4 ms·

This is an opinion, it's based on the author's appreciation rather than analyzing data. It's also dropping ideas as if they were solid facts. E.g the precept:

This is an opinion, it's based on the author's appreciation rather than analyzing data. It's also dropping ideas as if they were solid facts. E.g the precept: > Most economic growth comes from innovation, not the accumulation of capital or labor. ... triggers a big "citation needed" to me. For a blog called "overcoming bias", I find that a bit ironic. Also, as usual, what's the definition of economy being used there? Money? Production? It's even dropping fertility and population in the mix so it's hard to tell. I'm almost sure you can find innovations happening during recessions where both economy and production go down(1). On the opinion itself, I could see that it as a theory worth pursuing, but I'm almost certain this is very "within system". We're on a finite planet, we don't have a choice but to continue innovating while limiting population growth and production. That's where the definition of economy matters, because if you consider production, I don't believe it. If you're talking about money, I'm gonna say, sure, but it's anecdotal. 1: not gonna provide an example since the source material didn't bother to.

notahacker 3y ago
bf, in one sense "growth comes from innovation" is [trivially] true inasmuch as you can't accumulate an Industrial Revolution's worth of capital without it being invented first, but yeah, no quantitative data for anything more substantial there The bigger question is whether he's mixing cause and effect, and it's actually "innovating economies don't shrink [at least not in the medium term]"
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> Most economic growth comes from innovation, not the accumulation of capital or labor. Economic growth is subjective in ways, but over previous long horizons, this is obviously true. If you took 10B pre-industrial humans and had them work 24 hours a day 365 days a year - their production would be pale in comparison to what we currently produce. At some point, when you get close to physical limits, and you start having vastly diminished returns on technological improvement, or when most innovation is not going to the benefit of most people - it would be debatable. Maybe you want to argue we're headed into that future.
nosefurhairdo 3y ago
Re: economic growth from innovation vs capital + labor, a clear example is the Industrial Revolution. Innovations in the steam engine facilitated innovations in manufacturing processes. Prior innovations in agricultural techniques enabled labor to move into the city to operate these new machines. The capital and labor followed the innovation. Without the innovation, there would not have been an extreme boost in growth, no matter how much capital and labor accumulation took place. Hanson, a brilliant economics professor (among other things), shouldn't need to justify or provide citations for every basic statement about economics. It is often useful to lay out assumptions up front to provide context for the body of the essay.
throwaw1yyy 3y ago
It’s Robin Hanson. Hanson is Feynman ~smart. Top caliber For the rest of your argument you seem stuck on definitions for words, which is helpful for your understanding but unhelpful for discussion of the ideas. If we were discussing our business plan for next quarter and you began saying ‘what is business? what is a plan, on a deep level?’ I would not engage with you but ask you to leave because either a) you don’t belong in the meeting b) you’re acting in bad faith semantics
- charles_f 3y ago
  I'm not playing semantics there. The word "economy" in the discussions around growth and de-growth is used to describe a multitude of things, notably (1) money (commonly looked at it in terms of GDP) or (2) production (commonly looked at in resource and goods produced, and services rendered). Because they are notoriously not well correlated (because of the capital market, inflation, ...) there are multitude of examples where (1) is growing while (2) is shrinking. If you're saying "shrinking economies don't innovate", do you mean "Economies with shrinking GDP don't innovate", or "Economies whose production drop don't innovate". This is wildly different, and, contrarily to your comment, fundamental to discuss this idea. When it comes to accepting someone's opinion in blind faith because they're smart, do whatever you want. Undocumented opinions coming from smart, educated people are valuable opinions ; but they're opinions nonetheless.
  - cpleppert 3y ago
    GDP is literally a measure of aggregate production. The entire point of GDP is to measure production in an economy. GDP does not measure money any more than mass measures kilograms. It measures the value of all goods and services produced in the economy.
    - charles_f 3y ago
      > GDP is literally a measure of aggregate production In $, not amount of goods and services. > GDP does not measure money any more than mass measures kilograms. Mass is a physical dimension. GDP is the product of the physical dimensions of the goods and services you product by the value attributed to these physical properties. > It measures the value of all goods and services produced in the economy. You're saying it yourself: it measures the value of the goods and services. Value is measured in money and is not directly linked to the volume of goods, resources and services they represent. You can produce the exact same amount of potatoes, if the value of a kg of potatoes increases, the GDP rises. If you look at the value of oil to gauge its production, there's one day in 2020 when we sent oil back to earth[1]. 1: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082
goatlover 3y ago
> We're on a finite planet, we don't have a choice but to continue innovating while limiting population growth and production. This hasn't been true though. We aren't limiting population growth, but the rate is declining as women gain reproductive freedom and people don't need to have as many kids to work the land. And we haven't done anything to limit production, as that goes against economic growth, which causes economic recessions. As for a finite planet, we do have energy from the sun, and potential materials from the rest of the solar system to make use of, starting with the Moon.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mstipetic 3y ago
  I know plenty people who say they’d like more kids but can’t afford it
- myshpa 3y ago
  And a lot of goats, that overgraze and don't let forests and vegetation to return, and that leads to desertification ;) https://www.academia.edu/es/38627904/Blame_it_on_the_goats_Desertification_in_the_Near_East_during_the_Holocene https://www.academia.edu/es/38627904/Blame_it_on_the_goats_D... We even have more goats than wild mammals (and half of those are mice). https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/ > As for a finite planet, we do have energy from the sun, and potential materials from the rest of the solar system to make use of, starting with the Moon Our planet's finiteness extends beyond just physical resources and space. The air we breathe, the oceans that regulate climate and support life, and the intricate web of biodiversity are all interconnected components of Earth's finite ecosystem. While external sources like solar energy and space materials offer opportunities, they don't alter the fact that the planet's capacity to support life and maintain these critical systems remains limited.
cpleppert 3y ago
>> Also, as usual, what's the definition of economy being used there? Money? Production? Production. The first result on google for "Economic Growth" defines it. Its 'dropping' fertility and population into the mix because his thesis is that declining population will lead to less innovation thus retarding economic growth. Innovation happening in a recession is not in any way a counterexample whatsoever.

