Hm, can you explain how you see Moore&#x27;s Law as relevant? It talks about the number of transistors on a chip, or at least most generally about the technical performance of a computer system; it does not address the actual contribution to the economy &#x2F; to productivity &#x2F; to society by transistors.<p>In fact, by the markets-are-generally-good-at-things hypothesis, and the generalization of Moore&#x27;s Law that computing power <i>that can be obtained at equal price</i> is growing exponentially, we have a good reason to believe that the exponential growth of technical performance is not contributing at all to productivity.<p>An uncharitable interpretation would be that most of the gains in technical progress have been lost to rent-seeking by the developers of ever-more-complicated frameworks and operating systems and UIs; while the ability to be productive on Google Docs today is higher than the ability to be productive on Office 95, it does not seem to be 2^(20 years&#x2F;18 months) = 10,000 times higher. But nobody would put up with Office 95 today, for entirely artificial reasons.