2025 Letter

Reception and Dan Wang’s Work

• Many readers strongly recommend the author’s China book as one of their best reads of the year; praised for balanced China–US comparison and deep dive into infrastructure and “how we build.”
• Several found the 2025 letter long but compelling and unusually information-dense; others bounced off early due to perceived Bay Area boosterism or cultural stereotyping.
• Some see him as intellectually honest and among the sharpest Western observers of China; others think his takes on Europe and wealth are weaker and more ideological.

China vs. US Strategy and Industrial Capacity

• The line about Beijing preparing seriously for a Cold War while the US wants one without preparing resonated widely.
• Commenters argue the US lacks a coherent industrial plan, cycling between weak reshoring efforts and protection of inefficient incumbents; some frame current US policy as pure oligarchic or personality-driven.
• Others counter that the US “framework” (less centralized planning) still enables long‑run outperformance, though this is hotly disputed.
• Several highlight China’s “breakneck” manufacturing speed and scale (EVs, solar, batteries, broader hardware), arguing many sectors have reached “escape velocity” and are now structurally hard to dislodge.

AI, Silicon Valley Culture, and Meritocracy

• The portrait of Silicon Valley as humorless, socially narrow, and “autistic” drew mixed reactions: some found it refreshingly accurate, others thought it lazy or stigmatizing.
• Debate over whether the Valley is “the most meritocratic part of America”: critics point to extreme credentialism via elite employers and YC; defenders say prior work is a reasonable proxy for merit.
• Some readers think he mishandles AI risk discourse (misusing “Pascal’s Wager,” not engaging seriously with catastrophic-risk arguments) and note AI doom talk is also a powerful fundraising and national‑security narrative.

Europe, Growth, and Degrowth

• His depiction of “smug,” anti‑growth, backward‑looking Europe provoked strong pushback, especially from Europeans who say he flattens major regional differences and overgeneralizes from London/Denmark.
• Supporters say he’s right that parts of Europe are complacent, hostile to entrepreneurship, and electorally attracted to degrowth.
• Large subthread over whether economic growth is aligned with broad welfare: one side cites 200 years of rising life expectancy and living standards; the other emphasizes externalities, wealth concentration, and that Europeans may rationally trade GDP for social protections and livability.

Housing, Inequality, and Wealth Concentration

• Long digression on London/UK: high house prices vs middling wages, comparisons to California and Mississippi, and whether the UK is “seriously broken” or just differently broken than the US.
• Disagreement over root causes of housing unaffordability: restricted supply and NIMBY zoning vs. financialization, absentee landlords, investor demand, and policy‑driven asset inflation.
• Broader concern that productivity gains since the 1970s and upcoming AI-driven gains will not accrue to the median worker, feeding a “wealth singularity”; others argue global inequality is actually falling and wealth concentration is a separate, addressable policy issue.

Zero‑Covid and the CCP

• From the book and letter, some infer that the CCP is willing to impose enormous costs (one‑child policy, Zero‑Covid) on citizens and is preparing for a world partially cut off from the West to enable a Taiwan move.
• Zero‑Covid is contested: some call it a tragic overreach and human‑rights disaster that outlived its usefulness; others insist early results (low official death toll) look better than Western “clusterfucks,” while acknowledging the late phase became a major policy failure.

Meta‑Critiques of the Letter

• Several note a quality split: nuanced on China/industry, more glib or caricatured on Europe and on cultural judgments (Bay Area social life, “Asian‑American modes,” “Germans as obedient,” etc.).
• Some worry that both the letter and parts of the thread underplay global wealth concentration and systemic fragility, focusing on which bloc “wins” rather than where the “brick wall” is.