services amount to a 110% tariff equivalent, while regulations like GDPR primarily benefit large incumbents who can absorb compliance costs. 5. Geography Still Matters in the Digital Age Silicon Valley's success stemmed from unenforceable non-compete clauses that enabled job-hopping and knowledge transfer, while Detroit's enforcement of non-competes after 1985 contributed to its decline. As AI makes many services tradeable globally, high-cost innovation centers face new competitive pressures from lower-cost locations. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    46 min

  2. 1 DAY AGO

    Should Billionaires Be Banned? Why Extreme Wealth Might Be Incompatible with Democracy and the Survival of the Earth

    Should being a billionaire be illegal? Or, at least, actively discouraged? That’s the argument at the heart of Ingrid Robeyns’ intriguing case against extreme wealth, Limitarianism. It’s an argument particularly pertinent in a week when Tesla is offering to make Elon Musk a trillionaire if he can reach certain sales targets. For Robeyns, an ethicist at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, her arguments against extreme wealth are both moral and utilitarian. On the one hand, she argues that nobody truly "deserves" billions because economic success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetic lottery, family circumstances, educational opportunities, and market timing. On the other hand, she contends that extreme wealth concentration actively harms society by undermining democracy, encouraging unsustainable consumption patterns, and creating inefficient resource allocation. While acknowledging that such reforms may take decades to implement, Robeyns floats the idea of wealth caps around $10 million, arguing this still rewards success while preventing the most flagrant concentrations of economic and political power. Spare change for Elon and his plutocratic bros. So don’t hold your breath for a Musk funded Limitarian political party in the next few centuries. 1. Why Billionaires Don't "Deserve" Their Wealth Robeyns argues that extreme wealth is largely undeserved because success depends heavily on factors beyond individual control - genetics, family background, education access, and market timing. She contends that acknowledging luck's role should make us more humble about wealth accumulation and challenge narratives of self-made billionaires. 2. Extreme Wealth Threatens Democratic Equality She identifies a concerning alliance between extreme wealth holders and anti-democratic forces, arguing that billionaire-level fortunes inevitably translate into disproportionate political influence that undermines the principle of political equality essential to democratic governance. 3. Billionaire Lifestyles Are Environmentally Unsustainable The consumption patterns of the ultra-wealthy - private jets, space tourism, multiple estates - cannot be scaled to the broader population without ecological collapse. This creates a sustainability paradox where a tiny elite's lifestyle choices constrain options for everyone else. 4. Wealth Caps Could Preserve Innovation While Limiting Harm Rather than eliminating all inequality, Robeyns proposes capping individual wealth at roughly $10 million, arguing this still provides substantial rewards for success while preventing the most harmful concentrations of economic and political power. 5. Implementation Requires Generational Cultural Change Robeyns acknowledges her proposals are "regulative ideals" that may take decades to implement, comparing the timeline to how neoliberal ideas took generations to become mainstream policy. She emphasizes changing cultural narratives about extreme wealth as the essential first step. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    49 min

  3. 2 DAYS AGO

    Why Trump Might Be Right About Greenland: How a 57,000-Person Island Became Critical to 21st Century Geopolitics

    If Donald Trump is a broken clock only right twice daily, then one of those truths might be US policy toward Greenland. According to the Australian based geo-strategist Elizabeth Buchanan, Trump is correct to be preoccupied with American influence over, and perhaps even ownership of Greenland. In her new book, So You Want To Own Greenland, Buchanan argues that the 57,000-person continental super-sized island is becoming central to 21st Century geopolitics. From the Vikings to the (yes) colonizing Danes, she argues, Greenland has always been an important piece of the North Atlantic strategic jigsaw. Today, however, with the melting polar ice cap and its vast mineral resources, Greenland is becoming essential - not just to native Greenlanders, the United States, Denmark and Canada, but also to Russia, China and even India. 1. America's Greenland Interest Predates Trump by 160 Years US interest in Greenland dates back to 1867 and the Seward Purchase ("Seward's Folly"). Trump's fixation isn't erratic - it reflects longstanding American strategic thinking about North American geography that transcends partisan politics. 2. Denmark is a Colonial Power, Not a Progressive Beacon Contrary to its reputation for happiness and human rights, Denmark runs Greenland as a modern colony. This includes a forced contraception program targeting 12-13 year old Inuit girls and economic control where 50%+ of working-age Greenlanders work for the government. 3. Climate Change is Creating the "New Panama Canal" The melting Arctic ice cap is opening new shipping routes between Europe and Asia through the North. Any cargo passing this route must go through Greenlandic/Danish waters, making Greenland a critical chokepoint for 21st-century global trade. 4. Greenland Wants Independence, But Denmark Won't Let Go Greenlanders voted for independence in a referendum, but Danish law requires the Danish Parliament to approve any independence - a catch-22. Without Greenland (and the Faroe Islands), Denmark ceases to be a "kingdom" and becomes just Denmark. 5. China and India Are the Real Wild Cards While focus remains on US-Denmark tensions, China and India are rapidly expanding their Arctic presence through "research" missions and shipping investments. For every American business jet landing in Greenland, there are Chinese and Indian interests as well. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    38 min

