Original Interview: Peter Robinson, Hoover Institution;
Guest: Marc Andreessen, Co-Founder of A16z;
Original Translation: Ashley, BlockBeats

Editor's Note: This interview delves into the evolution of technology and politics in Silicon Valley, Marc Andreessen's political shift from left to right, as well as his vision for using technology to drive social progress, the role of innovation in addressing energy challenges, and its role in border security and national defense.

The following is the original content (lightly edited for readability):

About Marc Andreessen

Peter Robinson: The New York Times called him one of the most influential thinkers in Silicon Valley, indisputably. Marc Andreessen, welcome to Uncommon Knowledge. I'm Peter Robinson. Growing up in the small town of New Lisbon, Wisconsin (current population 2,523), Marc Andreessen majored in computer science at the University of Illinois before moving to the West Coast.

In 1993, Mr. Andreessen co-founded Netscape, launching the first widely used browser, instantly making him a key figure in Silicon Valley. He has held this prominent position ever since. In 2009, Mr. Andreessen and his investment partner Ben Horowitz founded the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, which currently manages over $40 billion.

At Stanford University, Mr. Andreessen was involved in the Hoover Institution's Emerging Technology Review. Since last November's election, Mr. Andreessen has spent only half his time in Silicon Valley, with the other half at the Lake House, advising Donald Trump, along with his friends Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

Marc Andreessen: Thank you, Peter, I'm delighted to be here.

The Conditions for American Renaissance: Resources, Technology, and Global Appeal

Peter Robinson: Alright, Marc, let's start by watching a video clip.

Peter Robinson: That was in 1984, Reagan's re-election campaign ad. In the 1970s, there was economic stagnation, deteriorating Cold War status, the aftermath of the Vietnam War, and the Watergate scandal causing national humiliation. Then Reagan was elected, and by 1984, the economy began to expand. We started rebuilding the military, and patriotism was reignited. Although this video may seem a bit sentimental today, it was authentic enough for Americans at that time, leading to Reagan's landslide re-election victory in 1984 with 49 states to 1. A serious question: national renaissance, can we do it again?

Marc Andreessen: I think there's no reason why we can't. The key is whether we want to. I was a kid back then, 13 years old, with a vague impression of the situation when that video was released. But we can absolutely achieve it, I mean, look, we have all the prerequisites to do so. We have the people, we have the resources, we have geographical security. We have these capabilities. In fact, if you look now, we are the only major Western economy that is still growing. The economies of the UK, Germany, and Canada have stalled, or perhaps even shrunk.

Despite having many issues, we are still growing. We continue to be a beacon of capitalism, business, and entrepreneurship. The smartest people in the world still unquestionably want to come here. We are now leading the world in artificial intelligence. Furthermore, in the energy sector, almost every time there's news about America running out of a rare earth mineral or lithium resource, a farmer in North Dakota seems to discover a new deposit worth $20 trillion in their backyard. We seem to have unlimited natural resources. We possess overwhelmingly superior military power in the world. Despite our problems, we have all the prerequisites to achieve a golden age.

The Intersection of Technology and Politics: From the Silicon Valley Pact to the Democratic Pivot

Peter Robinson: The golden age, alright, we'll talk more about that later. In the meantime, you need to explain some things. Marc Andreessen's list of endorsed presidential candidates. This is all public information, I did some digging, Marc. Maybe you're trying to conceal some information, but I doubt you would, though these are still on the record.

Marc Andreessen: Wait a second, I need to go edit Wikipedia.

Peter Robinson: Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump.

Marc Andreessen: Had a brief Mitt Romney moment in the middle there. Yeah, the trajectory is that, from... I actually got into business in 1994, but I knew Bill Clinton and Al Gore, supported them in '96. Then, as you said, supported Gore in 2000, all the way through to Hillary in 2016.

Peter Robinson: Okay, from a very loyal Democrat to a MAGA (Make America Great Again) Republican, why is that? What happened? Did you change, or did things change? What changed in your thinking? I mean, a lot of people say, "It's not that I left the Democratic Party, it's that the Democratic Party left me." Ronald Reagan said that. So, both the environment and the thinking have changed, please comment.

Marc Andreessen: By the way, what's surprising is many key members of the Trump team are former Democrats. Trump himself was a former Democrat, Bobby Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard, and the list goes on. So, it's a widespread phenomenon. But in any case, we can discuss this phenomenon. I would describe it like this: I grew up in the Midwest in the '90s and have a very profound understanding and memory of the living environment there, which is the complete opposite of California. But I moved to California and fully integrated into becoming a Californian.

