3 ms·

> The rise of inequality (centralisation of power and wealth) and the rise in private debt. [...] present situation and the control system is cycling into insta

> The rise of inequality (centralisation of power and wealth) and the rise in private debt. [...] present situation and the control system is cycling into instability. [...] this time around. Your explanation assumes the article is trying to explain a recent phenomenon. The article actually discusses a puzzling pattern spanning a huge time interval. You probably point at the right problem (inequality, centralisation of power and wealth), but this article actually indicates this problem has been going since before any of us were even born.

lll-o-lll 11mo ago
The puzzle referenced is why more innovation is no longer rewarded by the market. That’s relatively recent.
- DoctorOetker 11mo ago
  You still misread the article: they observe the nearly constant 2% growth across the long timespan, regardless of the relative increases in researchers, regardless of all the policy changes, regardless of ... The article is NOT about some recent change. Please cite the article if you believe it is trying to solve a puzzle concerning a recent change. The whole point is that this 2% seems to be robust, regardless of investing or getting more ideas, invalidating the idea that the growth is a simple result of the production of ideas (say making blueprints for a new kind of factory, which can then be copied without having to make more blueprints).
  - lll-o-lll 11mo ago
    I did cite the article! My response is to that specific section quoted. Did you even read it?
    - DoctorOetker 11mo ago
      I am not asking you for a random citation of the article, but one that demonstrates the article discusses a puzzle concerning a recent trend, as opposed to a longtime ongoing one. Your citation of the article: > This is a puzzle! Why would the market fail to reward innovative firms, or, conversely, why does it continue rewarding less innovative firms? Unfortunately, here we don’t have clear answers. does not refer to any recent change, indeed, it uses the word "continue" invalidating your claim that the puzzle is about some recent change.

lll-o-lll 11mo ago

The puzzle referenced is why more innovation is no longer rewarded by the market. That’s relatively recent.

DoctorOetker 11mo ago
You still misread the article: they observe the nearly constant 2% growth across the long timespan, regardless of the relative increases in researchers, regardless of all the policy changes, regardless of ... The article is NOT about some recent change. Please cite the article if you believe it is trying to solve a puzzle concerning a recent change. The whole point is that this 2% seems to be robust, regardless of investing or getting more ideas, invalidating the idea that the growth is a simple result of the production of ideas (say making blueprints for a new kind of factory, which can then be copied without having to make more blueprints).
- lll-o-lll 11mo ago
  I did cite the article! My response is to that specific section quoted. Did you even read it?
  - DoctorOetker 11mo ago
    I am not asking you for a random citation of the article, but one that demonstrates the article discusses a puzzle concerning a recent trend, as opposed to a longtime ongoing one. Your citation of the article: > This is a puzzle! Why would the market fail to reward innovative firms, or, conversely, why does it continue rewarding less innovative firms? Unfortunately, here we don’t have clear answers. does not refer to any recent change, indeed, it uses the word "continue" invalidating your claim that the puzzle is about some recent change.