5 ms·

How is Hawking all of a sudden an expert in Economy? Wasn't he a physicist?

by sktrdie 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago
He is a physicist which means he likely understand the concept of feedback loops. It only takes so much STEM education to start noticing some worrying trends. Also, Hawking probably reads other smart people, including economists. It's not as if he first noticed this problem. It's only that if you're famous, media actually report on what you have to say.
- AnthonyMouse 11y ago
  The problem is that when you only understand half the issue, you start shouting "down with capitalism" instead of "down with corporate corruption of governments and international trade agreements negotiated in secret by unelected representatives", and there is no sensible alternative to capitalism as an economic model, but there are sensible alternatives to government corruption and unaccountability.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Yes, but another problem is that when you are too deeply involved with the minutiae of the system you lose track of the big picture - it's not corruption or trade agreements that's going to doom us, the real issue is with feedback loops embedded in the basic idea of profit maximization and growth economy. You may have zero corruption and perfectly honest people and market economy will still screw you over. Our system was pretty good for bootstrapping humanity into a technological era, and was pretty well aligned with our shared values for a time, but now it's becoming less and less well-aligned, in dangerous ways. In the end, with robots capable of doing anything, trying to keep people working for a living is prima facie ridiculous and evil. We need a way to avoid this future, and focusing just on new ways to solve government corruption isn't, I think, going to help us with this much. We need to stop riding the feedback loop. C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ for some pretty good analysis of the problem
    - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
      I don't buy the argument that automation breaks capitalism. The predominant cost of almost everything is labor. As things become automated, costs go down. Food costs less, housing construction costs less, local production costs less so demand for fuel is reduced, mining and recycling cost less so raw materials cost less, etc. The reduction in the amount of work available is proportional to the reduction in the cost of everything, so the wages from fewer hours of working buy more stuff. Everything is fine until we literally get to zero, which may not even be possible, and if it is then we're living in Star Trek fantasy land where everything is free and anyone can just press a button to get whatever they want. The only real trouble is unemployment as a result of demand for labor not matching the skillset of the labor pool, but solving that is hardly rocket science. Large grants for education (and food and housing for students). Send everybody back to school until they're qualified to do the jobs that still exist.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Even if things in fact balance out in the way you described, the problem is that it takes too long. The market has intertia. Sending everyone to school for retraining could be good idea if not for the fact that those people who have years of training ahead of them need food now. Since they're unemployed, they won't have money to buy it and they will die a horrible death. Unless, of course, you propose for the public to feed them through the process, at which point we've got basic income, so we may as well get rid of the retraining part entirely.
        AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > Unless, of course, you propose for the public to feed them through the process, at which point we've got basic income, so we may as well get rid of the retraining part entirely. Why are we getting rid of the retraining part? We still need people to be qualified to do those jobs. Obviously we don't need to separately subsidize food and shelter specifically for students if we have a basic income, and a basic income is a Good Idea. But it isn't Not Capitalism. By all accounts it's more aligned with capitalism than the ridiculous system of "subsidies for everything but not if you get a[nother] job" that we have now.
  - nhaehnle 11y ago
    Except that in the long-term endgame of automation, capitalism (or, to be more precise and less labelly, the private ownership of the vast majority of capital in the hands of a minority) really is the problem. I've expanded on this a bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10369466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10369466 That said, this is a discussion about the endgame of automation. In the current state of affairs, I absolutely agree with you that the unreflected "down with capitalism" one occasionally hears is counter-productive. You just also have to be aware that the endgame of automation is quite likely a qualitative change instead of only a quantitative one, and will require some serious re-thinking of economic models.
steveklabnik 11y ago
People often make comments outside of their areas of expertise. Even Hawking, who's said some disappointing things in the past about philosophy, for example.
- fwn 11y ago
  It's probably a flaw of public attention that fame isn't linked to the field it is gained in.
Confusion 11y ago
You don't have to be an expert in economy to be able to say sensible things about capitalism, like you don't need to be an expert in biology to be able to say sensible things about evolution or need to be an expert in meteorology to be able to say sensible things about the weather.
codingdave 11y ago
He simply responded to a question on a reddit AMA. Which was then re-posted on reddit, with the new title, which editorialized what was said. And that new title was used on the article linked here. I don't know that anyone is claiming any expertise at all - this is just how things get emphasized and repeated online.
- fwn 11y ago
  > I don't know that anyone is claiming any expertise at all - this is just how things get emphasized and repeated online. So he probably just didn't answer smart enough to not get exploited for a political agenda. I feel sorry for him since Hawking the physicist is probably much more enjoyable for the greater public than Hawking the armchair economist.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    There's no smart way of answering that will help you if you're famous. People are going to cut and edit the quote in any way imaginable in order to have your name associated with the message they want to print.
    - fwn 11y ago
      Well, fair enough. He didn't even use the word capitalism, just "redistribution". ..which is a common effect in even the smallest transaction. The headline is pretty stretchy.
collyw 11y ago
That would seem like a reasonable point until you look at he track record of profesional ecconomists.
cjsthompson 11y ago
Since economics is mostly a load of unscientific rhetoric and rationalizations to justify maintaining the status quo, a physicist is probably better qualified to predict the obvious outcome of the idiotic monkey dominance game he witnesses.

