3 ms·

This whole debate seems philosophically sloppy. The rate of return on capital investments, the pace of technological change, the disposable income of ordinary p

This whole debate seems philosophically sloppy. The rate of return on capital investments, the pace of technological change, the disposable income of ordinary people, and subjective quality of life are all different things that are only loosely related. But if we throw around the word "progress" without carefully defining it, we might imagine they're all the same thing.

nabla9 11y ago
The central issue is economic growth, not some wague "progress". You should read Gordon's research paper, not articles about them if you want more rigor. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315 >Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative "exercise in subtraction" suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades.
- TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
  Which just makes the point - growth is a meaningless statistic if it's not widely distributed. A more accurate statistic would be median disposable income, as a proxy for general economic self-determination - and that's been on a steady downward slope since the 1970s. The tragedy is that there's plenty of physical work that could be done, outside the pointless confines of Web 2.0. The US and the rest of the West needs better energy distribution grids, smart everything, renewable power, and mitigation against climate change. A lot of the existing infrastructure, including surface transport, is barely fit for purpose. Improved education at all levels is an easy win. And so on... None of this is likely to happen within current economic and political narratives. So yes - the US and the West do not have a bright future, unless the narratives change.
ProAm 11y ago
I think you can consider them all the same thing in the scope of macroeconomics. They are so closely tied together change in one will inevitably reflect in the other.
roymurdock 11y ago
Definitions and stated assumptions are huge. This is why macroeconomic arguments on HN tend to devolve to claims of "strawman" this "red herring" that, often ending in outright hostility and vitriol when the two combatants might agree with each other if the argument were framed properly.

nabla9 11y ago

The central issue is economic growth, not some wague "progress". You should read Gordon's research paper, not articles about them if you want more rigor. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18315 >Even if innovation were to continue into the future at the rate of the two decades before 2007, the U.S. faces six headwinds that are in the process of dragging long-term growth to half or less of the 1.9 percent annual rate experienced between 1860 and 2007. These include demography, education, inequality, globalization, energy/environment, and the overhang of consumer and government debt. A provocative "exercise in subtraction" suggests that future growth in consumption per capita for the bottom 99 percent of the income distribution could fall below 0.5 percent per year for an extended period of decades.

TheOtherHobbes 11y ago
Which just makes the point - growth is a meaningless statistic if it's not widely distributed. A more accurate statistic would be median disposable income, as a proxy for general economic self-determination - and that's been on a steady downward slope since the 1970s. The tragedy is that there's plenty of physical work that could be done, outside the pointless confines of Web 2.0. The US and the rest of the West needs better energy distribution grids, smart everything, renewable power, and mitigation against climate change. A lot of the existing infrastructure, including surface transport, is barely fit for purpose. Improved education at all levels is an easy win. And so on... None of this is likely to happen within current economic and political narratives. So yes - the US and the West do not have a bright future, unless the narratives change.

ProAm 11y ago

I think you can consider them all the same thing in the scope of macroeconomics. They are so closely tied together change in one will inevitably reflect in the other.

roymurdock 11y ago

Definitions and stated assumptions are huge. This is why macroeconomic arguments on HN tend to devolve to claims of "strawman" this "red herring" that, often ending in outright hostility and vitriol when the two combatants might agree with each other if the argument were framed properly.