I would describe it this way: in the '90s, if you were in Silicon Valley, in the high-tech industry, there was a concept of a "Deal" with a big D. No one explicitly stated it, but everyone implicitly acknowledged this Deal. The Deal was this: you could be a high-tech entrepreneur, could create amazing technology, could build a successful company, could create a lot of jobs. Technology makes the world a better place. That's great, you take the company public, make a lot of money. And then you take the money out and donate it to charity. That was the complete trajectory. When you passed away, your obituary read: he was an entrepreneur and a philanthropist, his life...

Peter Robinson: Silicon Valley's Life Cycle.

Marc Andreessen: Life cycle. It's a great deal because you get to do what you love, find professional satisfaction, achieve material satisfaction from economic success, and finally achieve psychological and moral satisfaction through philanthropy.

Peter Robinson: And the government won't interfere with you. As an entrepreneur, you have enough space to do what you need to do.

Marc Andreessen: Yes. And you may remember, the Clinton-Gore administration was very supportive of high tech. I have countless stories from that period, one of which is I had the privilege of being involved in the first presidential webcast event. In 1996, I co-hosted the President's Town Hall Meeting on the Internet with Bill Clinton, which was a big deal at the time. After the event, he called me, very excited, thinking everything was great. Al Gore was also very supportive, and he later received a lot of mockery for the statement "I invented the internet."

Peter Robinson: He said he invented the internet.

Marc Andreessen: He didn't actually. His exact words were that he spearheaded the legislation in the Senate that created the internet, which is actually true. He founded the NSFNET in the '80s, which became the backbone of the internet. This also included the National Supercomputer Centers. I mention these because these facilities provided the necessary conditions for my research at that time. When I entered the University of Illinois, these infrastructures were already there.

Peter Robinson: Essential to your work.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, they were the prerequisites for everything that followed. So, I think Al Gore made a huge contribution in this regard. But the key point is, he always had great enthusiasm for technology and was a staunch supporter of it. Therefore, throughout the 2000s, despite the Democratic Party gradually turning left, Obama still generally supported high tech and American business. He liked what we were doing. And you may remember in 2012 when Obama was reelected, the media called it the first internet election or social media election. The headlines at that time were "Social Media Saved Democracy." Because social media helped Obama raise a lot of money online, defeating the "evil fascist Nazi" Mitt Romney. The media's coverage of social media at that time was almost entirely positive. Facebook was very helpful to democracy, and the whole phenomenon was great. At the same time, the Arab Spring was happening during that period, and media coverage of it was also generally positive. So until 2012, the situation was very optimistic.

Peter Robinson: You reminded me of something. I know someone closely connected to Mitt Romney, who is a Silicon Valley investor. Romney once said that the Obama team completely out-tech'd us, especially in campaign technology. The Obama team could provide volunteers with smartphone apps to ask five questions door-to-door. This way, they could know if the person already supported Obama (so no need to spend resources), if they were firmly in Romney's camp (again, no need to spend resources), or if they might support Obama (requiring more resources). And the Romney team had no similar tools at all. Because that was just not "cool" back then.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, absolutely. This actually goes back to the historical trajectory of Silicon Valley. Silicon Valley had a portion of Republican supporters during the "chip era" (1950s-1970s).

Peter Robinson: David Packard once served as Deputy Secretary of Defense under Richard Nixon, that's one example I remember.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, most of those people had retired by the time I got here. It also marked the transition of Silicon Valley from chips to software. By the time I arrived, pretty much everyone under 50 was a Democrat. This trend also foreshadowed the future direction of California. Everyone in Silicon Valley accepted that "pact." Almost everyone I know does. And, it's actually very heady because you get to be this highly praised tech founder. You get invited to the White House, the media loves you, everyone loves you. You donate to charity, and they love what you're doing. You go to Davos and Aspen to attend events...

And the government supports you as well. If you run into trouble, say something happens in a foreign country, or you have some weird tax issue, the U.S. government will actually step in for you. If there's some trade war or your goods are held up at a port, the State Department will intervene. So, the government is on the side of American business. And in hindsight, that's the trade the Democrats made in the '90s: they decided to support business. Bill Clinton got the Democratic Party out of the crazy state of the '60s and '70s, positioning the party as not being in a fight with capitalism every day. And it all worked very smoothly, this symbiotic relationship continued until 2012. However, after Obama's reelection, my experience is that from 2013 on, things really started to unravel.

Peter Robinson: So, how did you perceive this change? As I mentioned, you have been a key figure in Silicon Valley since the 90s, a celebrity, wealthy, and highly respected. In 2013, how did you sense the change? Did you notice that entrepreneurs were facing difficulties they hadn't encountered before during the investment process? Or was it something more abstract? Was it an atmosphere? Please describe how you felt in 2013.