How is Hawking all of a sudden an expert in Economy? Wasn't he a physicist?

by sktrdie 11y ago

How is Hawking all of a sudden an expert in Economy? Wasn't he a physicist?

He is a physicist which means he likely understand the concept of feedback loops. It only takes so much STEM education to start noticing some worrying trends. Also, Hawking probably reads other smart people, including economists. It's not as if he first noticed this problem. It's only that if you're famous, media actually report on what you have to say.

AnthonyMouse 11y ago
The problem is that when you only understand half the issue, you start shouting "down with capitalism" instead of "down with corporate corruption of governments and international trade agreements negotiated in secret by unelected representatives", and there is no sensible alternative to capitalism as an economic model, but there are sensible alternatives to government corruption and unaccountability.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  Yes, but another problem is that when you are too deeply involved with the minutiae of the system you lose track of the big picture - it's not corruption or trade agreements that's going to doom us, the real issue is with feedback loops embedded in the basic idea of profit maximization and growth economy. You may have zero corruption and perfectly honest people and market economy will still screw you over. Our system was pretty good for bootstrapping humanity into a technological era, and was pretty well aligned with our shared values for a time, but now it's becoming less and less well-aligned, in dangerous ways. In the end, with robots capable of doing anything, trying to keep people working for a living is prima facie ridiculous and evil. We need a way to avoid this future, and focusing just on new ways to solve government corruption isn't, I think, going to help us with this much. We need to stop riding the feedback loop. C.f. http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ for some pretty good analysis of the problem
  - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
    I don't buy the argument that automation breaks capitalism. The predominant cost of almost everything is labor. As things become automated, costs go down. Food costs less, housing construction costs less, local production costs less so demand for fuel is reduced, mining and recycling cost less so raw materials cost less, etc. The reduction in the amount of work available is proportional to the reduction in the cost of everything, so the wages from fewer hours of working buy more stuff. Everything is fine until we literally get to zero, which may not even be possible, and if it is then we're living in Star Trek fantasy land where everything is free and anyone can just press a button to get whatever they want. The only real trouble is unemployment as a result of demand for labor not matching the skillset of the labor pool, but solving that is hardly rocket science. Large grants for education (and food and housing for students). Send everybody back to school until they're qualified to do the jobs that still exist.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Even if things in fact balance out in the way you described, the problem is that it takes too long. The market has intertia. Sending everyone to school for retraining could be good idea if not for the fact that those people who have years of training ahead of them need food now. Since they're unemployed, they won't have money to buy it and they will die a horrible death. Unless, of course, you propose for the public to feed them through the process, at which point we've got basic income, so we may as well get rid of the retraining part entirely.
      - AnthonyMouse 11y ago
        > Unless, of course, you propose for the public to feed them through the process, at which point we've got basic income, so we may as well get rid of the retraining part entirely. Why are we getting rid of the retraining part? We still need people to be qualified to do those jobs. Obviously we don't need to separately subsidize food and shelter specifically for students if we have a basic income, and a basic income is a Good Idea. But it isn't Not Capitalism. By all accounts it's more aligned with capitalism than the ridiculous system of "subsidies for everything but not if you get a[nother] job" that we have now.
- nhaehnle 11y ago
  Except that in the long-term endgame of automation, capitalism (or, to be more precise and less labelly, the private ownership of the vast majority of capital in the hands of a minority) really is the problem. I've expanded on this a bit more here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10369466 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10369466 That said, this is a discussion about the endgame of automation. In the current state of affairs, I absolutely agree with you that the unreflected "down with capitalism" one occasionally hears is counter-productive. You just also have to be aware that the endgame of automation is quite likely a qualitative change instead of only a quantitative one, and will require some serious re-thinking of economic models.

steveklabnik 11y ago

People often make comments outside of their areas of expertise. Even Hawking, who's said some disappointing things in the past about philosophy, for example.

fwn 11y ago
It's probably a flaw of public attention that fame isn't linked to the field it is gained in.

Confusion 11y ago

You don't have to be an expert in economy to be able to say sensible things about capitalism, like you don't need to be an expert in biology to be able to say sensible things about evolution or need to be an expert in meteorology to be able to say sensible things about the weather.

codingdave 11y ago

He simply responded to a question on a reddit AMA. Which was then re-posted on reddit, with the new title, which editorialized what was said. And that new title was used on the article linked here. I don't know that anyone is claiming any expertise at all - this is just how things get emphasized and repeated online.

fwn 11y ago
> I don't know that anyone is claiming any expertise at all - this is just how things get emphasized and repeated online. So he probably just didn't answer smart enough to not get exploited for a political agenda. I feel sorry for him since Hawking the physicist is probably much more enjoyable for the greater public than Hawking the armchair economist.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  There's no smart way of answering that will help you if you're famous. People are going to cut and edit the quote in any way imaginable in order to have your name associated with the message they want to print.
  - fwn 11y ago
    Well, fair enough. He didn't even use the word capitalism, just "redistribution". ..which is a common effect in even the smallest transaction. The headline is pretty stretchy.

collyw 11y ago

That would seem like a reasonable point until you look at he track record of profesional ecconomists.

cjsthompson 11y ago

Since economics is mostly a load of unscientific rhetoric and rationalizations to justify maintaining the status quo, a physicist is probably better qualified to predict the obvious outcome of the idiotic monkey dominance game he witnesses.