8 ms·

The problem is that economic growth is extremely important to developing economies as well. It’s one thing to say we should limit growth, or deprioritize it, or

by jolux 4y ago

The problem is that economic growth is extremely important to developing economies as well. It’s one thing to say we should limit growth, or deprioritize it, or whatever, but in practice this means forcing poor countries to accept lower standards of living. That’s the real trade-off here.

phkahler 4y ago
Growth can't continue indefinitely. In fact a lot of growth today is actually fudging the numbers to make them look good.
- dustingetz 4y ago
  innovation can?
  - phkahler 4y ago
    Nope. One of the fudges is saying that a computer based on today's technology is more valuable than on from a couple years ago. I forget what this is called. But it's stupid and could be really abused to say a cellphone is a trillion dollar device, since that's what the processing power would have cost in 1980. Maybe we should measure GDP via wages. Since all spending has to come from that anyway... not sure how to classify B2B transactions though, just thinking out loud.
    - inawarminister 4y ago
      There were proposals for labor-backed currency, where the basic unit is one hourly work of the worker. So B2B transactions will be valued from the man-hours that went to it. Of course this approach breaks when the gigantic corpocracies are able to bloat into larger and larger sizes. But it might be an interesting research topic.
      - bluGill 4y ago
        Labor hours fails because some jobs need more incentive to get into. Why would I study in school when I could make just as much doing basic unskilled labor, with careful savings the unskilled laborer can retire earlier since he starts sooner (also likely doesn't have to pay off student debt)
        White_Wolf 4y ago
        You'd have to implement a coeficient based on the average time needed to aquire said skill for a person with average IQ and EQ, performance, number of base skills required to learn said skill, so on. This formula would be a bit more complex than this but you get the jist of it. It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases.
        logicchains 4y ago
        >It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases. It would be impossible to quantify it because there's no objective measure of value. The current system allows value to be quantified by people's revealed preferences: the jobs people are willing to pay more for get paid higher. If there's no market for labor then there's no revealed preferences and it's impossible to know which jobs are creating more value for people (only what jobs are creating more value by some bureaucrats personal subjective measure of value).
        White_Wolf 4y ago
        Value is relative term. Even so it can be quantified by using "demand" of a final service/product. That can be used to increase the value of the hour for a certain vertical. Even the same thing can be valued differently, depending on the location, circumstances, etc. Tbh I'm not an economics specialist to account for all variables but I can't see how it would be any different from fiat in terms of complexity.
        SkyMarshal 4y ago
        Except those edge cases would likely destroy the whole system. The value of an hour of labor isn’t based on the time it took to acquire the skill, it’s based on the value of the good or service produced to society. Whether it takes a normal person 4 years to acquire that skill, or a genius 4 days, the value is what it’s worth to other people. That value not only has a very wide range, but also it’s constantly fluctuating. If you try to centrally dictate it, you’ll be constantly getting it wrong, distorting the labor market just as badly as artificially low interest rates distort other aspects of the economy.
    - bryanlarsen 4y ago
      An iPhone 12 uses less material than an iPhone 11 yet is more valuable than an iPhone 11. A Tesla uses about 25 tons less fossil fuels than a gasoline car, even if its electricity is powered by a natgas generating station. The Tesla uses about the same amount of fossil fuels as the trucks transporting the fuel to the filling station. Software of course, is special. New software is better than old software otherwise nobody would buy it. Yet the material usage is roughly equivalent at roughly $0. These three types of progress can continue indefinitely.
    - nradov 4y ago
      You are referring to the hedonic quality adjustment factor that the BLS applies to CPI calculations. It's not at all stupid and it doesn't result in trillion dollar cellphones. You should really read up on the basics instead of making ignorant comments about things you don't understand. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-ans...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- inter_netuser 4y ago
  why, because we ran out of habitable planets in the galaxy?
- chii 4y ago
  > Growth can't continue indefinitely. no it can't continue indefinitely, but there's still a tonne of room left for humans to grow. I dont believe we are near the limit yet. And that's only this planet. There's at least a few more in the solar system, and hopefully, propulsion tech will improve at some point to allow other star systems to be taken over by humans.
  - 0xffff2 4y ago
    >I dont believe we are near the limit yet. On what basis? We are already objectively destroying this planet with absolutely no meaningful action being taken to change, much less reverse course. At this point we will be incredibly lucky if we even manage to sustain a technological civilization long enough to settle other planets.
prasadjoglekar 4y ago
Not really. China and India grew even during the 1990s when $ interest rates were not 0 and quite high. Single largest removal of poverty in the world. Growth in both those countries was due to them opening up economies to internal and external entrepreneurialism and capital.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Ambolia 4y ago
Depends what "poverty" means. A lot of poor people were subsistance farmers, able to hold property and carve a space for themselves and their families in the world. That's something that will be out of reach for many "rich" people in the upcoming decades.
- jolux 4y ago
  Subsistence farming is a nightmare, I can all but guarantee that no living subsistence farmer would choose that life over renting an apartment and having disposable income.
  - Ambolia 4y ago
    It's not that bad, and a lot of people like to own their own land rather than never get to own anything.
    - Adraghast 4y ago
      - Ambolia 4y ago
        I am not saying I would like to be a subsistence farmer, but I would give up a lot of things to own a house. And I mean actually own it, not a mortgage.
      - baremetal 4y ago
        He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, "If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils." Said Diogenes, "Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king." There are tradeoffs for everything.
        jolux 4y ago
        The thing is it’s not a choice between living on lentils and fancier food, it’s a choice between having a stable food source and having a food source that is dependent on huge amounts of your own manual labor which will still sometimes fail to feed you through no fault of your own, leaving you or your partner or children to go hungry and possibly starve to death. Ergo: nightmare.