Marc Andreessen: Looking back, I was at the forefront of sensing the change. At that time, I didn't fully understand what was happening, but I did feel it. The reason was my deep involvement with consumer internet companies of that era, especially social media companies. I was a board member of Facebook at the time, as well as an angel investor in Twitter and LinkedIn. I was involved in almost all emerging social media companies, understanding how they operated and knowing everyone in them. I was part of many crucial discussions. In 2013, employees began radicalizing. There was a wave of employee activism within companies. In hindsight, the reasons can be traced back to the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, the global financial crisis, and the Occupy Wall Street movement. A series of events in those years radicalized college students before they entered the workforce. These students flooded into companies between 2012 and 2014, activating slightly older colleagues within the company, who wanted to appear "cool" and "up-to-date." So, we saw a lot of...

Peter Robinson: All of this started with young people?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, it started with young people. For social media companies, the most specific manifestation was the controversy over hate speech and misinformation. At that time, the internet was like the Wild West; everyone loved it because its openness made everything possible. It was great, supporting democracy and freedom of speech. The Obama administration even promoted a global expansion of free speech. However, at the same time, they began censoring on American social media. It was a surprising reversal. Do you remember "net neutrality"?

Peter Robinson: Of course, I do.

Marc Andreessen: At that time, the left was aggressively pushing for "net neutrality," ensuring that large companies couldn't censor internet speech. Suddenly, the left's position took a 180-degree turn, supporting internet censorship, and the issue of "net neutrality" disappeared from the political stage. So, this whole slide actually began in 2013. I was present at many initial discussions within companies about hate speech and misinformation. Everyone was confident, thinking it was a very simple, clear-cut matter. Of course, it wouldn't lead to political censorship, but the actual situation was completely the opposite. This slide indeed started in 2013, long before Trump's election. Much earlier than the primaries and the general election.

Peter Robinson: Understood. So, what was your initial impression of Trump?

Marc Andreessen: You see, I read The New York Times, watch MSNBC, just like my peers. I was as shocked as most people at the time, "Goodness, this guy is outrageous!" He was a challenge to the "norm." At that time, I supported Hillary, as to me, "traditional bad" is always better than "radical bad." Hillary continued the Clinton legacy in policy, and Clinton was very supportive of technology and business. However, by 2018 and 2019, the tech industry started to get weird, which made me rethink. Especially in the past four years, it's been absolutely insane. If I wasn't clear in 2018, the past four years have completely clarified the direction for me.

DOGE: A New Attempt to Reform Federal Institutions

Peter Robinson: So, let's talk about DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency). Your friends Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are leading it, and you humorously refer to yourself as an "unpaid intern." In the 90s, I sat with Milton Friedman, and we discussed cabinet departments. He reduced the departments from 14 to four and a half. Elon Musk then retweeted that video with the caption "DOGE Agenda." Well, now I'd like to ask you about the DOGE Agenda, but let me reveal a little secret first.

In 1979, during Ronald Reagan's campaign, he called for the abolition of the Department of Education. The Department of Education had just been established in 1979. This wasn't some glorious legacy of American history; it was a brand-new federal institution. When Ronald Reagan took office, Ed Meese told me he went to Capitol Hill and found almost all Republican senators saying, "You can't do that." Within just a year, these senators had learned how to use this cabinet department to deliver benefits to their constituents. Now, they didn't want to abolish it; they wanted to protect it. So, what can you people actually achieve in DOGE? High emotions and great wisdom are about to collide with the realities of practical politics.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, you may also recall that the Clinton-Gore administration had an initiative called "Reinventing Government." Do you remember? There was a famous moment where Al Gore appeared on the then most popular late-night talk show host David Letterman's show. He had a $600 Pentagon unbreakable ashtray. The $3 ashtray cost $600 and was unbreakable, so it could be used in military areas. Of course, he put on safety goggles, took a hammer, and smashed it on Letterman's desk. He said, "Game over, we need to reform this system." But of course...

Peter Robinson: In the end, nothing happened.

Marc Andreessen: Well, give him a little credit, the budget did balance. They did achieve a budget surplus in a short period of time. So maybe something did happen. Reagan did some things, but if I remember correctly, the government was larger when Reagan left office than when he entered.

Peter Robinson: I can tell you some relevant information. Reagan, you know, one issue he faced was with something called the discretionary budget, which is the portion that Congress can vote on each year. The Pentagon is a big part of that. Reagan was able to control the growth of the discretionary budget to around 1% annually, which was essentially a slight cut when adjusted for inflation. But this required ongoing effort. What Reagan couldn't control was the non-discretionary budget. This portion of the budget was set in previous legislation and would grow automatically, beyond his or Congress's control. That would be a problem for you guys, right?

