5 ms·

But it's compounding. Exponential. 5 percent each year means doubling every 15 years. I'm in favour of more redistribution but I think you're barking up the wr

But it's compounding. Exponential. 5 percent each year means doubling every 15 years. I'm in favour of more redistribution but I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Long term growth forecasts trail off to more like 1 percent as we hopefully stop unsustainable use of finite resources. Doubling is much slower then.

notahacker 7y ago
Growth over a period of time isn't even strictly necessary for all trades to be positive sum anyway. A village economy where the basket maker trades the same number of baskets for the same amount of food every year may have a zero growth rate [assuming the baskets' lifespan is limited], but those trades are positive sum because the basket maker and the farmers using broken baskets would both be worse off if those trades didn't continue to take place.
fizixer 7y ago
I'm not sure if you considered fully what I said. Are you telling me that capital powerhouses aiming for 8-20% year over year, and consistently having it their way, in an economy of best case 4-6% with instances of 2%, 0%, and negative mixed in, and a population consistently growing by 1-3%, still leaves the rest of the population with growth? Can I sell you a bridge?
- Anderkent 7y ago
  No capital powerhouse achieves 20% year over year. Some capital company maybe gets that each year, but they take losses in different years, so it's just swapping places. Berkshire Hathaway averages what, 9% a year?
- simonh 7y ago
  You’re assuming the 4-6% growth is a given, and were all just fighting over our bit of it, but this is _completely_ backwards. Where did that 4-6% growth come from? Did it rain down from heaven and were all scrabbling for our share of it? No, it came from positive sum trades where value was added. An enterprise that develops a new technology, that makes an economic activity dramatically more efficient might sell that and become very successful. It might achieve 20% growth in its industrial sector and also boost the growth of its customers due to their better technology or more efficient services. It’s _this_ sort of activity that much of that 4-6% overall growth is coming from. It’s not draining away growth from others, it’s making the growth in the first place.
  - fizixer 7y ago
    > You’re assuming the 4-6% growth is a given ... I only assumed that to be charitable to OC's argument. If we don't assume that, then OC's criticism of Norvig's simulation assumptions is even more invalid (only slightly so though; it's already invalid enough).
    - simonh 7y ago
      Oh the OCs argument is silly, the simulation is about share of wealth not absolute wealth.
  - sideshowb 7y ago
    Yes. except I suspect once you take negative externalities such as carbon emission into account the true rate is currently more like 1 percent if not actually negative.
kebman 7y ago
Redistribution, by whose power? Who has the right to decide what gets redistributed, and why? Is there a way to redistribute that is objectively fair?
- BlueTemplar 7y ago
  The State endowed with its power by the citizens. What would be "objectively fair" ?
- sideshowb 7y ago
  That's a good question. The veil of ignorance concept espoused by Kant, Hobbes, Rawls among others is a good place to start imo.

notahacker 7y ago

Growth over a period of time isn't even strictly necessary for all trades to be positive sum anyway. A village economy where the basket maker trades the same number of baskets for the same amount of food every year may have a zero growth rate [assuming the baskets' lifespan is limited], but those trades are positive sum because the basket maker and the farmers using broken baskets would both be worse off if those trades didn't continue to take place.

fizixer 7y ago

I'm not sure if you considered fully what I said. Are you telling me that capital powerhouses aiming for 8-20% year over year, and consistently having it their way, in an economy of best case 4-6% with instances of 2%, 0%, and negative mixed in, and a population consistently growing by 1-3%, still leaves the rest of the population with growth? Can I sell you a bridge?

Anderkent 7y ago
No capital powerhouse achieves 20% year over year. Some capital company maybe gets that each year, but they take losses in different years, so it's just swapping places. Berkshire Hathaway averages what, 9% a year?
simonh 7y ago
You’re assuming the 4-6% growth is a given, and were all just fighting over our bit of it, but this is _completely_ backwards. Where did that 4-6% growth come from? Did it rain down from heaven and were all scrabbling for our share of it? No, it came from positive sum trades where value was added. An enterprise that develops a new technology, that makes an economic activity dramatically more efficient might sell that and become very successful. It might achieve 20% growth in its industrial sector and also boost the growth of its customers due to their better technology or more efficient services. It’s _this_ sort of activity that much of that 4-6% overall growth is coming from. It’s not draining away growth from others, it’s making the growth in the first place.
- fizixer 7y ago
  > You’re assuming the 4-6% growth is a given ... I only assumed that to be charitable to OC's argument. If we don't assume that, then OC's criticism of Norvig's simulation assumptions is even more invalid (only slightly so though; it's already invalid enough).
  - simonh 7y ago
    Oh the OCs argument is silly, the simulation is about share of wealth not absolute wealth.
- sideshowb 7y ago
  Yes. except I suspect once you take negative externalities such as carbon emission into account the true rate is currently more like 1 percent if not actually negative.

kebman 7y ago

Redistribution, by whose power? Who has the right to decide what gets redistributed, and why? Is there a way to redistribute that is objectively fair?

BlueTemplar 7y ago
The State endowed with its power by the citizens. What would be "objectively fair" ?
sideshowb 7y ago
That's a good question. The veil of ignorance concept espoused by Kant, Hobbes, Rawls among others is a good place to start imo.