51–60 of 61 posts
The nations mentioned are some of the most advanced in the world, and their lower-than-world-average GDP growth is being used to show that "it's not all about wealth". I don't think this article makes a very good point.
So we are consuming useless things to keep useless jobs and maintain a growth that doesn't make us more happy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's the difference? The first Red Scare was 3 years of isolated domestic violent agitation, and public response was largely focused on those agitators. The second Red Scare was a 50-year ideological war that saturated the nation, a generation raised demonizing concepts as "un-American" before becoming the teachers and politicians of their children. It takes time heal from that dogma.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that, thanks to "that dogma", America is not a part of the Soviet Union today.
In fact, dogma is antithetical to both capitalism and democracy, which assume an ideal rational populace. A rational society strives for improvements. They would have invested in more socratic education, deeper rational thinking, and an open fair evaluation of ideas. Ideas that pass rigorous evaluation hold merit and warrant experimentation. If aspects of communism could improve parts of our society, we should use them.
Dogma is indefensible, and I feel like that point should be self-evident on HN. Successful startups don't copy history. We solve problems by forming rational strategies based on data and logic, chasing "impossible" ideas because they are good and work. We understand that processes and technology are tools, a means to an end... why would socioeconomic theory be any different?
And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that, thanks to "that dogma", America is not a part of the Soviet Union today.
Can anyone explain the downvotes? I am not saying that the pro-American propaganda was the only factor that decided that in the end US prevailed over USSR, but it's undeniable that it did contribute.
Immature people can't debate, so they express disagreement with down votes. Reddit was ruined by this, I'm sad to see civil immaturity spreading to HN.
I suppose down votes could be replaced with a "flag post", and a consensus driven moderation pool... or maybe reducing the weight of a down vote based on the voter's ratio of votes to posts (penalizing the non-contribution judgement of non-contributors).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that, thanks to "that dogma", America is not a part of the Soviet Union today.
Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting off the nose to spite the face"? Dogmatism is a fear-induced lobotomy, intentionally unlearning and stigmatizing certain solutions to problems... if dogma fatally poisoned American democratic capitalism, then our victory was pyrrhic at best. In fact, dogma is antithetical to both capitalism and democracy, which assume an ideal rational populace. A rational society strives for…
Not necessarily. The communist ideology was so appealing to the people (and the USSR so good at spreading it world-wide, via various channels) that, if not for the radical anti-communist steps, it's not impossible that USA would have its own communist revolution (orchestrated from Moscow and led by the local "useful idiots"), like so many other countries.
More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack.
Big surprise
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you familiar with the phrase "cutting off the nose to spite the face"? Dogmatism is a fear-induced lobotomy, intentionally unlearning and stigmatizing certain solutions to problems... if dogma fatally poisoned American democratic capitalism, then our victory was pyrrhic at best. In fact, dogma is antithetical to both capitalism and democracy, which assume an ideal rational populace. A rational society strives for…
> And anyway, America was never even close to becoming part of the Soviet Union. Nuclear annihilation was the big risk, but dogma does not work against ICBMs. Not necessarily. The communist ideology was so appealing to the people (and the USSR so good at spreading it world-wide, via various channels) that, if not for the radical anti-communist steps, it's not impossible that USA would have its own communist revolutio…
Ultimately, it's American business owners that were responsible for the rise of revolutionaries in the US. Early on, corporations restricted the political rights of labor unions while buying their own politicians. When laborers demanded fairer working hours, better working conditions, and fairer wages, businesses refused to compromise. When peace fails, people are left with the choice of abandoning hope or fighting towards revolution as a last resort. The USSR simply amplified existing legitimate anger.
I want to point out that the mainstream labor resistance was not about communism; citizens were fighting for equality and fairness within capitalism. The press always misuses scary words like "communism", in truth social ownership was secondary to being treated humanely. The government could have easily kicked out the USSR by stepping in as a mediator between business owners and employees.
> More broadly, I don't think that being in an open conflict with a world super power is the best time for rational reflection. Notice how democratic countries suspend most of its values during the war (i.e. they can take your property if it'll help the war effort, they'll put you to jail if you refuse to fight etc.) - they're just impractical when under attack.