Additionally, I remember at that time there was also a Government Commission on Waste, Fraud, and Abuse established. J. Peter Grace was the chairman of the commission, a highly respected New York banker from a bygone era. He hired investigators to look into things and found a lot of absurd federal government spending. He found a national beekeeping program, which was only seen as waste from a businessman's perspective. However, from a politician's perspective trying to get reelected, these expenditures were very effective in buying votes. So, these plans hardly made any progress. Your current plan has been tried before, although I must say, this time the audacity is greater.

Marc Andreessen: And there's Elon's involvement, too.

Peter Robinson: Yes, Elon's involvement as well.

Marc Andreessen: First of all, let me declare that I am not a spokesperson for DOGE. Therefore, I will not speak for it. Elon Musk and Vivek are both very capable of speaking for themselves. Let me share my views. Yes, as you said, people have tried these things before. The challenges and issues you described are all real.

However, this time is different. There are three main threads here: personnel, spending, and regulation. Although they are related, they are separate threads. The recent Supreme Court ruling on executive power and the so-called "Chevron Deference" issue has intertwined these three. The Supreme Court has recently made a series of rulings that limit the power of administrative agencies to create regulatory regimes on their own. These rulings provide a legal basis for shutting down certain activities and institutions.

Peter Robinson: The media has hardly mentioned DOGE's attention to these Supreme Court rulings. Do you plan to leverage these rulings to return decision-making to Congress and the president, rather than federal agencies? This is a huge success, congratulations!

Marc Andreessen: Yes. Vivek deserves a lot of credit in this regard. He has openly discussed these issues and has gained support from legal scholars. A very strong argument is that if there is an agency that should not exist, or there are activities that the agency should not engage in, or some regulations it enforces are unreasonable, then it is actually necessary for the executive branch to cease those activities to comply with the Supreme Court's rulings. This is contrary to the usual assumption. This is not about some kind of radical reform; we are doing what we are explicitly required to do.

Peter Robinson: Just a shift in the burden of proof and the burden of proof.

Marc Andreessen: That's right, the burden of proof is completely flipped. Of course, so far, these Supreme Court rulings have not had any practical impact, but this is clearly because the previous administration had no interest in them.

Peter Robinson: They were more interested in changing the Supreme Court.

Marc Andreessen: That's right. However, this administration has the opportunity to address these issues differently. Peter, let me test you, how many federal agencies are there now?

Peter Robinson: I saw a statistic, around 127?

Marc Andreessen: Actually, it's between 450 and 500. There's a saying, I don't know if it's true, that no one actually knows the exact number of federal agencies. One reason is that there are too many of them, and new agencies are established every year. Another reason is that we now have many ambiguous agencies. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is a typical example.

Peter Robinson: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, established by Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Marc Andreessen: Correct, this agency is considered Warren's agency. It is nominally an independent agency supervised by the Fed.

Peter Robinson: She explicitly legislated that the President of the United States does not have the power to dismiss the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which on its face is unconstitutional.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, unquestionably unconstitutional. So far, this issue has not been fully resolved. But this is just the tip of the iceberg; the expansion and blurring of federal agencies are out of control. Some joke that the entire federal government system is an 80-year-old private monarchy evolved from FDR's New Deal, but without FDR's leadership. FDR expanded the federal government from a small supervisory entity to a massive bureaucracy through the New Deal. And this system has continued to expand, morph, and self-evolve over the following decades.

Peter Robinson: So, what is the DOGE team's plan regarding expenses, personnel, and regulation?

Marc Andreessen: Let me give you an example about personnel. Here's another question, do you know how many people are employed by the federal government?

Peter Robinson: I'd guess around 2.5 million to 3 million, including Pentagon personnel?

Marc Andreessen: Alright, so how many contractors are there?

Peter Robinson: That's not known, it's incalculable.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, no one knows the exact number. The figure is estimated to be much higher. I don't want to throw out numbers here, but it's estimated to be quite high. Now let's talk about another interesting fact, what is the current occupancy rate of the federal office buildings?

Peter Robinson: It seems to be around 25%, right?

Marc Andreessen: It's about 25%. Essentially, the federal buildings in Washington, D.C. now resemble a ghost town. The security agencies are still fully operational, but others are not. In extreme cases, employees of some agencies only need to come back to work for one day a month. And many of these agency employees are federal-level union members who during COVID negotiated collective bargaining agreements, some of which include provisions that allow employees to never return to the office.

Peter Robinson: So are these people considered true federal employees now? If they are not working in the office, are they still considered government employees?

Marc Andreessen: That's one of the issues. These are some of the threads that the DOGE team plans to address.

Peter Robinson: All of this is very exciting. However, DOGE is an advisory committee, I believe it was set up by the President as an advisory committee. It has a sunset date, it will end on July 4, 2026. I like these "sunset provisions." As long as it has to do with the federal government, I'm happy to see a "sunset provision." But the question is, how do you really get people to take action? Including Congress passing authorization legislation, including the President signing executive orders, or driving actual implementation?

