The Penta Podcast Channel
The Penta Podcast Channel is home to all of Penta's podcasts, including the Macrocast and What's At Stake: A Penta Podcast. The Macrocast, produced by Penta and Markets Policy Partners, features weekly insight and analysis on the latest macroeconomic trends. What's at Stake: a Penta Podcast features in-house experts and often special guests for analysis on the biggest issues shaping business and public policy.
The Penta Podcast Channel
Vibe check for Democrats: Regulating crypto, tech, and the future of democracy
How could a Harris administration revolutionize the tech policy landscape in America? This week on What's at Stake, partner and head of Penta's D.C. office, Bryan DeAngelis, and Penta managing director Elliott Owensby are joined by Katie Mitchell, the founder of New World Advisors, to discuss the election and the future of tech.
Together, they discuss Katie's recent piece, "A Vibe Check for Tech" and explore how a Harris-led White House might reshape the conversation between technology firms and U.S. policymakers, particularly within the Democratic Party. They also discuss the growing influence of crypto in the political arena, regulatory challenges, and the U.S.'s competitive edge in global tech markets. Don't miss this insightful conversation that unpacks the complexities of the relationship between technology and politics.
Welcome to this week's episode of what's at Stake. I'm your host, brian DeAndrus, partner and head of the Washington office here at Penta, and today I'm joined by my colleague, elliot Owensby, a managing director in our San Francisco office, and our special guest, katie Mitchell. Katie is the founder of New World Advisors, where she advises leading tech, web3, and fintech firms on global policy engagement and international expansion.
Speaker 2:Katie, welcome to the podcast beaming in from Singapore and a hot take for those listening is I don't know when this will be recorded, but we are running concurrent to the Harris Wells interview. So grateful that you guys are stepping away from that and having this conversation.
Speaker 1:Yeah, we're excited to have you. I think they'll get slightly higher ratings than we will, so I don't mean to disappoint you from the start.
Speaker 3:but it's good, brian, just have a little optimism here. But, you know we'll go from there.
Speaker 1:Might be our most global podcast to date, hitting San Francisco and Singapore, but I think I'll be drinking my wine as you guys might be drinking your coffee.
Speaker 2:Our coffee over here, yep.
Speaker 1:So, katie, I just you know we've worked together before, but reached out a few weeks ago. You author your own newsletter on Substack titled the World View. I suggest everyone go subscribe. But you had a great piece, a vibe check for tech, which started to look into what you call the emerging tech of crypto and AI, and really an argument for a potential Harris administration having the opportunity to reset the dialogue with tech companies and US policymakers, particularly the Democratic Party. We need a more bipartisan approach, a little bit more optimistic, in my view, about the opportunities that tech can unlock for everyday people. So let's start there. You called it a vibe check. What does that look like?
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean I think so. It was a very cathartic piece in some ways, because if you occupy the corner of the Internet that I am so fortunate to call home, it's been a really interesting place over the summer months. So, having worked in kind of emerging tech and with a lot of crypto firms of recent, obviously Twitter has a really important role for those companies. Users are really active and vocal and I think, unlike most industries that have existed until this point, it is actually the town square for tech in a way. There's this constant feedback loop and I think that executives and founders take the feedback that comes across on Twitter really seriously, and so it can seem like an echo chamber, but it's also a really important kind of sounding board for that aspect of the world. At the same time, I am a proud Democrat and have a lot of, you know, really fun engaging kind of political banter on my feed as well.
Speaker 2:There was a lot of prognosticating in, let's say, may June, as to what was going to happen with, you know, biden's decision to either step down or run.
Speaker 2:So when my new born baby now a bit older now was up in the middle of the night, I did not object because I wanted to scroll in to know what was happening and so we were on the same page there with constant night wakes. But those kind of two corners like don't really work together. I think I confused the algorithm in some ways because of the kind of recent dynamic with, I would say, top line members of the Democratic Party not the entire party as a whole and the kind of perception by crypto Twitter on who has their interests at heart. So that was really interesting and there was such a vibe shift across the party, as you guys know, like memification, pillification, whatever Biden steps down and Harris was announced as top of the ticket, stepped down and Harris was announced as top of the ticket, and it was just this very like kind of hostile stance from a lot of really the kind of vocal minority, I would say, on crypto Twitter.