Hahah, what? We don't suspend our values during war. Drafts fall under the social contract, all citizens are expected to defend the nation if called upon. The IRS always seizes property due to tax evasion. Industries always remain in private hands, we set production quotas because profit is not a right. We have interned people during war, but that's an artifact of ignorance rather than an intentional suspension of values.
Why do you think war isn't a good time for rational reflection? The battlefront requires action, but there's no reason for civilians to worry during a superpower proxy war. The US is massive and our enemies are oceans away.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In economics terms: Y = f(A, K, L). That is, GDP is a function of Capital (K), Labor (L), and a catch-all of technology (A). Developing countries can ramp up any of these 3 easily, especially technology "A" by transfering/adopting technologies that exist elsewhere. The richest countries can't do that since they should be at the forefront of technology.
The attribution of the Solow Residual to "technology" is grossly misplaced and very poorly founded. Roughly 98% can be attributed by primary energy consumption. A fact mainstream economists seem to be at pains to deny. R.U. Ayres, Charles A.S. Hall, and numerous others have repeatedly derived this relationship, and with a pretty consistent value.
I feel like you are trying to say "no, it's just consuming more energy. It's not 'technology'". But I think you've missed the point. We can't just dump more coal and oil onto a field and burn it and expect that energy to increase production. We need "technology" to turn it into something useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The attribution of the Solow Residual to "technology" is grossly misplaced and very poorly founded. Roughly 98% can be attributed by primary energy consumption. A fact mainstream economists seem to be at pains to deny. R.U. Ayres, Charles A.S. Hall, and numerous others have repeatedly derived this relationship, and with a pretty consistent value.
That's because a lot of technology is coming up with new ways of using energy to do useful things. See: light bulb, internal combustion engine, etc. And a lot of technology is new methods that reduce the cost of building these energy-consuming devices allowing us to produce more of then for cheaper (and more of them then consumer more energy). I feel like you are trying to say "no, it's just consuming more energy. It…
1. Those new ways of using energy themselves are highly dependent on energy-intensive factors as inputs. Steel, aluminium, copper, electronics, reliable power inputs, control systems, etc., are all the products of high-energy outputs.
When you realise that the Watt steam engine revolutionised manufacturing based providing a net total of 500 prime movers of about 10 HP each net power output, you start to recognise just how energy-contrained economic activity was.
2. The Solow Residual is, quite literally, just that. It's a statistical residual. Solow himself describes it as "the measure of our ignorance". Again: there is no basis to attribute it to "technology". Other than it forms an economically convenient theory.
3. The research I've mentioned is far more specific -- rather than just run a regression of capital vs. labour and handwave a declaration that All That Is Unexplained Shall Be Termed "Technology", it specifically considers the role of other factors, including energy. And, again: shows that that accounts for up to 98% of the residual -- an insanely high fit.
So long as we're talking factors of production, I've just learned, reading of and from Alexander Hamilton Church, who more-or-less invented cost accounting, that through about 1900, only labour was considered as a factor of production.
Somewhat amusingly, his discussion of factors other than labour focuses, almost exclusively, on the ability to supply mechanical power through engines. Go figure. 1910.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton_Church
https://archive.org/stream/productionfacto00churgoog#page/n1...
The way of measuring happiness is nonsense basically asking people, "are you happy?" There is a gigantic cultural bias. In many cultures people say that they are happy because they are expected to say that they are happy. Itd just a facade. In some others people just dont like to talk about self happiness or they have negative connotations when they talk about it. I have lived in 5 countries from that list and I find…
A person can be unhappy even in literal paradise. Personal issues, strained/failed relationships, or inability to fit in with your peers can make one miserable even in the best of countries, while on the other hand, people can find happiness even in an economic backwater that has virtually no modern amenities.
Are there any rankings that consider the multiple factors which govern and represent the potential for happiness, such as the degree of personal liberty, environmental quality, crime, and the unique goods, art and research produced by a country?
This reminds me of this quote:
"It is only in the backward countries of the world that increased production is still an important object: in those most advanced, what is economically needed is a better distribution"
-John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy (1848, book IV, chap. VI)
One day we'll look back at the levels of wealth people today possess the same way that today we look back at the level of material prosperity people enjoyed in 1848, as being at the level of extreme poverty.
To prioritize ephemeral happiness over substantive gains in the people's capabilities is shortsighted.