Marc Andreessen: Let me give you an example. Congress authorizes spending by the executive branch, but is there a way to save on expenditures through some mechanism? Like the concept of "Impoundment." Can the President legally reduce spending approved by Congress?

Peter Robinson: That was a law from 1974 that removed that power from the President.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, that's the issue. The President is required by law to spend the budget approved by Congress and can't even spend less. This is not explicitly laid out in the Constitution but has become a major constitutional issue of the past 40 years. We can revisit this issue through the Supreme Court to restore this power to the President. This would be a crucial step if we want to achieve actual fiscal control.

Peter Robinson: So, from what you've seen, is the President interested in these issues?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, he is very supportive of it. He has explicitly expressed support for Elon and Vivek's work on DOGE and has given a green light to this effort.

Peter Robinson: So, does this mean that DOGE will provide a very concrete opportunity for national revitalization? Alright, let's move on to more technical matters for the next question.

Technical Innovation: Addressing Energy and Border Security Issues

Peter Robinson: 18 months ago, you published a 5000-word article titled "The Techno-Optimist Manifesto." Let me quote a passage from it: "We are told that technology has taken our jobs, lowered our wages, exacerbated inequality, and could destroy everything at any moment. But our civilization is built on technology. Technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement, the vanguard of progress, the realization of our potential. It's time to raise the banner of technology once again." Apart from being very well-written, not many people in Silicon Valley can write an article like this. I want to ask, on several specific issues, how should we raise the banner of technology?

First, I want to go back to the incoming President. At the age of 78, he grew up in an old-school community in Queens, New York, and his career started in real estate. This is a person who accumulated wealth by pouring concrete. Does he understand technology? Is he as passionate about technology as you are? Or is he simply willing to say, "Here are some important things, maybe this generation or my background doesn't quite grasp, but I'll let Andreessen and Musk handle it for me"?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, I would say that. He is a world-class expert in real estate and communications, both of which are his core skills. He excels in both areas, possibly being the first person to be world-class in both. The real estate industry has never been known for great communicators, but he excels in both. Due to his deep understanding of real estate and his involvement in the communications industry, he also has a very profound understanding of business. You know, in Washington, there is always someone lamenting, "There are many lawyers here, but almost no one has actually worked in the private sector." Very few have actually run companies, been accountable to investors, or had clients. And he is one of the most successful businessmen of our generation.

Therefore, these skills combined make him a very excellent systems thinker. In large real estate projects, many things can go wrong, there are many complex processes to coordinate. Additionally, there are technological changes to consider, such as the application of new technologies like solar energy, and many new management requirements. He is very good at managing this complexity. There was recently a widely circulated video about the California water resources issue. He provided a very accurate analysis of this systemic issue on Joe Rogan's show. This reminded me of his accurate prediction of the German energy crisis during his first term, where he boldly spoke his mind to the German diplomatic delegation at the United Nations.

Peter Robinson: He said, "You will rely on Russian energy, and that will be a disaster for you." And indeed it was.

Marc Andreessen: Yes. It was an extremely precise and forward-thinking analysis; he connected various issues within the system, pointing out the impacts of nuclear shutdown, water resource allocation issues, and the consequences of energy policy. He is very good at understanding these issues. Although I don't expect him to spend time researching and coding large language models, I believe he can understand these technical issues well and address them.

Peter Robinson: Alright, let's talk about energy. Over the past 25 years, the United States has had 104 nuclear power plants in operation, but today there are only 94. The average age of U.S. nuclear power plants is 42 years. How would a technological optimist respond to these figures?

Marc Andreessen: This was a huge tragedy in domestic policy during the Nixon administration. At that time, Richard Nixon foresaw the impending energy crisis and announced an initiative called "Project Independence" during his second term. He said, "This is ridiculous; we cannot rely on fossil fuels from the Middle East. It entangles us in various crazy diplomatic affairs. We need independence." He proposed to build 1000 new nuclear power plants by the year 2000, completely relying on nuclear energy generation. This was not just energy independence but also a green revolution with zero carbon emissions. Nuclear power plants only produce a small amount of easily manageable waste, making it a completely green solution. However, the Nixon administration also established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which ultimately hindered the implementation of the Independence Plan.

Peter Robinson: So, a plan that could have changed everything was shut down.

Marc Andreessen: Yes. These institutions halted the implementation of the independent plan.

Peter Robinson: I once had a bold idea. The U.S. has been building nuclear submarines since 1955, which means we have been using small nuclear reactors for six or seven decades. These technologies are very mature, so much so that they can be operated by 19-year-olds. This technology is owned by the American taxpayers. Why haven't we utilized these technologies?