Speaker 2:And then this like joyous, jubilant vibe with my home party and those just stood in opposite and we talk a lot about optimism, you know, an opportunity in the context of the digital economy and tech in general. But those things really did seem to kind of stand in contrast to one another. So I kind of I wanted to articulate a vision where, like hey, these things should really kind of start to coalesce, because I think there is a lot more there. There are a lot changed, a lot's changed, even the last 24 hours.
Speaker 2:Politics and this cycle as a crypto. It's very interesting. But that was kind of the. The vibes were not aligning and vibing was something that I kind of picked up on.
Speaker 1:And a lot changed, even if you rewind the tape like it was. It was a moment where Trump started really embracing crypto, which he's been a spectacle of in the past. But you know, yeah, he also put on it at the same time Biden at his you know tough debate performance, and then, yeah, so it just seemed to create this like collision between those two, like you said, corners of the internet. That then prompted so much expectations and questioning of what will this look like under Harris. That, I think, has led us to today, where we're starting to see more and more of that come out that come out.
Speaker 2:Yeah, yeah, and it's something that I mean it's interesting, because when I first started working, I've always been sort of in tech policy but on more kind of like the frontier side, tip of the spear, innovation, of which I would kind of count crypto as part of.
Speaker 2:I mean it is an interesting arena where it had been kind of like hyper masculine. There was this kind of energy to our industry that I think has sort of moderated out. But you see that re-emerging, like the venn diagram of joe rogan listeners and those who are very kind of vocal um on this topic is a circle, I would say, and it's, there is a certain energy to it, but I don't think that that is really indicative of the entire industry or of like kind of tech in general. But it was such a. It was it felt like such a seismic kind of shift in the course of just a few months from the spring to summer and I think, to the. I think one, two things are important. One I do think it's incumbent on the transition team and Harris's advisors to really keep an open mind. At the same time, the way that you court kind of a candidate, it's not to incite violence, correct, it's not to have such hateful rhetoric which we see.
Speaker 2:Oh, that politics 101 yeah yeah, like I, I I was really taken aback and sort of turned off by what I'm seeing in the industry, in which I kind of work and advise and that and I I'm kind of like mutually vested. So I it's, you know, I'm not, um, not, yeah, not entirely kind of agnostic as to outcomes on on in either arena and yet like really turned off by it. So you can imagine someone who's neutral or even apprehensive, isn't going to want to jump on the boat that says like yeah, let's rally and right, potentially worse. So, um, yeah, fun times well and same.
Speaker 3:I wanted to get more from you on that because say a little bit more about.
Speaker 3:I know this is something you feel strongly about and I think it resonates in your piece. You know a lot of the core values in emerging tech broadly speaking, but I think you could certainly apply them to crypto as well, like they certainly mirror and'm going to use like little L liberal values, like in politics broadly. And you know, when you think about whatever it may be, like cutting out middlemen or reducing costs or expanding access or all of these things, like these are things that are you would sort of hope again in that little l way, are like roughly apolitical but increasingly are not. And I think you know I think you do a great job expanding on sort of like where there's opportunity for folks that may be entirely apolitical and see these things as meaningful improvements in their lives, or folks that are political and should embrace them and understand the broader value that they can bring right. I know this is something you've given a lot of thought to. I think that's a powerful point.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and I mean there are really good statistics out there, so it's not a niche voting group. In the United States, I think by some estimates what one in five voters hold crypto. That's kind of proportionately higher than those who own electric vehicles or those who are members of unions. And think about how important, like, the union stump is on any campaign. We saw the the you know firefighter union um, kind of contrast, contrasting, um stops with the two vice presidential candidates. So, um, it is an important kind of electorate to court, but I also think it I I would wager that it doesn't vote in a monolithic way either, like no, no group really does.
Speaker 2:If you're a single issue kind of crypto voter, my guess is that you probably have a lot of other privileges in life to be able to focus just on that component, or maybe it is. You know you're a builder and this is really important to your livelihood, but the vast majority it's stack ranked across a whole host of other issues. So I think that's also really important to remember and why moderation is really key when we talk about these issues in our industry. I get that those who are super, super vocal might kind of think it's the be all, end all of life and livelihood, but for most people it's but one of several issues that are kind of encouraging them to vote. That's one component. But yeah, on the economic opportunity, I mean, that is that's how I look at it. It's sort of the foundation of, you know, future iterations of our economy, also the foundation of potentially future iterations of our internet, and like if, if just a few very wealthy people participate in this moment of sort of technological innovation, then we're just going to perpetuate the same disparities that we already have, and that's what the entire system was theoretically designed to rethink.
