5 ms·

There is no philosopher involved, in this case there is the wealth expended to produce an item. In your idealized example both parties are better off but the on

There is no philosopher involved, in this case there is the wealth expended to produce an item. In your idealized example both parties are better off but the one that traded the item and took less effort to make it is comparatively better off. He will have advantages in future trades which will further increase. Not to mention a bigger voice in societal structure. (which is a tldr; of the article) Anecdotally you met some college kids whom you perceived as not understanding economics. But the knowledge of increasing wealth inequality and the current deficiency of private investment is uncontroversial. Regardless of what the impression those kids gave, there number of techniques to address it and _increase_ GDP through the stimulus.

roenxi 7y ago
Increasing the GDP is really easy, the government can pass a law adding a zero to all measures of money (so $10 becomes $100). Reducing inequality is also easy, confiscate people's wealth. The real problem is "people are not secure in their lifestyle" which is not addressed by the first solution and is probably exacerbated by the second. People getting antsy about inequality as a final problem instead of a symptom of another issue are not going to find their way to solutions that increase prosperity.
- TomMckenny 7y ago
  How would printing money improve the GDP anymore than just lying about the figures? And since no one is suggesting that, I think it's kind of a straw-man. But surely these can't seriously be the best rebuttals to the paper: that straw-man, anecdotal opinion about college campuses and physics professors and a statistics joke about, but certainly not refuting, the elephant curve. I really can't tell if these arguments are genuinely considered valid or is this just a semi-polite troll technique to shout down unpleasant information.
  - roenxi 7y ago
    The GDP would be 10 times higher. It wouldn't be a lie. If the government wasn't completely blatant about it maybe store owners would only raise their prices by 9.95x and there might be a real GDP boost as well. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it a straw man? Not so much compared to what is done in practice. When people seriously say that the policy is to "stimulate the economy" they mean incentivising people to consume rather than save. This has a positive effect on the economic figures but it is madness to believe it is setting up a better future; because setting up for a better future generally involves saving in the present. > And since no one is suggesting that... I haven't seen anyone propose a plan to tackle wealth inequality that doesn't involve confiscation and redistribution of some form or another. The argument is over whether that is appropriate or not. As for GDP it is generally accepted that setting up a free market and leaving it alone maximises the GDP. There is lively debate about whether than is the best outcome. There is a serious argument that lower-than-maximum GDP with resource redistribution to the poor is better - which is what happens in practice. > certainly not refuting, the elephant curve There is nothing to refute. Inequality is not a problem - people can't even detect inequality! Nobody has a gut feel for it and the average level of mathematical intuition isn't high enough to understand the charts. Certainly people can't suffer because someone else has it really easy. People suffer when their lifestyles deteriorate and we should be focused on preventing that. That is a completely different problem and one that actually deserves attention. The living standards of poor and middle class people is a real and ongoing issue that should be focused on. It does not matter if dealing with that makes the rich ricer. And in that context, the elephant curve can reasonably be interpreted as a massive success story that we can all be proud of as millions are lifted up to a better standard of living.
    - TomMckenny 7y ago
      >The GDP would be 10 times higher. It wouldn't be a lie. That would mean Venezuela, top in the world for printing money, has the highest GDP growth. Zimbawe and Argentina would be next.[1] In the event one might claim they are, here[2] is the actuall GDP growth rate by country. >As for GDP it is generally accepted that setting up a free market and leaving it alone maximises the GDP. The highest per-capita GDPs are in exactly those countries which monitor and adjust the market, for example the Scandaniavn countries. And in the US, the period 1945-1980 saw vastly more regulation and taxation than 1980-today yet vastly greater growth. So evidentilly, modest regulation and taxition and zealous anti-trust enforcemnt are actually good for an economy. Far from generally accepted, very few economist disregard all evidence and assert zero regulation means maximum growth. > Inequality is not a problem - people can't even detect inequality! The existence of inequality is not remotely controversial and is trivial to measure, for example with the GINI and even the absurdly blunt Elephant Curve. And indeed, vast swathes of the population very much feel the decline in their quality of life and say so loudly and are electing lunatic politicians as a consequence. Actually, if you happen to have a reference, I'd be interested in where one hears that printing money increases the GDP, inequality is undetectable and ending anti-trust enforcement et al makes a market healthier. >doesn't involve confiscation and redistribution of some form or another One could call gasoline tax "confiscation" bridges toll "redistribution" and, on the other side, call rent "theft". Calling stimulus spending "confiscation" is as extreme as saying that wealth was "stolen from the proletariat in the first place". I humbly suggest it is not helpful. At any rate, as further proven by this paper, the solution to both QoL declines created by inequality as well as a stagant GDP is a wealth tax used to increase consumer spending power. > the elephant curve can reasonably be interpreted as a massive success story that we can all be proud of as millions are lifted up to a better standard of living. Then how is ridiculing its reality a refutation of this paper? And the rise of devolping countires is not in dispute. The problem at hand is the preciptous decline for those who lost out and who are still loosing. And who, as it turns out, are the middle and lowerclass members of the richest countries which also contain the people that benefited by far the most. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation... [2]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.kd.zg https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.kd.zg
- mr_toad 7y ago
  > adding a zero to all measures of money Do you really think that nobody has ever thought of measuring inflation adjusted GDP?
  - roenxi 7y ago
    Add a 0 to all the financial numbers and introduce price controls. No inflation then. Problem solved. As solutions go this is just as stupid and yet this is also a strategy that still gets tried (!) from time to time. The point I'm making is that the problem is living standards and prosperity. If we try to improve arbitrary single measures, like GDP or Gini, then the easy solution is pick something stupid that games the numbers then work it back towards the Overton window of ideas until it is mainstream enough that people don't understand why it is failing. The metrics to focus on are real outcomes like living standards which are - and this is the central part of my point today - not negatively affected by someone else in the city being filthy rich.

roenxi 7y ago

Increasing the GDP is really easy, the government can pass a law adding a zero to all measures of money (so $10 becomes $100). Reducing inequality is also easy, confiscate people's wealth. The real problem is "people are not secure in their lifestyle" which is not addressed by the first solution and is probably exacerbated by the second. People getting antsy about inequality as a final problem instead of a symptom of another issue are not going to find their way to solutions that increase prosperity.

