4 ms·

I find myself in agreement with most of the author's statements, especially regarding bitcoin and paper wealth. I also like the following statement -- "If our

I find myself in agreement with most of the author's statements, especially regarding bitcoin and paper wealth. I also like the following statement -- "If our policy makers are interested in boosting long-term structural U.S. GDP growth, they should be providing direct and targeted tax incentives for real investment, education, research & development, and other factors that could, over time, increase our nation’s productive capacity." Too bad our political system no longer has that capability, if it ever did. It seems tax incentives find their way to the most powerful factions instead of the most productive ends. Real Investment - too many parasitic factors. Education - too many parasitic factors. R&D - too many parasitic factors.

lmm 9y ago
Education is in a bubble of its own at the moment, partly because it's fun out of proportion to its economic value. We're churning out PhDs who then have nothing to do. "Innovation" tax incentives reward companies for registering patents, but if patents ever did reflect innovation that's long since fallen to Goodhart's law. Infrastructure investment is usually a good idea; so is direct government funding of real research, the kind that NIH or DARPA put out. But if, as the article claims, the biggest issue is the number of people in the labour force, then the best way to improve growth would be to ensure more people can participate in the labour force. That means encouraging things like public transport and flexible working hours, and finding a way to square our current approach to unemployment and medical insurance with the so-called gig economy (i.e. people working multiple part-time jobs). That would be win-win, and is unquestionably the government's area of responsibility.