9 ms·
>"A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer" ...A world where everyone's mother is a prostitute would be considerably more economically active. It
by ephor 8y ago
>"A world of free movement would be $78 trillion richer"
...A world where everyone's mother is a prostitute would be considerably more economically active.
Its a shame the economy is seen as a end rather than a means.
- narrator 8y agoA world where we printed $78 trillion dollars and gave it out to whomever would also be $78 trillion dollars richer.
- dwaltrip 8y agoThat isn't how it works. Inflation is a thing.
- rory096 8y agoNo idea why this is getting downvoted, as you're entirely correct (obviously). OP is talking about real economic growth as massive amounts of wealth are created. A change in the money supply would create nominal growth, but no change in the underlying quantity of wealth. For those confused as to the difference between the two, reread pg's essay on How to Make Wealth. http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html
- narrator 8y agoYeah, but the writer of the article doesn't get that either.
- ipsocannibal 8y ago^^^^^^ I would also like to ask to whom would the majority of that increase in wealth go? I would argue it wouldn't be to the people doing the moving. It would be to the people driving them to move.
- davnicwil 8y agoSupposing this is true, does it matter, if the overall size of the pie increases? Isn't everyone better off? Would you rather the poor stay poor so that the rich don't get richer?
- ipsocannibal 8y agoI think all you have to do is look at modern American income disparity in the United States over the last 50 or so years and you have your answer. Sure, the poorest did become moderately better off financially in terms of wages. Yet did there quality of life increase? I would argue that the size of the pie is irrelevant past the point of what is required for basic survival. What truely matters is the relative size of the pieces. Especially in a country where we have equated money with speech.
- UncleEntity 8y ago> Yet did there quality of life increase? You seriously think poor people's quality of life hasn't increased in the last 50 years? Go drive around "working poor" neighborhoods right after Christmas and see how many huge flat-screen TV boxes are curbside waiting for "big trash day" (small hint: a lot) or see how many people don't have smartphones. I would argue that Wallyworld did more to bring up the standard of living for poor people than the last 50 years of social engineering but I know how much people like the downmod button...
- ipsocannibal 8y agoI think you confuse the proliferation of techno-toys with quality of life. The same could be said of the proliferation of radio, automobiles, etc.
- UncleEntity 8y agoIf they have the disposable income to purchase "techno-toys" then obviously they have the means to support their basic needs. I'm actually curious what quality of life metric you're judging by that's declined in the last 50 years?
- jimmaswell 8y agoSomeone quoted something on this site a while ago to the effect of "a measure that becomes a goal is no longer a good measure"
- teddyh 8y agoThat’s known as Goodhart's law.