4 ms·

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

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.

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.