N Magazine: What do you make of the aesthetics of the Obama library? 

Rubenstein: The architect [Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects] is a famous architect, and it’s an architect that has done some things for me as well, so I may be biased. I realize that architectural critics have not fallen in love with it, but I would remind people that when the Eiffel Tower was built, people thought it was the worst monstrosity ever constructed. Many of the greatest buildings ever built are not beloved at the time they are initially started, and the reason is that it takes a long time for people to see that something unusual is really quite creative. Yes, there have been architectural critics, and The New York Times and others have criticized the design of the library, but I think it’s difficult to make a lasting commentary on a new building within a week or two weeks. It takes time. The Eiffel Tower, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial and the Jefferson Memorial were all heavily criticized when they were opened—all of them. Moving to artificial intelligence, there are those who feel AI is a threat to their future and the value of their education, while others believe it will create enormous economic opportunities. 

N Magazine: What is your broad feeling about AI’s impact on the American worker? 

Rubenstein: First, I wish I had been prescient enough to invest in those companies early on, but I was not. Second, at any time new technology comes along, people are always alarmed that they’re going to hurt society and create unemployment. When the industrial revolution started in the mid-1700s in England, people were very worried that all of the new manufacturing techniques were going to produce unemployment, but as we’ve learned through the industrial revolution and [more recent] technologies—radio, television, the internet—when new technologies come along, humans adapt. Today, I think it’s unclear to say how many new jobs will be created by AI, or whether college students, when they get out of college, will have a job that’s as good as [those available] five or 10 years ago. It’s too early, because we’re still in the beginning of the AI revolution. However, it’s my view that if you go back to the last 1,000 or 2,000 years of history, when new technologies have come along, it’s generally enhanced humankind and generally made human life better.

N Magazine: How transformative is AI? Is it on the scale of the industrial revolution? 

Rubenstein: The industrial revolution started in England, and then it spread to the United States and other parts of the world, but it took 100 years-plus to spread. When the internet came along, it took maybe 15 to 20 years to spread. Now that AI has come along, it takes about a year or so. I think it’s going to have a very significant impact in a shorter period of time than the industrial revolution did, or that television or radio did. Because we adapt to things much more quickly and because we’re in global communication mode, people in Africa, Latin America and Asia are going to be able to have the advantage of AI to some extent. It’s going to have a good impact in the end. 

N Magazine: For investors, what is the next big thing? 

Rubenstein: I think there are three things. Number one, quantum computing. Quantum computing has always been said to be down the road of 10 to 15 years, but we now have a lot of quantum companies, and even the current Trump administration is investing in quantum because they see it’s going to have a significant impact. The second is fusion. We’ve always been saying fusion is 10 to 20 years down the road, but now in Massachusetts and other places, fusion facilities are being built, and I have invested in some of these companies. Fusion will be a major thing. Third is the residue of CRISPR and things relating to biotech. 

N Magazine: What is the biggest challenge to the economy right now? 

Rubenstein: I think we have a big amount of debt, we have an aging population, we have a divide in the country in terms of political points of view. I also worry about environmental degradation, and I think we haven’t really dealt adequately with the problems of climate change. 

Then you have the last challenge, which is this: If you go back through 3,000 years of history, it’s been very rare for a civilization to dominate the world for a very long period of time. Now, things move more quickly than they did 1,000 years ago. [The United States government] has been the dominant economic, military and geopolitical power for the last 75 to 100 years—a dominant geopolitical, military, cultural and technological power. The idea that we can continue that for another 250 years, I think, is a little bit hard to believe. The population will be very significant going forward. Our population is not growing at a very rapid rate because of the aging population and a lack of immigration. We are not reproducing ourselves. A population reproduces itself when women of childbearing age have 2.1 children, on average. Our number here is 1.6. The only way you can get to 2.1 through replenishment is with immigration, and our immigration has gone down. So, other countries are going to be more significant 50 years from today or 100 years from now because their populations are increasing at much more dramatic rates than ours is. 

The United States is still the greatest country in the world. I wouldn’t move to any other place. If I was an immigrant, I would be happy to have moved here, but you can’t say that for another 250 years, there’s a guarantee—if you look at history— that [we] will be as dominant in the world as we are today.

N Magazine: Is China that country? 

Rubenstein: I think China has a population issue as well. Because of their one-child policy, they are not going to grow. Their population is going down. India has a younger population, and India could well be a much more significant country globally, militarily and geopolitically than it is today. But we’re talking 50 to 100 years from now. I think the United States is still going to be significant, because it does have a large population [even though] we’re not growing at that significant rate, and we have a lot of technological advantages. As Warren Buffett has often said, nobody’s ever made any money shorting the United States or betting against the United States. But when you’re looking at our next 250-year celebration, it’s hard to believe the United States can stay at the very top to the same extent we had it in the first 250 years. I hope we do. I would love if we did, but I just don’t know that it’s guaranteed based on looking at history. 

N Magazine: You acquired the Baltimore Orioles in 2024. What is your biggest surprise in owning a professional baseball team and what is the most fun aspect of owning the team? 

Rubenstein: The ability of an owner to affect the team’s play is infinitely more limited than the ability of an owner in virtually any other industry to impact performance of the underlying investment. Money can help but does not ensure performance to the extent that might be desired. The most enjoyable part of ownership has been reconnecting with friends and relatives from Baltimore whom I had seen much less regularly than I do and can now, and the delight of the fans at some of the ways we have improved the game-day experience. 

N Magazine: What makes you most optimistic about our prospects over the next 20 to 30 years? 

Rubenstein: We have a highly educated population. We have the leading universities in the world. We have a good political culture. It’s not as good as I would like it to be, but we have the rule of law, and to me, the rule of law is one of the most important things that has worked well for this country. We really believe in law, we believe in the legal system, and I think that’s provided a lot of stability. I also think that we have an entrepreneurial spirit in this country that is really second to none of any significant-size country. Our entrepreneurial spirit, the value we place on education and the great educational institutions we have, I think are going to sustain us well for many, many years in the future. I feel optimistic about all of that, and I feel optimistic that Nantucket will still be a significant place 250 years from now. 

N Magazine: We have seen a recent trend of socialists elected to mayoral and Congressional positions. Are you concerned about the trend and what it could mean for the political and economic direction of the country?

Rubenstein: I don’t know if I would call it a trend. A mayor of New York City was elected and three primary proponents of his were elected. The country has resisted socialism for several hundred years. Socialism was started in the 1800s in Europe and traveled to the United States, but never took hold in the United States. Leading up to World War II when we were in the Great Depression, there was pressure to change the economic model of the United States, but that pressure never took hold successfully. When we emerged from World War II, the socialist view as represented by Norman Thomas, who ran for president six times, did not catch on. I think capitalism and the so-called American way of life— which has not had socialism at the core of it—has never caught on in the United States. 

What you have here is a blip. Remember, about 7% of eligible voters in the New York primary vote in the election—a very small percentage of people. In primaries of municipal elections and city hall elections and mayoral elections, you get a small turnout. I wouldn’t get all that excited about it. Clearly, if everybody in Congress was a socialist, you would have a different country, which isn’t the case and it’s not likely to be the case.