Marc Andreessen: I completely agree with your point. The U.S. Navy can train 19-year-olds to be nuclear engineers, have them stay on submarines for six consecutive months, and there has never been a nuclear accident. This demonstrates the safety and reliability of the technology. Furthermore, these military reactors are exempt from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, providing insights for the proliferation of civilian technologies. If we can use these military nuclear energy technologies for civilian purposes, there will be tremendous potential.

Peter Robinson: Okay, so can we say that we already have the technology to solve many problems, and we just need to liberate these technologies and let the market operate freely?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, we know exactly what to do. Moreover, compared to decades ago, today we can build safer and more efficient new nuclear power plants. One idea of mine is to revive Nixon's independent plan, build another 1000 new nuclear power plants, and fully realize his vision. However, to make it more politically acceptable, we can hand the project over to Charles Koch. He is a staunch supporter of the free market and a very successful entrepreneur. He will execute the project well and satisfy environmentalists. This way, everyone can get the results they want.

Peter Robinson: Well, I'm not sure how much support this proposal would receive, but it's an interesting idea. I'd like to expand on this theme of "technological optimism" and see what other problems we already know how to solve. Next is the border issue. During the Biden administration, U.S. Customs recorded 11 million border crossings, with about 2.5 million individuals being released into the U.S. for processing. At the same time, the government also acknowledges around 2 million "absconders," meaning that at least 4.5 million people illegally entered the U.S. during Biden's four years. Additionally, I noticed that Donald Trump only built 80 miles of new border wall during his first term, mostly just repairing or reinforcing existing barriers. So, aside from all this, don't we have technologies like ground sensors and drones to effectively control the border? Of course, the U.S. has the technology to address border issues. Isn't that right?

Techno-Optimism's Answer: Examining Future War's Tech Trends from the Ukrainian Battlefield

Marc Andreessen: Let me tell you a story about Anduril. We invested in a company called Anduril. The founder of this company is a super genius, a real-life Tony Stark—Palmer Luckey. He's a modern-day Howard Hughes, a true "Iron Man." He's a super genius. We've known him for a long time because he was the founder of Oculus, which was later acquired by Meta. We were investors in Oculus, so we know him very well. Palmer used the money he made from Oculus to start Anduril and launched this company with a group of partners.

In 2016, when Trump's "Build the Wall" slogan reached its peak, Palmer emerged. He said, "I know how to solve the border problem. We can establish a mesh network at the border for monitoring through sensor towers and drones." He proposed the fusion of sensors to integrate data from multiple sensors onto one screen, real-time tracking of cross-border individual behavior, and providing rapid response capability.

Peter Robinson: If there's a problem, can you dispatch personnel or drones promptly?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, exactly. Furthermore, this technology is not only used for border enforcement but also for rescue operations. For example, if someone is lost or near death at the border, you can quickly find them with a drone, deliver water and food to them, or even perform a rescue. Another issue is child trafficking. If you see two adults with twenty children, that's clearly worth investigating. Through sensors and drones, you can better understand these situations and respond quickly.

Peter Robinson: So Palmer's technological solution is entirely feasible.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, these technologies are entirely feasible. However, at that time, amidst the political fervor of "Build the Wall," Palmer's proposal did not receive attention from the Trump team because Trump was, after all, a real estate developer...

Peter Robinson: He wanted a physical wall.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, he wanted a wall. And even to this day, he's still adamant about it. However, this time he might succeed because he now knows how to do it. But Palmer didn't give up; instead, he redirected these technologies towards military applications. For example, at a remote military base in Afghanistan, you would encounter similar border security issues. He leveraged these technologies to develop defense systems for the military, including sensor networks, drones, and data fusion technology, used to protect military bases.

Then, a very interesting thing happened. Palmer had long been a solitary figure in Silicon Valley, portrayed as a "fascist Nazi" with almost no supporters. However, everything changed drastically on February 24, 2022, the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Suddenly, the liberal-minded individuals in Silicon Valley began to view Palmer as a hero. This was because they believed, "We absolutely must not defend the southern border of the U.S., but we must defend Ukraine's border at all costs." It was a truly perplexing double standard.

Palmer's company has grown into a highly successful defense company. In fact, he has not only excelled in defense systems but has also developed offensive weapon systems. The technological needs on the Ukrainian battlefield turned his theories into reality, and his technology has been widely applied in drone tactics.

Peter Robinson: The Ukrainian youth operating drones repelled the Russian Navy in the Black Sea, which is indeed a remarkable achievement.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, they also used these drones to destroy main battle tanks. The Ukrainian battlefield is full of innovation and learning opportunities.

Peter Robinson: This leads me to a broader question. If we continue to uphold the "Tech Optimist Manifesto" mindset, our long-term advantage will be technological innovation. Faced with adversaries like China, our only sustainable advantage is the rapid development of technology. So, does the U.S. Department of Defense have the capability to connect with innovators in Silicon Valley and find talent like Palmer Luckey?

