4 ms·

In medicine you'd call that cancer, so, yeah... Maybe we need something more sustainable than growth for the sake of growth. Also if we're globally maxed out,

In medicine you'd call that cancer, so, yeah... Maybe we need something more sustainable than growth for the sake of growth. Also if we're globally maxed out, I think an economy is 'temporal zero sum', if that makes sense: you grow now by borrowing but pay back in the next recession? Totally not an economist though.

dnautics 7y ago
The beauty of free markets (not sure if I'd call it capitalism) is that even if you're resource zero-sum, free markets can still experience growth, by seeking more efficient redistribution of those resources given individual preferences.
- harimau777 7y ago
  As I understand it, free markets determine preferences based on price. However, the price someone can buy something for includes both their desire to pay and their ability to pay. Therefore, I'm not sure that price is always a good metric for allocating resources. Do resource zero-sum, free markets still reliably experience growth from the perspective of someone who doesn't view price as a good measurement of value? If so that would potentially be useful because it could allow more progressive leaning and more libertarian leaning people to find some common ground.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    If you pay for something it means that your value for the money is less than the value of the satisfaction you believe you will get out of it. Money does not magically create an equivalence class of value across all items of the same price.
- aSplash0fDerp 7y ago
  >by seeking more efficient redistribution of those resources given individual preferences. Whats the difference between the wealthy and the rich? ---Freedom Whats the difference between the rich and the poor? ---Nothing Its hard to know if they're talking about AI or the economy when they start using words like manipulation, distortion, smoke-n-mirrors and illusion.
- duxut_staglatz 7y ago
  Once the best allocation of currently existing ressources have been implemented, then there would no longer be any growth.
  - dgellow 7y ago
    The demand is dynamic though. Even if you have right now an ideal implementation for resource allocation that won't necessarily match future demand.
    - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
      It seems far fetched to assume that people's preferences will change just in the right way that there is always increasing welfare from the same basket of goods.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

dnautics 7y ago

The beauty of free markets (not sure if I'd call it capitalism) is that even if you're resource zero-sum, free markets can still experience growth, by seeking more efficient redistribution of those resources given individual preferences.

harimau777 7y ago
As I understand it, free markets determine preferences based on price. However, the price someone can buy something for includes both their desire to pay and their ability to pay. Therefore, I'm not sure that price is always a good metric for allocating resources. Do resource zero-sum, free markets still reliably experience growth from the perspective of someone who doesn't view price as a good measurement of value? If so that would potentially be useful because it could allow more progressive leaning and more libertarian leaning people to find some common ground.
- dnautics 7y ago
  If you pay for something it means that your value for the money is less than the value of the satisfaction you believe you will get out of it. Money does not magically create an equivalence class of value across all items of the same price.
aSplash0fDerp 7y ago
>by seeking more efficient redistribution of those resources given individual preferences. Whats the difference between the wealthy and the rich? ---Freedom Whats the difference between the rich and the poor? ---Nothing Its hard to know if they're talking about AI or the economy when they start using words like manipulation, distortion, smoke-n-mirrors and illusion.
duxut_staglatz 7y ago
Once the best allocation of currently existing ressources have been implemented, then there would no longer be any growth.
- dgellow 7y ago
  The demand is dynamic though. Even if you have right now an ideal implementation for resource allocation that won't necessarily match future demand.
  - duxut_staglatz 7y ago
    It seems far fetched to assume that people's preferences will change just in the right way that there is always increasing welfare from the same basket of goods.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]