Speaker 2:Um, you know, if you look at some of the ads out there on upgrading the financial system and what that looks like, it actually stands very kind of close to a lot of the messaging that the Democratic Party is running on that people millennials, like hello, like right, smack dab in the middle of that age group.
Speaker 2:Millennials can't afford to buy homes and they're saddled with student loan debt and things cost a lot more, and it's both perception and reality and theoretically, this is a really great way of improving our financial freedom and that should be something that the Democratic Party would stand with, something that the Democratic Party would stand with Elephant in the room, pun absolutely intended. The Trump family launched I wouldn't even say campaign, it's kind of a family venture launched this new crypto project, right, and I think it was Eric Trump who talked about being unbanked, which is like a little bit of a hijack of you know what actually happened with quote unquote, operation Chokepoint, where, like crypto projects and companies had a hard time getting bank accounts because of kind of structural and political issues, versus losing access to bank accounts because of the findings of an SDNY case against the Trump organization, and so like it's it. Just so it makes me so incredibly uncomfortable to kind of conflate those two things. But of course, that's what they're going to do and yeah, we can talk about that a little bit in greater detail because I have some thoughts.
Speaker 2:But yeah, I believe I mean crypto should be bipartisan because its users are bipartisan. Tech is bipartisan because we, because its users are bipartisan. Tech is bipartisan because we're all users of technology and the people who probably stand to benefit the most in the theories of how these platforms were conceived are those who have been, you know, historically disenfranchised and cut out of the system. Historically disenfranchised and cut out of the system.
Speaker 3:There's a long distance between, you know, remittances and white collar crime. I guess. Yeah, there you go no-transcript.
Speaker 1:I think you're in a safe spot.
Speaker 1:I was going to say it also harkens back to the idea of competition.
Speaker 1:You're seeing both parties take a more populist tone, but then you're seeing different sides of it really put barriers in place for more crypto companies, more AI companies, to come forward.
Speaker 1:You know, if we're not careful, I worry about we're only going to have a few big companies that are doing this and we're going to fall behind, I think, in the international competition too, and I'd love your perspective on that sitting in Singapore the last few years, and you wrote in your piece a little bit about where we're falling behind China and others. But you know, this is a moment where we want to think about American leadership, regardless of what party is in power, and I I'm encouraged, or I should say I'm optimistic about Harris because you know she was a California senator. We came up in those like Obama years where tech was, you know, taking off, whether it was Uber and Airbnb and others, and that administration, you know, I think, did the appropriate kind of checks and balances on any new industry but really also gave it room to grow and become, you know, a leader globally, like they are.
Speaker 2:Yeah, no, I totally agree, and I think that I mean for industry to be successful and competitive globally, we have to have some foundation back home. I think that's really clear, and so the USG does in like its own economy and its company's disservice when it falls behind on creating kind of the regulatory clarity that it takes to survive and to thrive at home, let alone abroad. And it is really interesting. I mean, I meet with policymakers and regulators across several regions and there's a courtship and a warmth about emerging tech. There's a desire for US firms to invest. I think, concurrently, what's really startling is when we talk to companies who want to come into the US, who are operating in this space. There's a desire. There'sa recognition Like if you look at even gaming or different sectors like set aside the kind of financial use cases there's a recognition that there's a potential huge customer base in the US, but they're just not willing to take on the sort of regulatory burden. It's a cost concern of what kind of lawyers you have to hire. Is there going to be operational certainty. So that puts a complete chilling effect on partnerships between international and US firms serving the US market. It puts a chilling effect on investment back into the US and it does make it a little bit harder, like, if you're a US firm or a collection of US firms, having the US government have your back overseas is a really nice component of being a US operator and that's a really traditional dynamic that a lot of industries have. Our industry doesn't have that because we don't have that a lot of industries have. Our industry doesn't have that because we don't have that sort of foundation back home.