  4. 3 DAYS AGO

    The Unluckiest Generation: Confessions of a Millennial

    So are millennials really the unluckiest generation? Yes and no. At least according to their unofficial biographer, Charlie Wells, the energetic London based Bloomberg reporter and author of What Happened to Millennials. In a way, Wells is a defender of his much-maligned and misunderstood generation. But his new book is also a kind of confessional of five millennials who, in his view, represent the spirit of those who came of age at the turn of the century. Wells’ own soulful mix of forthrightness and insecurity offers a glimpse into the millennial heart. Could it really be the ubiquitous electronic screen that is both the cause and effect of his generation's over-publicized struggles with anxiety? Or are millennials simply the first cohort to have their universal coming-of-age confessions broadcast live for all to see? 1. Generational narratives are often outdated Wells argues that millennials are actually 31% wealthier than boomers were at the same age, but the "unlucky generation" story persists. This suggests we cling to generational myths even when underlying data changes. 2. Technology made universal struggles visible Critical questioning revealed a core insight: millennial coming-of-age difficulties aren't unique - they're just the first to be documented and broadcast through social media. Previous generations had similar struggles without the surveillance. 3. The "lived through" narrative is problematic Challenges to claims about "living through" 9/11 and the Great Recession exposed how generations can inflate shared cultural moments into defining traumas, even when most people weren't directly affected. This suggests we should scrutinize whether collective experiences truly shape entire cohorts or simply become convenient narratives. 4. Confessional culture shapes identity Wells connected reality TV's "confessional" format to how millennials communicate - suggesting media formats influence how entire generations process and share experiences, from AOL Instant Messenger to social media oversharing. 5. Economic inequality matters more than generational identity The wealth gap between rich and poor millennials ($100,000 wider than for boomers) suggests class divisions within the generation are more significant than generational differences between cohorts. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    41 min

  5. 4 DAYS AGO

    Why Humans Have Such Big Brains (No, it's not Because of our Intelligence)

    So why do we humans have such big brains? According to the NYU neuroscientist Nikolay Kukushkin, it’s because of language. In wanting to talk to one another, Kukushkin argues in his new book, One Hand Clapping, we need to be able to think more coherently than other species. Thus our uniquely big brains. Language itself emerged from our increasingly social lifestyle, Kukushkin explains, which developed after our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in what he calls the "nocturnal bottleneck." And what good have our big brains done us? That, according to Kukushkin, is a trickier question. It’s certainly made us more social, even collective, in our politics and culture. But it also seems to have divided us from one another, fostering as much misery and violence as harmony. Indeed, Kukushkin suggests that we've always been "grumpy"—even back when we lived in caves. The difference now is that we have the internet to advertise our grumpiness. More seriously, though, we're the first species to actually care about our global impact—and that's something worth celebrating, even in our seemingly apocalyptic age. * Big brains evolved for language, not intelligence - Humans developed large brains specifically to handle the cognitive demands of communication and social coordination, not because we're inherently "smarter" than other species. * Dinosaurs accidentally created human society - Our mammalian ancestors spent 150 million years hiding from dinosaurs in a "nocturnal bottleneck." When dinosaurs died out, primates moved into daylight and trees, exposing them to predators and forcing them into larger social groups for protection. * The mind-body divide is imaginary - Kukushkin argues that consciousness isn't a special, separate phenomenon but simply part of the natural world—like discarded notions of human exceptionalism or "vital force" in living beings. * Collectivism may be more "natural" than individualism - Most human societies throughout history have been collectivist; highly individualistic societies like modern America may be the evolutionary outlier requiring explanation. * We're the first species that cares about global impact - While humans have always been "grumpy" and prone to conflict, we're unique in actually caring about our planetary-scale effects—giving us potential to change course unlike previous species that nearly destroyed Earth. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    38 min

