3 ms·

Would you share a more detailed argument? Right now we only have adjectives: "ridiculous", "idiotic". The US economy generally did very well with those standar

• slibhb 5mo ago
  > The US economy generally did very well with those standards Spurious correlation. Few experts (economists) think old regulations caused economic growth. If we really want to recreate post-war growth, we should destroy half our infastructure and fight a world war. Then, in the years following the end of that war, we can experience catch-up growth.
  • mmooss 5mo ago
    Spurious strawperson. I didn't say they caused it, but they sure didn't stop it. I specifically said it was about distribution, not aggregate growth. There's still no argument for the GGP presented. > the years following the end of that war Until the 1980s? I think some evidence is needed.
• muddi900 5mo ago
  This is a good podcast on the old regime: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/696337392 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/696337392 Summary of the old regime: Mergers that lead to 5+% market share were blocked. Then the "consumer harm in terms of prices" was adopted. Which swung the pendulum the other way. That is the fundamental economic policy now. Which has lead to abhorrent results. I wrote a comment on previous post that was about how consumer harm standards have warped the discussion on tariffs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48096236 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48096236