Speaker 2:So in the absence of that, I mean you do see, and obviously sort of there are different takes and different approaches to emerging tech that someone like China would seek to kind of proliferate. It's much more centralized and control and there's a whole kind of proliferate. It's much more centralized and control and there's a whole kind of different policy imperative for them to kind of dominate these sectors and these standards that inform the sectors. But there's really close coordination between the central government and there are large tech platforms Like there's just a clear campaign If you look at, like international organizations and standard setting bodies and where you know there's a proliferation of kind of mobile cloud chip, a whole host of different sectors in Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, and it's just, yeah, it's a very well executed and calculated ambition and I feel like we would stand a lot to stand to gain a lot if we had a coordinated approach to technology diplomacy. But again, it's hard to do that if you're still fighting battles back in the US itself.
Speaker 3:It seems to me and you said USG earlier for all of our listeners at home that's the US government. I believe I'd be curious. You know, I feel like and I haven't given this as much thought as you have I feel like, especially in emerging tech, especially in these frontier industries, there is more global flexibility than ever before. Like you can run a lot of these businesses, you can start new businesses, you can bring on talent around the world and for many of them, of a certain vintage, because, to be honest, I mean I got to think about it a little bit, but I don't think you'd see companies in the US that have started in the last four or five years. Right, you're generally talking about firms a little bit more mature than that. I think a lot of them have given serious thought to going abroad or to even like there are opportunities in Singapore, there are opportunities in Korea, there's opportunities in London, all of them driven by the ambiguity around any number. I mean, like crypto is, I think, a strong example.
Speaker 3:You can make this case around AI.
Speaker 3:I mean I'm in San Francisco and I mean some of the issues being debated in Sacramento are kind of of a similar like, not existential, but certainly like a you know, a meaningful change to your business and how you operate. Like, how do you see it I'm just picking up on your point about you know, the firms that are in the US or operating in the US today have a difficult road for a number of reasons. The firms outside the US that want to come won't come for basically the same reasons. Right, like, how do you see sort of the like a little bit of the of maybe the irony, I guess, or the tension, to your point about the US government standing behind our firms abroad and increasingly, like in some cases, within the US, like this ambiguity feels, like it's restraining. You know all of the benefits that we touched on. You know all of all of the benefits that we touched on, and then, as well, a lot of, like potential innovation or potential startup activity that couldn't be here but isn't for various reasons.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I mean, I think there's like a whole menu of items that you need for a vibrant startup ecosystem and, to be fair, when we meet with lawmakers around the world, they often say, like we want to recreate our version of Silicon Valley. So if you are, if you're, if you're a leader though like there is kind of only one right now there are ambitions to replicate. But for that, but because of that menu, which includes kind of like access to talent, you know, like really qualified breeding institutions for lack of a better word like you know, you have stanford, obviously, and cal uh, go bears, hold on.
Speaker 3:Just want to make sure we get that in there. Okay, great bears beat bc.
Speaker 2:Yeah, we covered that earlier, all right um, right, so you have an, a number of of those kind of like feeding institutions, academic incubators, if you will access to capital. I mean, come on, that's pretty unparalleled as well, compared with a lot of other places Like there is an ability within the context of the US to kind of start anything. I mean, that's so uniquely having lived overseas, no-transcript right to say that if in these new emerging and kind of frontier areas there is a reticence or even a potential hostility toward them, that that that could potentially open the door for innovation to be conceived and built out of other places. Um, I also believe that, like, if and when we get our our stuff in order and we start to pass legislation that provides clarity for um, for emerging tech, that the gravitational pullback to the US for those who have left will just kind of yeah, it'll just, I think there'll be a boomerang effect, right. So if folks do leave, for whatever reason, they feel as though the uncertainty is just too persistent that those unique qualities I think will prevail.
Speaker 2:But it is important not to kind of squander the moment, and I think it's also important to recognize the possibility of sort of unifying and bringing together the benefit of a distributed workforce and everything that you've alluded to, elliot, because it's true that you can hire really great talent out of a lot of places outside of the US and they can work together with folks in San Francisco or Texas or New York or wherever, and so it doesn't have to be a us versus them sort of dynamic. But it is interesting you do see, like leaders and parties and politicians across the extent it has in the US and like almost any other jurisdiction, and I don't think that that's even true within the US. I think it's almost a generational divide as opposed to kind of a partisan divide. But you do see kind of a broad appreciation of the importance of, you know, of inviting these technologies in and to grow and thrive from within in most parts of the world. I'm pretty optimistic that we'll meet the moment at the right time.