Marc Andreessen: Let me tell you some good news: the newly appointed Deputy Secretary of Defense is Steve Feinberg. Steve Feinberg has been a longtime leader at Cerberus Capital Management. He is one of the world's top corporate operators. He previously led the President's Intelligence Advisory Board during Trump's first term. His background and abilities make him well-suited for this position.

Marc Andreessen: He is outstanding. He is one of the most suitable individuals for this position in decades. He understands the needs of the defense sector very well and is also very familiar with the potential of technological innovation. Moreover, there are many excellent talents willing to join the new government's team. The learning curve of this war has just begun. We have already seen how the battlefield in Ukraine has undergone significant changes through technological innovation. Next, potential conflicts in China or other regions will accelerate this change even further.

Peter Robinson: If a conflict really breaks out in Taiwan, how close can US aircraft carriers get? I recently asked a Navy admiral this question. His answer was that all US aircraft carriers must maintain a safe distance of at least 1000 miles. In other words, China has pushed its defense perimeter outwards by 1000 miles. Whether it's hypersonic weapons or drones, these technologies force us to reexamine traditional military strategies.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, these issues need to be addressed very quickly. Especially in drone technology, we are just beginning to explore its potential. Most of the drones you see in Ukraine today are low-end consumer drones. But in the future, drones will become more sophisticated and can be manufactured in higher numbers. What you see as one drone today may be a scenario of 1000 drones appearing simultaneously in the future. Faced with an attack of 1000 drones carrying explosive devices, what can a warship do? What's even more surprising is that Ukraine is even using modified jet skis as weapons. Ukraine has used modified jet skis to engage in attacks against the Russian Navy fleet. They have converted commercial jet skis into suicide unmanned boats. These innovative technologies demonstrate the importance of learning and rapid adaptation in war.

Peter Robinson: This reminds me of a famous general's quote: "War is a process of testing who can learn faster."

Marc Andreessen: Yes, one of the unique aspects of the military is that during peacetime, they are in training and preparedness, but there is no actual customer. There is no real market feedback, so you don't know if your preparation is effective. However, once a war breaks out, a rapid learning process is immediately initiated. Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza are all going through this process. If China takes any action, this learning will accelerate rapidly. For example, there is currently a lot of discussion about whether surface warships are still effective. Because the development of hypersonic weapons and drones is changing the nature of warfare. Military theories of the past few decades may need to be completely rewritten.

Peter Robinson: I recently read that the role of modern aircraft carriers in conflicts may be completely redefined. Many military strategists have begun to question the survivability of carriers on the future battlefield.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, carriers and other large surface vessels are facing significant technological challenges. The development of hypersonic weapons, drone swarms, and automated weapon systems is disrupting our understanding of traditional warfare.

Peter Robinson: So, do you think these issues can be addressed through technological innovation? Can technological optimism provide answers to future military issues?

Marc Andreessen: I firmly believe that technological optimism can provide answers. We still have some of the smartest people in the world, especially in the field of tech design and development. But we need closer collaboration between the government and the tech sector. The new administration is already attempting to bridge this gap. We have seen talents like Steve Feinberg enter the Department of Defense, which is a very positive sign. In the future, we need more tech innovators like Palmer Luckey to join the defense sector.

Peter Robinson: But the issue is that the United States is a democratic country, and we tend to have delays in policy decisions. How do we rapidly respond to the rapid development of technology in such a system?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, the strengths and weaknesses of a democratic system are very apparent here. A democratic system can ensure greater transparency and accountability, but it can also lead to decision delays. In the face of rapidly changing technology and international situations, we need a new level of flexibility. Luckily, the new government is working towards pushing for faster decision-making mechanisms. Especially with the rapid advancement of technology, we need to break down the barriers between government and the private sector.

How to Achieve Economic Growth: Leveraging Technological Innovation to Enhance Productivity is the Only Way Out

Peter Robinson: The issues you mentioned are very important, but let's change the topic. You, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, and other "technological optimists" are driving government reform. Will this bring about economic pains? For example, when we talk about downsizing the government, what about the federal employees who will lose their jobs? How do we handle it when technological developments replace some professions?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, these are all important issues. Every technological change brings about short-term unemployment and industry transformation. Over the past few decades, technological innovation has created numerous new professions, but has also replaced many old ones. However, if we do not drive technological progress, then we will fall into a zero-growth economic state. In a zero-growth economy, politics becomes a zero-sum game, as the only way to allocate resources is to take from one group to give to another. Economic growth is the only way to address these issues. High productivity growth can create more wealth, more opportunities, and greater social stability.

