3 ms·

So the core thesis of the book is that long term growth is a moral imperative. The main critique in the review is that the book is not actionable, since it's h

So the core thesis of the book is that long term growth is a moral imperative. The main critique in the review is that the book is not actionable, since it's hard to know in advance what will lead to growth. I'm not sure the critique makes sense. It's valuable to have a policy north star from an ethical perspective. Although it's hard to know what will lead to long run growth, at a minimum it's possibl to know what will destroy growth.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
hoaw 8y ago
If that is the conclusion I think it is correct. It has been shown time and time again that countries become successful not by being productive as such, but by not being unproductive. The most important factors for success are: 1. Staying out of wars, disputes and conflicts. 2. Economic and social equality. 3. Functional society and industries. Essentially all countries who do badly fail at that. They are involved in conflicts, they have hierarchical societies and their industries are administrative, rather than technological. So now you might ask, what about the US? It is certainly involved in wars, have inequality and dysfunctional society. Right, but mainly for part of society. The middle class and upper middle class have mostly been spared from any effects of that, at least until recently. Which means that this part of society is very successful.
igor47 8y ago
> at a minimum it's possibl to know what will destroy growth. can you name a few of the things we definitely know will destroy growth? i'm asking because i hear "this will destroy growth" as an argument against policies i like (e.g.: a 70% marginal tax rate, controls on pollution) and i often think this is FUD.