Speaker 1:It may be a question to either one of you Are you starting to feel that shift already? I mean, I am encouraged, not only on crypto, with, like the fit 21 vote you know, earlier this year, the US Congress we saw a lot of Democrats, you know, really start to move that way. I think we're seeing Harris not not sprint towards, you know, a new position on crypto, but certainly not be pulled at the same time by kind of the Warren wing of the party to automatically be anti. And I'm watching Schumer do a lot of work on AI and I thought the Biden administration took it seriously enough and started in the right way. I still think we're behind, don't get me wrong, but I'm starting to feel like I don't want to call it rock bottom, but the turning point where we start to win back and move back towards bipartisanship has started to happen, and it started to happen this summer and hopefully we'll see some good results in November that keeps it heading that way.
Speaker 2:Are you feeling that? And, elliot, I'm curious your thoughts world, but I, where I saw the most momentum, was actually in Washington, and so that was really encouraging and it's it's like there's fit 21. But then also, you know other legislation in the Senate that I think indicates a willingness to actually collaborate on. You know bipartisan bill for industry, so that's great and that, you know, obviously speaks to more the crypto side of things. So yeah, candidly, like I think the thing that I'm nervous about is that if there's kind of a one side public embrace of technology, of the emerging tech, and let's like choose crypto and the sort of like Trump embrace of crypto, of the of emerging tech, and let's like choose crypto and the sort of like trump embrace of crypto and the and the family project that we alluded to earlier, every project that the trump organization has um, has shipped, if you will, has in some ways potentially like scammed users and consumers, and our industry is so much more than that.
Speaker 2:There are bad actors. It would be catastrophic for one of those bad actors to be a presidential candidate and their affiliated families right Like that could set us back in ways that FTX collapsing and kind of other key moments have. So that, to me, is like that makes me a bit nervous, and it's not to say that that project isn't, you know, completely sound. I don't think there's enough kind of information on it since it was just released, but I'm keeping an eye out because there's the policy element, which is important. We need to protect consumers and we need to create clarity for companies to grow. And then there's kind of like the personal gain side of it that we're seeing emerge. And yeah, that gives me a lot of pause as a Democrat, even at the root of our politics.
Speaker 1:We just are so much in the game of if certain figures on either side touch it and say it's good, then the other side has to say the opposite right, that it's bad, that's also true, that's also true, right, like, even the embrace itself creates this kind of interesting tension.
Speaker 2:But like again, if something were to happen with that platform, can you imagine, and how are you going to get sort of the unconvinced of the Democratic Party to then embrace the industry as a whole for all of the reasons they should, for all of the issues that we've talked about? That that makes me nervous. That's why the, the partisanification is, I think, potentially harmful as a whole. The politicization is good. Look at this emerging tech as a political issue. We all use the internet, we all have bank accounts where a lot of people are frustrated with the current systems. Like that's fine to talk about. But, yeah, it'll be interesting. Time will tell and I hope I'm, I hope my like, nervousness and apprehension is misguided, but I don't know, elliot, if you have.
Speaker 3:Well, I hadn't thought that you, you beat me to a great point, which is I had I had not considered elevated political profile of specific projects also increasing like tail risk events, right, and I think that's, uh, it's an excellent point. Again, like you know, we'll, um, I'm sure they'll put out their white paper here shortly and we'll get to diagnose the uh tokenomics of the project and so on. I think, um, I think, broadly for me, I, you know, I'm, I'm cautiously optimistic. I think I think there's a turning point here where the knee-jerk reaction to new or to innovation, specifically in the Democratic Party, feels like it has begun to ebb. I think a lot of Democrats and I don't agree with this view, you know, as a blanket statement I think a lot of Democrats think they missed the boat on prior big tech adventures of one kind or another. I think, you know, I think that's also probably misinterpreting a lot of the benefits and a lot of the innovation that has come out of those big firms, not just emerging firms, of those big firms, not just emerging firms. I get the strong sense that, you know, increasingly there is just a little bit more opportunity to make the case for why.
Speaker 3:I mean, you know, look no further than whomever I mean Richie Torres, right? Or Wiley nickel, or like, like, I'm not a politician, okay, okay, but these guys think this is good politics and right, exactly, it seems to be right. I mean, I mean, I just like I can't, I can't, I can't, I can't say anything they haven't already said on the congressional record about the benefits of some of these technologies. Right, I mean, look no further than whomever zoe lofgren or nancy pelosi on ai. I mean, I just to me, like you know, I don't have anything more interesting to say than what the Speaker de Merida has already said.