TomMckenny 7y ago
How would printing money improve the GDP anymore than just lying about the figures? And since no one is suggesting that, I think it's kind of a straw-man. But surely these can't seriously be the best rebuttals to the paper: that straw-man, anecdotal opinion about college campuses and physics professors and a statistics joke about, but certainly not refuting, the elephant curve. I really can't tell if these arguments are genuinely considered valid or is this just a semi-polite troll technique to shout down unpleasant information.
- roenxi 7y ago
  The GDP would be 10 times higher. It wouldn't be a lie. If the government wasn't completely blatant about it maybe store owners would only raise their prices by 9.95x and there might be a real GDP boost as well. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it a straw man? Not so much compared to what is done in practice. When people seriously say that the policy is to "stimulate the economy" they mean incentivising people to consume rather than save. This has a positive effect on the economic figures but it is madness to believe it is setting up a better future; because setting up for a better future generally involves saving in the present. > And since no one is suggesting that... I haven't seen anyone propose a plan to tackle wealth inequality that doesn't involve confiscation and redistribution of some form or another. The argument is over whether that is appropriate or not. As for GDP it is generally accepted that setting up a free market and leaving it alone maximises the GDP. There is lively debate about whether than is the best outcome. There is a serious argument that lower-than-maximum GDP with resource redistribution to the poor is better - which is what happens in practice. > certainly not refuting, the elephant curve There is nothing to refute. Inequality is not a problem - people can't even detect inequality! Nobody has a gut feel for it and the average level of mathematical intuition isn't high enough to understand the charts. Certainly people can't suffer because someone else has it really easy. People suffer when their lifestyles deteriorate and we should be focused on preventing that. That is a completely different problem and one that actually deserves attention. The living standards of poor and middle class people is a real and ongoing issue that should be focused on. It does not matter if dealing with that makes the rich ricer. And in that context, the elephant curve can reasonably be interpreted as a massive success story that we can all be proud of as millions are lifted up to a better standard of living.
  - TomMckenny 7y ago
    >The GDP would be 10 times higher. It wouldn't be a lie. That would mean Venezuela, top in the world for printing money, has the highest GDP growth. Zimbawe and Argentina would be next.[1] In the event one might claim they are, here[2] is the actuall GDP growth rate by country. >As for GDP it is generally accepted that setting up a free market and leaving it alone maximises the GDP. The highest per-capita GDPs are in exactly those countries which monitor and adjust the market, for example the Scandaniavn countries. And in the US, the period 1945-1980 saw vastly more regulation and taxation than 1980-today yet vastly greater growth. So evidentilly, modest regulation and taxition and zealous anti-trust enforcemnt are actually good for an economy. Far from generally accepted, very few economist disregard all evidence and assert zero regulation means maximum growth. > Inequality is not a problem - people can't even detect inequality! The existence of inequality is not remotely controversial and is trivial to measure, for example with the GINI and even the absurdly blunt Elephant Curve. And indeed, vast swathes of the population very much feel the decline in their quality of life and say so loudly and are electing lunatic politicians as a consequence. Actually, if you happen to have a reference, I'd be interested in where one hears that printing money increases the GDP, inequality is undetectable and ending anti-trust enforcement et al makes a market healthier. >doesn't involve confiscation and redistribution of some form or another One could call gasoline tax "confiscation" bridges toll "redistribution" and, on the other side, call rent "theft". Calling stimulus spending "confiscation" is as extreme as saying that wealth was "stolen from the proletariat in the first place". I humbly suggest it is not helpful. At any rate, as further proven by this paper, the solution to both QoL declines created by inequality as well as a stagant GDP is a wealth tax used to increase consumer spending power. > the elephant curve can reasonably be interpreted as a massive success story that we can all be proud of as millions are lifted up to a better standard of living. Then how is ridiculing its reality a refutation of this paper? And the rise of devolping countires is not in dispute. The problem at hand is the preciptous decline for those who lost out and who are still loosing. And who, as it turns out, are the middle and lowerclass members of the richest countries which also contain the people that benefited by far the most. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation... [2]https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.kd.zg https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ny.gdp.mktp.kd.zg
mr_toad 7y ago
> adding a zero to all measures of money Do you really think that nobody has ever thought of measuring inflation adjusted GDP?
- roenxi 7y ago
  Add a 0 to all the financial numbers and introduce price controls. No inflation then. Problem solved. As solutions go this is just as stupid and yet this is also a strategy that still gets tried (!) from time to time. The point I'm making is that the problem is living standards and prosperity. If we try to improve arbitrary single measures, like GDP or Gini, then the easy solution is pick something stupid that games the numbers then work it back towards the Overton window of ideas until it is mainstream enough that people don't understand why it is failing. The metrics to focus on are real outcomes like living standards which are - and this is the central part of my point today - not negatively affected by someone else in the city being filthy rich.