I don’t know how else to describe this article by Richard Florida (recommended with reservations by Stephen Karlson).

In the later 20th century, the pace of creativity quickened while the profit from routinized production plummeted. A new version of capitalism began evolving in which creativity was not just perennial but constant, in which rapid-fire innovation and continuous improvement were the norm. The United States surged to lead this emergent system.

Florida lambastes both Democrats and Republicans for protecting incumbent industries (Hollywood in the case of the former, airlines and steel in the case of the latter).

In spite of this Austrian diagnosis, Florida then proceeds to argue for an important role for government and collective action. For example,

we must make increasing the number of creative jobs and opportunities the guiding principle of national economic policy

For Discussion. How could government policy affect the distribution of job opportunities between “creative” and “non-creative” work? Would this necessarily be a good thing for government to do?