Speaker 3:You know, like I think some of these things, there is a meaningful opportunity to not just reinforce American leadership, but also to make sure that we're harnessing these benefits for everybody and that we are able to use this new tech, these emerging, you know I love, you know, frontier technology, like, like that we are able to use that in a way that is a substantial improvement to the status quo. And it's like, to me it's not rocket science. I just don't, I don't, I don't think, like, look, my mom teaches seventh grade english. Okay, like, chat, gpt is not going to teach those kids to write an essay like I, just I it could. It could write an essay, yes, but it's not going to replace the skill of writing an essay. I mean, I don't know, brian, this is more of a academic issue in your household than it is in mine, but I, I just.
Speaker 1:Luckily, the middle schooler hasn't found it yet.
Speaker 3:Well, after he listens to this, the game is over. But look, I think there's a real opportunity and I think Democrats are increasingly coming around. Like all, new tech starts with disruption, right. So it's just a matter of who can tolerate a little bit of that disruption against the status quo and ultimately harness the benefits. And I think that the kind of free market ideology, for one reason or another, has dominated that lane.
Speaker 2:And I think Democrats increasingly see that it can be a really like advantageous on like as part of a stump speech to talk about like the success of American companies. It's a very select few that care about that issue. But like theoretically, like the success of American companies and ideas benefits our country as a whole, especially if our system is set up to ensure that to be true, right?
Speaker 2:And so I do feel like there is this sort of zero-sum rhetoric around emerging tech, where it can either harm society or take advantage of consumers, if successful, but at the same time, having rules of the road that ensure appropriate regulation of, let's say, ai and crypto to protect consumers, to protect institutions, but also to enable successful US firms, is net beneficial and the technology is going to persist. We're going like builders are going to build, say, and so it is. It is incumbent to create those, to create those guardrails, and to also ensure that, when doing so, we're allowing for kind of successful innovation. And, yeah, that's something that you know be great to see more out of the Democratic Party and communicated in the appropriate way, right, because it does seem like sometimes there are camps that you know almost speak to not wanting like the success of business right.
Speaker 2:And like just just just like we reclaimed freedom, because that for a long time, like waving the American flag, was like something you only saw at one party's rallies you're seeing this patriotism kind of like infuse into the party. I think similarly like embracing kind of success in a successful economy. Small business owners individuals are key to that. So are successful American businesses. It's all part of the tapestry and just like owning and championing that while making sure that the rules protect users and are fair, I mean that to me, is the best way forward.
Speaker 1:I was at a fundraiser a couple of nights ago for Harris in my personal capacity, not as my podcast host, but they got asked this.
Speaker 1:It was a couple of our longtime staffers and they got asked this question and the answer was pretty close to where you were just saying it was. You know, she understands. You know, having been the senator from California, having been attorney general, she understands kind of the importance of those technology hubs and what it means for the economy and innovation. But she's going to always ask, you know, what does it mean for workers and what does it mean for consumers? What does it mean for our going back to kind of our competitiveness? How's it going to help our economy? How's it going to help us, you know, globally continue to compete for the best and the brightest and have the best companies in the world and the best workers in the world, et cetera. So I do think again there's kind of this hopefully continuing shift happening a little bit in the Democratic Party that you know, when we get out of our little corners of Twitter and I have my own too, it's not just. You know the kind of crypto bashing that happens pretty regularly.
Speaker 2:Yeah regular.
Speaker 3:Yeah, I think you hit on something pretty profound, though, brian, which is that the only happens once in a while the experience yeah, no, I, I sorry I meant to say, you actually hit on something pretty profound, which is that, um, her background in california and look, I let me just take my full boosterism here Okay, like there is a global nature of the California economy full out. That's across tech, that's across agriculture, that's across talent, that's across, and I think there's no doubt I mean, of course, in 2024, we would never dare call anyone a globalist. That's not what we do anymore. We would never dare call anyone a globalist. That's not what we do anymore.
Speaker 3:I do think that there's something core and less insular by default to having seen some of the benefits that these major global firms and these new disruptors and innovators can bring to an economy. To me, that is something that I think is probably underappreciated in the kind of background story, right, and I think has a major. I mean, katie, you mentioned like we could do another hour on why more people should appreciate successful American businesses, but you know, it's kind of a field from where we are today. But I think, like you know, and I think you see this in a in a totally different or maybe inverted way, right Is like how we take a lot of that for granted and um, and probably, you know, getting back to the kind of core of it, like we shouldn't, because there's there's no reason why, eventually, we won't be a leader in some of these places, some of these, you know, uh, some of these industries, with some of these firms in some of these industries, with some of these firms.