  6. 5 DAYS AGO

    How Should Criminals be Punished? From Bentham's "Enlightened" Panopticon to the Universal Human Rights of Prisoners

    How should we punish criminals? In Impermissible Punishments, the Arthur Liman Professor of Law at Yale Law School, Judith Resnik, provides a historical narrative of punishment in European and American prisons. Tracing the evolution from Jeremy Bentham's utilitarian Panopticon through post-World War II human rights frameworks, Resnik argues that punishment systems developed as a transatlantic rather than uniquely American project. Her analysis reveals how prisoners themselves, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights during detention. Resnik’s new book chronicles a crucial divergence after the 1980s, when European systems maintained stronger human rights commitments while American prisons retreated from recognizing prisoners as rights-bearing individuals, thereby making prison a problem for its democracy. 1. Prison systems developed as a transatlantic project, not American innovation Punishment theories and practices emerged from shared Enlightenment thinking across Europe and America in the 1700s-1800s. Figures like Beccaria, Bentham, and Tocqueville created interconnected ideas about rational, purposeful punishment that crossed national boundaries. 2. Prisoners, not reformers, first articulated the concept of retained rights While reformers debated how to punish effectively, it was people in detention themselves—like Winston Talley in Arkansas in 1965—who first argued they retained fundamental rights during incarceration. This represented a revolutionary shift from viewing prisoners as "civilly dead." 3. World War II created the crucial turning point for prisoners' rights The horrors of concentration camps and fascist regimes made clear the dangers of treating any group as less than human. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and 1955 UN prison rules marked the formal recognition of prisoners as rights-bearing individuals. 4. America and Europe diverged after the 1980s on prisoner treatment While both regions initially embraced prisoners' rights in the 1960s-70s, the U.S. retreated during the "war on crime" era. Europe maintained stronger human rights commitments, while America expanded punitive measures like solitary confinement and mass incarceration. 5. Prison conditions reflect broader democratic health Resnik argues that how a society treats its most marginalized members—prisoners, immigrants, minorities—indicates the strength of its democratic institutions. Authoritarian treatment of any group threatens the rights of all citizens in a democratic system. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    54 min

  7. 6 DAYS AGO

    Why Misogyny May Be America's Most Dangerous Ideology: The Role of the Manosphere in Political Assassinations and Mass Shootings

    In a week dominated by the tragic assassination of Charlie Kirk, Cynthia Miller-Idriss’ insights as the founding director of American University’s Polarization and Extremism Research and Innovation Lab (PERIL) are particularly valuable. Her new book about what she identifies as “the new misogyny and the rise of violent extremism” is entitled Man Up. But its message might be summarized as Man Down in its attempt to temper the violent fringes of what she calls the manosphere. Miller-Idriss, one of America’s leading researchers on violent extremism, argues that misogyny is the cause of today’s troubling rise of political assassinations and mass shootings. Her research across seven countries reveals that hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence. She traces a disturbing pipeline from seemingly innocuous self-help searches by lonely young men to radicalization by influencers who blend fitness advice with violent scapegoating of women and minorities. Miller-Idriss documents how 60% of mass shooters have histories of domestic violence, yet this connection rarely appears in media coverage when targets aren't explicitly gendered. Her work suggests that what she calls "the law enforcement arm of patriarchy" is crucial in preventing both left and right-wing political violence that has reached levels unseen since the 1970s. 1. Misogyny is a Cross-Ideological Predictor of Violence Hostile sexism ranks among the top three predictors of support for political violence across seven countries, appearing in both left-wing and right-wing extremism. This suggests misogyny functions as a mobilizing force that transcends traditional political boundaries. 2. The Domestic Violence-Mass Shooting Connection is Underreported 60% of mass shooters have documented histories of domestic and intimate partner violence, yet this pattern rarely receives attention in media coverage when the eventual targets aren't explicitly women. This represents a missed opportunity for early intervention and threat assessment. 3. Generation Z Shows Unprecedented Acceptance of Political Violence While 93% of Baby Boomers believe political violence is never acceptable, only 42% of Generation Z holds this view. This generational shift reflects young people's loss of faith in political solutions and their perception that "there is no political solution" to major issues. 4. Online Self-Help Searches Create Radicalization Pipelines Innocent searches by lonely young men for fitness, dating, or financial advice often lead to influencers who mix legitimate self-improvement content with violent scapegoating of women, feminists, and minorities, creating pathways to extremism. 5. Community-Based Early Warning Systems Could Prevent Violence Nearly every mass shooter makes plans and leaks intentions to someone beforehand, but communities lack accessible resources for reporting concerning behavior that falls short of immediate FBI involvement. Mobile advisory centers, like those used in Germany, could fill this gap. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    48 min