notahacker 3y ago

bf, in one sense "growth comes from innovation" is [trivially] true inasmuch as you can't accumulate an Industrial Revolution's worth of capital without it being invented first, but yeah, no quantitative data for anything more substantial there The bigger question is whether he's mixing cause and effect, and it's actually "innovating economies don't shrink [at least not in the medium term]"

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> Most economic growth comes from innovation, not the accumulation of capital or labor. Economic growth is subjective in ways, but over previous long horizons, this is obviously true. If you took 10B pre-industrial humans and had them work 24 hours a day 365 days a year - their production would be pale in comparison to what we currently produce. At some point, when you get close to physical limits, and you start having vastly diminished returns on technological improvement, or when most innovation is not going to the benefit of most people - it would be debatable. Maybe you want to argue we're headed into that future.

nosefurhairdo 3y ago

Re: economic growth from innovation vs capital + labor, a clear example is the Industrial Revolution. Innovations in the steam engine facilitated innovations in manufacturing processes. Prior innovations in agricultural techniques enabled labor to move into the city to operate these new machines. The capital and labor followed the innovation. Without the innovation, there would not have been an extreme boost in growth, no matter how much capital and labor accumulation took place. Hanson, a brilliant economics professor (among other things), shouldn't need to justify or provide citations for every basic statement about economics. It is often useful to lay out assumptions up front to provide context for the body of the essay.

throwaw1yyy 3y ago

It’s Robin Hanson. Hanson is Feynman ~smart. Top caliber For the rest of your argument you seem stuck on definitions for words, which is helpful for your understanding but unhelpful for discussion of the ideas. If we were discussing our business plan for next quarter and you began saying ‘what is business? what is a plan, on a deep level?’ I would not engage with you but ask you to leave because either a) you don’t belong in the meeting b) you’re acting in bad faith semantics

charles_f 3y ago
I'm not playing semantics there. The word "economy" in the discussions around growth and de-growth is used to describe a multitude of things, notably (1) money (commonly looked at it in terms of GDP) or (2) production (commonly looked at in resource and goods produced, and services rendered). Because they are notoriously not well correlated (because of the capital market, inflation, ...) there are multitude of examples where (1) is growing while (2) is shrinking. If you're saying "shrinking economies don't innovate", do you mean "Economies with shrinking GDP don't innovate", or "Economies whose production drop don't innovate". This is wildly different, and, contrarily to your comment, fundamental to discuss this idea. When it comes to accepting someone's opinion in blind faith because they're smart, do whatever you want. Undocumented opinions coming from smart, educated people are valuable opinions ; but they're opinions nonetheless.
- cpleppert 3y ago
  GDP is literally a measure of aggregate production. The entire point of GDP is to measure production in an economy. GDP does not measure money any more than mass measures kilograms. It measures the value of all goods and services produced in the economy.
  - charles_f 3y ago
    > GDP is literally a measure of aggregate production In $, not amount of goods and services. > GDP does not measure money any more than mass measures kilograms. Mass is a physical dimension. GDP is the product of the physical dimensions of the goods and services you product by the value attributed to these physical properties. > It measures the value of all goods and services produced in the economy. You're saying it yourself: it measures the value of the goods and services. Value is measured in money and is not directly linked to the volume of goods, resources and services they represent. You can produce the exact same amount of potatoes, if the value of a kg of potatoes increases, the GDP rises. If you look at the value of oil to gauge its production, there's one day in 2020 when we sent oil back to earth[1]. 1: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082 https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082

goatlover 3y ago

> We're on a finite planet, we don't have a choice but to continue innovating while limiting population growth and production. This hasn't been true though. We aren't limiting population growth, but the rate is declining as women gain reproductive freedom and people don't need to have as many kids to work the land. And we haven't done anything to limit production, as that goes against economic growth, which causes economic recessions. As for a finite planet, we do have energy from the sun, and potential materials from the rest of the solar system to make use of, starting with the Moon.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mstipetic 3y ago
I know plenty people who say they’d like more kids but can’t afford it
myshpa 3y ago
And a lot of goats, that overgraze and don't let forests and vegetation to return, and that leads to desertification ;) https://www.academia.edu/es/38627904/Blame_it_on_the_goats_Desertification_in_the_Near_East_during_the_Holocene https://www.academia.edu/es/38627904/Blame_it_on_the_goats_D... We even have more goats than wild mammals (and half of those are mice). https://xkcd.com/1338/ https://xkcd.com/1338/ > As for a finite planet, we do have energy from the sun, and potential materials from the rest of the solar system to make use of, starting with the Moon Our planet's finiteness extends beyond just physical resources and space. The air we breathe, the oceans that regulate climate and support life, and the intricate web of biodiversity are all interconnected components of Earth's finite ecosystem. While external sources like solar energy and space materials offer opportunities, they don't alter the fact that the planet's capacity to support life and maintain these critical systems remains limited.

cpleppert 3y ago

>> Also, as usual, what's the definition of economy being used there? Money? Production? Production. The first result on google for "Economic Growth" defines it. Its 'dropping' fertility and population into the mix because his thesis is that declining population will lead to less innovation thus retarding economic growth. Innovation happening in a recession is not in any way a counterexample whatsoever.