Speaker 2:Yeah, I agree, and I think that it's interesting because we do have people kind of travel through a lot from the US and they ask, like what we're seeing in Asia. And I was recently in conversation with a number of congressional staffers who are coming through Singapore and we are talking about kind of semiconductor industry and the Chips Act and you know, obviously it's like old school tech very kind of important and existential to frontier tech right Like those things also are not mutually exclusive and it's really interesting because you can. I think that bill is really important and it kind of signals a reckoning and a lot of folks talk about kind of the missed opportunity of a semiconductor and the concentration of kind of the supply chain issues into a few markets outside of the US and what that means. And COVID shone a light on what kind of exposure risk you have when you don't have industries on shore At the same time. And it's hard because the US is at scale.
Speaker 2:I live on a tiny kind of city state and I knew mom not cycling a lot.
Speaker 2:I would cycle around here all the time and like do multiple loops around the country Cause there was not enough real estate for um, for one of my, one of my workouts, like so to affect change here is really different and it's there it's.
Speaker 2:It's impossible to compare, but there are like kind of bespoke lessons about how we can think about embracing, you know, new tech and embracing sort of even traditional tech and service up. And one thing that I think the Singapore government's done a really good job of is getting their kind of a long-term planning, have an inclination toward long-term planning. There's an ambition to like build out the island and to accommodate more people and I look out at the sea, but they're going to create a whole nother island in 50 years, so we won't even be, you know, like really long-term view. So that end long-term view around sort of employment, resilience and looking at, with AI kind of coming to the fore and with the services industry being so crucial here financial services, tech manufacturing, services how do they create a resilient workforce? And like pre-skilling not just re-skilling but pre-skilling. I just coined that pretty pretty good.
Speaker 3:I love that.
Speaker 2:Thank you so much.
Speaker 1:Not a cost.
Speaker 2:Thank you. Yeah, pre-skilling their workforce so that they have that you know, they're insulated from the potential kind of ramifications that people think about when it comes to AI but also so that they can harness. It's really interesting. I don't know the exact number, but I want to say it's something between 15 and 18% of NVIDIA's revenue comes from Singapore as a distribution hub, from this tiny nation state, right, and so they're really thinking about how they can align, you know, personnel and economy to the way of the future.
Speaker 2:And there's no reason why we shouldn't do that in the US and I know we've talked a lot about like California and the like but there's no reason why we shouldn't be thinking about kind of reskilling and preskilling our workforce, aligned with emerging technology. And so it goes back to like when I talked about tech diplomacy, like you have to get it right at home first. Same thing with how we embrace technology and see it as an opportunity at home. You have to like move past this. Should we embrace it? Should we like regulate it to death rhetoric, find a way forward and then start to kind of cultivate the right environment so that it actually does benefit people outside of these like centers of elitism that we've, that we've talked about so far. So there are a lot of lessons to learn once you get kind of past the polarization of politics.
Speaker 1:Well, I was just going to say I think everything you just described there is bipartisan Right, the preschool Right, upskilling so there is there is a lot right, the pre-skilling, up-skilling, so there is a lot of opportunity there. So, unfortunately, I think we need to leave it there. I'm seeing the alarm clock go off here, but I'm going to end stealing another one of your lines, katie, from the article, which is you know, we need to continue to do our parts and to make tech fun again, and I think, like these conversations and some of what you're talking about, they are getting, you know, members and other influencers excited about pre-skilling, upskilling, innovation, what we can do globally. I think, hopefully, we continue to see this shift in that direction. But I really want to thank you for coming on. This was a fascinating conversation and I'd love to have you back on in a couple of months as we talk about agendas for next administrations. So we'll find another time to do that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, thanks, guys. It was lovely to chat with you.
Speaker 1:Thanks and to all our listeners, remember to like and subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts. Follow us on Twitter X at PentaGRP and on LinkedIn at PentaGroup. Additionally, you can hear more from Katie by subscribing to her newsletter, the Worldview on Substack. I'm your host, brian, with my colleague Elliot, as always. Thanks for listening to what's at Stake.