  8. 12 SEPT

    Rational Exuberance: Why $3 Trillion in AI Investment is Mathematical Certainty, not Madness

    Today’s $3 trillion investment in AI is not only rational and beyond inevitable - it’s “predestined”. At least according to That Was The Week newletter publisher and techno-determinist Keith Teare. Exuberance is not only required, Keith argues, but absolutely essential in today’s AI mad gold rush. And he’s particularly critical of all skeptics - from traditional tech naysayers (like myself) to mainstream publications like The Economist - which are all a touch questioning of today’s unprecedented boom. What if the $3 trillion AI investment tsunami goes wrong? The Economist asks. But for Keith, it can’t possibly go wrong. The investment has already been made, he argues, and the resultant technology will inevitably benefit humanity. He envisions a world where AI adds $20 trillion to global GDP by 2035, where a kid in rural Africa with an Android phone can access the world's best AI, and where economic growth hits an unprecedented 20% annually. I think this type of teleological argument adds up to about $3 trillion worth of madness. But what do I know? 1. The Scale Defense: $3 Trillion is Actually Small Teare argues the massive AI investment looks rational when measured against projected returns - $20 trillion added to global GDP by 2035, potentially creating $400 trillion in company value (at 20x multiples). His math: even if the investment seems huge, the predicted gains are exponentially bigger. 2. AI's Business Model Advantage Over Previous Tech Booms Unlike the internet (which relied on advertising and attention-grabbing) or early TV (which devolved into reality shows), AI operates on subscriptions and API usage. Teare believes this model doesn't require undermining human outcomes to generate profit - making it fundamentally different from past transformative technologies. 3. Individual Failures Don't Equal Systemic Collapse While specific companies (like Perplexity at $20B valuation) might fail, Teare argues the overall AI ecosystem is "failure-proof" because trained models retain their value even if companies go bankrupt. He compares it to the Channel Tunnel - the infrastructure survived financial collapse and eventually thrived. 4. The "Western Suicide Wish" Cultural Diagnosis Echoing Elon Musk and Alex Karp, Teare sees Western civilization as increasingly "ashamed" of Enlightenment values - viewing humans as problems rather than solutions. He argues AI represents a return to human agency and innovation as answers to global challenges. 5. Content Creators Face a Reckoning The decline of web traffic (8% this year) signals the end of advertising-based content monetization. Creators must either embrace quality/subscription models or find ways to integrate with AI systems through attribution and linking - but the traffic-based economy is dying. Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

    39 min
See All (999)

About

Nobody asks sharper or more impertinent questions than Andrew Keen. In KEEN ON, Andrew cross-examines the world’s smartest people on politics, economics, history, the environment, and tech. If you want to make sense of our complex world, check out the daily questions and the answers on KEEN ON. Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best-known technology and politics broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running show How To Fix Democracy and the author of four critically acclaimed books about the future, including the international bestselling CULT OF THE AMATEUR. Keen On is free to listen to and will remain so. If you want to stay up-to-date on new episodes and support the show please subscribe to Andrew Keen’s Substack. Paid subscribers will soon be able to access exclusive content from our new series Keen On America. keenon.substack.com

Information

  • Creator
    Andrew Keen
  • Years Active
    2019 - 2025
  • Episodes
    999
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © andrew
  • Show Website
    Keen On America

You Might Also Like