by jolux 4y ago

phkahler 4y ago

Growth can't continue indefinitely. In fact a lot of growth today is actually fudging the numbers to make them look good.

dustingetz 4y ago
innovation can?
- phkahler 4y ago
  Nope. One of the fudges is saying that a computer based on today's technology is more valuable than on from a couple years ago. I forget what this is called. But it's stupid and could be really abused to say a cellphone is a trillion dollar device, since that's what the processing power would have cost in 1980. Maybe we should measure GDP via wages. Since all spending has to come from that anyway... not sure how to classify B2B transactions though, just thinking out loud.
  - inawarminister 4y ago
    There were proposals for labor-backed currency, where the basic unit is one hourly work of the worker. So B2B transactions will be valued from the man-hours that went to it. Of course this approach breaks when the gigantic corpocracies are able to bloat into larger and larger sizes. But it might be an interesting research topic.
    - bluGill 4y ago
      Labor hours fails because some jobs need more incentive to get into. Why would I study in school when I could make just as much doing basic unskilled labor, with careful savings the unskilled laborer can retire earlier since he starts sooner (also likely doesn't have to pay off student debt)
      - White_Wolf 4y ago
        You'd have to implement a coeficient based on the average time needed to aquire said skill for a person with average IQ and EQ, performance, number of base skills required to learn said skill, so on. This formula would be a bit more complex than this but you get the jist of it. It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases.
        logicchains 4y ago
        >It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases. It would be impossible to quantify it because there's no objective measure of value. The current system allows value to be quantified by people's revealed preferences: the jobs people are willing to pay more for get paid higher. If there's no market for labor then there's no revealed preferences and it's impossible to know which jobs are creating more value for people (only what jobs are creating more value by some bureaucrats personal subjective measure of value).
        White_Wolf 4y ago
        Value is relative term. Even so it can be quantified by using "demand" of a final service/product. That can be used to increase the value of the hour for a certain vertical. Even the same thing can be valued differently, depending on the location, circumstances, etc. Tbh I'm not an economics specialist to account for all variables but I can't see how it would be any different from fiat in terms of complexity.
        SkyMarshal 4y ago
        Except those edge cases would likely destroy the whole system. The value of an hour of labor isn’t based on the time it took to acquire the skill, it’s based on the value of the good or service produced to society. Whether it takes a normal person 4 years to acquire that skill, or a genius 4 days, the value is what it’s worth to other people. That value not only has a very wide range, but also it’s constantly fluctuating. If you try to centrally dictate it, you’ll be constantly getting it wrong, distorting the labor market just as badly as artificially low interest rates distort other aspects of the economy.
  - bryanlarsen 4y ago
    An iPhone 12 uses less material than an iPhone 11 yet is more valuable than an iPhone 11. A Tesla uses about 25 tons less fossil fuels than a gasoline car, even if its electricity is powered by a natgas generating station. The Tesla uses about the same amount of fossil fuels as the trucks transporting the fuel to the filling station. Software of course, is special. New software is better than old software otherwise nobody would buy it. Yet the material usage is roughly equivalent at roughly $0. These three types of progress can continue indefinitely.
  - nradov 4y ago
    You are referring to the hedonic quality adjustment factor that the BLS applies to CPI calculations. It's not at all stupid and it doesn't result in trillion dollar cellphones. You should really read up on the basics instead of making ignorant comments about things you don't understand. https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-ans...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
inter_netuser 4y ago
why, because we ran out of habitable planets in the galaxy?
chii 4y ago
> Growth can't continue indefinitely. no it can't continue indefinitely, but there's still a tonne of room left for humans to grow. I dont believe we are near the limit yet. And that's only this planet. There's at least a few more in the solar system, and hopefully, propulsion tech will improve at some point to allow other star systems to be taken over by humans.
- 0xffff2 4y ago
  >I dont believe we are near the limit yet. On what basis? We are already objectively destroying this planet with absolutely no meaningful action being taken to change, much less reverse course. At this point we will be incredibly lucky if we even manage to sustain a technological civilization long enough to settle other planets.

prasadjoglekar 4y ago

Not really. China and India grew even during the 1990s when $ interest rates were not 0 and quite high. Single largest removal of poverty in the world. Growth in both those countries was due to them opening up economies to internal and external entrepreneurialism and capital.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Ambolia 4y ago

Depends what "poverty" means. A lot of poor people were subsistance farmers, able to hold property and carve a space for themselves and their families in the world. That's something that will be out of reach for many "rich" people in the upcoming decades.

jolux 4y ago
Subsistence farming is a nightmare, I can all but guarantee that no living subsistence farmer would choose that life over renting an apartment and having disposable income.
- Ambolia 4y ago
  It's not that bad, and a lot of people like to own their own land rather than never get to own anything.
  - Adraghast 4y ago
    - Ambolia 4y ago
      I am not saying I would like to be a subsistence farmer, but I would give up a lot of things to own a house. And I mean actually own it, not a mortgage.
    - baremetal 4y ago
      He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, "If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils." Said Diogenes, "Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king." There are tradeoffs for everything.
      - jolux 4y ago
        The thing is it’s not a choice between living on lentils and fancier food, it’s a choice between having a stable food source and having a food source that is dependent on huge amounts of your own manual labor which will still sometimes fail to feed you through no fault of your own, leaving you or your partner or children to go hungry and possibly starve to death. Ergo: nightmare.