Peter Robinson: So, is economic growth and technological advancement the key to solving societal problems?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, absolutely. We need high productivity growth. This is the sole driver of economic growth. If we can achieve rapid technological innovation and productivity gains, then society will experience prosperity and stability.

Peter Robinson: Alright, let's go back to your point. You mentioned that productivity growth is key. We are currently facing a very dire fiscal situation. You know, when Ronald Reagan took office, the federal debt as a percentage of GDP was about 32%. Today, that ratio has reached 122%. Is economic growth sufficient to address such a severe debt issue?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, this is indeed a huge challenge. The current debt situation is even worse than what you described. The federal debt is now increasing at a rate of $1 trillion every 100 days. This is a staggering number, and this growth rate is accelerating. Thomas Massie, an MIT-educated engineer and one of the few libertarians in Congress, has created a debt clock that can display the real-time growth rate of the debt. Recently, he told me that he needs to redesign the clock as it needs to add another digit to show the scenario when the debt crosses $100 trillion. The 122% debt-to-GDP ratio you mentioned will actually continue to climb. This is not just a numerical issue; it will have significant impacts on the actual economy, such as a vicious cycle between interest rates and inflation.

Peter Robinson: The federal government's interest payments now exceed the Pentagon's budget.

Marc Andreessen: Yes, that is the problem. As debt grows, interest payments will further squeeze other budget items. Even worse, the pressures of inflation and rising interest rates will only accelerate this cycle. We must find a way to address this issue. Economic growth is our only way out. Productivity growth is at the core of achieving economic growth. If we cannot drive technological progress to enhance productivity, the nation's fiscal situation will only deteriorate further.

Policy, Application, System: How to Win in the US-China Game

Peter Robinson: So, when facing a more competitive opponent like China, can our economic growth provide enough resources to support national defense and technological competition?

Marc Andreessen: This is a key question. China is a very complex adversary. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China's economic size is massive and has become a crucial part of the global supply chain. Take the drone market, for example, China has nearly monopolized the global consumer drone market. Over 90% of US military drones rely on Chinese-manufactured parts. This is not just a market dominance issue; it is an entire supply chain ecosystem controlled by China.

Even more concerning, a similar situation is unfolding in the automotive and robotics fields. China's electric vehicle market is already globally competitive, with their product prices being only one-third or even one-fourth of Western competitors. Next, robot technology may also be dominated by China. This poses a dual threat to our economy and national security.

Peter Robinson: It sounds like China is already ahead in multiple key areas. How can we respond?

Marc Andreessen: We need to reassess our technology policy. First, we need to protect and develop our own supply chain, especially in strategic areas such as drones, electric vehicles, and robots. Second, we need to accelerate the pace of technological innovation and application, which requires closer collaboration between government and the private sector. Third, we need to systematically review the nation's overall technology strategy. Currently, the government's technology policies are very fragmented, even contradictory. We need a 'whole-of-government strategy' to clarify our technological priorities and resource allocation.

Peter Robinson: So, are you optimistic about future technology policy? Do you believe that the government and the private sector can come together to address these challenges?

Marc Andreessen: Yes, I am optimistic about this. Especially in the new government, we have seen some very positive signs. Leaders like Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are driving technological policy reform. I believe that as long as we can focus on technological innovation and productivity enhancement, we can address the current fiscal and economic challenges. At the same time, this is also the only way to ensure that we maintain our lead in global technological competition.

Peter Robinson: This reminds me of your "Statement of Technological Optimism." In the last part of the article, you talk about how "technology is the glory of human ambition and achievement." Could you please read a paragraph from it for us?

Marc Andreessen: I would be honored. Let me find that paragraph... Okay, this is my favorite passage:

"We believe in the romance of technology, the romance of industry. Trains, cars, electric lights, skyscrapers, microchips, neural networks, rockets, split atoms... all of these convey the passion and charm of technology. We believe in the spirit of adventure, in the hero’s journey, in defying the status quo, in exploring unmapped territories, in slaying dragons and bringing back the loot to the village.

We believe that we have always been and will always be the masters of technology, not slaves to it. To be a victim of technology is a curse, a mindset that is both unnecessary and self-defeating. We are not victims; we are conquerors.

We believe that America and its allies should be strong, not weak. Economic, cultural, and military power all stem from technological power. A technologically strong America is a force for good in this dangerous world. We believe in greatness."

Peter Robinson: Marc Andreessen, thank you very much for your time.

Marc Andreessen: Thank you, Peter, it has been a very enjoyable conversation.

Peter Robinson: Thank you all for watching the program "Uncommon Knowledge" produced jointly by the Hoover Institution and Fox Nation. See you next time!

「Original Article Link」

欢迎加入律动 BlockBeats 官方社群：

Telegram 订阅群：https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram 交流群：https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Twitter 官方账号：https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia