Live data from Hacker News

Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

niskanencenter.org

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#51
From what I read (there's a lot) it seemed balanced and reasonable.

I did notice the well-worn calls for more entrepreneurship, along with calls to reform housing policy in places like Silicon Valley to unleash more growth.

I think these two goals might be inimical. Technology companies seem to be growing into ever-larger conglomerates, gobbling up competitors from the old and new economies.

What is the point of being an entrepreneur, of opening your own shoe store, if Zappos can beat you at that? The paper mentions how information technology has increased productivity among more educated workers moreso than it has done among middle-tier workers.

Huge swathes of the traditional economy have been taken over by tech companies offering services at or below cost. No small-time entrepreneur can compete with that.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure if the story of "creating" wealth is correct. When I look at people like Bezos or Gates I am not sure they created as much as they were able to gain a larger share of a market. I think without them we would have been fine and other players would have been in the market. So I think to some degree they took wealth from others. I also don't believe that the top 1% (or pick another number) are creating more…

> are creating more wealth than they did 50 years ago But they are - this is due to the huge productivity gains brought about by the application of computers. For a small example, in the 1960's and 70s, my dad was writing a book, using a typewriter. Every set of revisions meant typing the book over again (to get a clean manuscript). My mom helped out, spending hours and hours banging out a new manuscript. I still fee…

I think GP’s point is that Bill Gates is not rich because he invented word processing, or because word processing would never have become popular without his help. A big part of Microsoft’s success is network effects, where they are able to maintain market share because compatibility with their software is highly valued (because of their large existing market share).

As technologies develop there often seems to be a window of opportunity where some players are too early (the technology isn’t ready yet) and some are too late (where big companies have become relatively entrenched). Companies with the right timing may be able to capture most of the value but I don’t think that means they are totally responsible for the productivity gains.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've become more and more convinced that copyright laws do not promote progress of useful arts and sciences. The most obvious example is the incredible success of free and open software. Are people really going to stop writing books, composing music, painting pictures, etc, without copyright protection? Not a chance!

> Are people really going to stop writing books, composing music, painting pictures, etc, without copyright protection? Not a chance! Yes, authors who make a living selling books would definitely stop writing books if they couldn’t get paid for it. Hobbyist art will never die. But the definition of professional involves being paid. Open source software is not a meaningful comparison to Harry Potter books or Marvel fi…

Why is open source not meaningful? Open source software has proven to be very competitive and often superior to closed source, protected software. People even make money writing open source software.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#54
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it like open source software, and the answer will be clear. I.e. anyone can take the open source software I create and do whatever the hell they want with it. (I use the Boost license, which is the most permissive.) I encourage you to, too, if you want to profit from my work :-) I don't think there's anything special about musicians that makes them different from open source developers.

I don't think the answer is clear at all, this specific instance is about deception. The only thing being used is the name of the project to mislead consumers without being openly fraudulent, in such a way that it damages or limits the ability of the original authors to monetize their work. The closest analogue in FOSS is the forking or reuse of projects to intentionally cannibalize the original work - which is cover…

Protection of a trade name is a trademark, not copyright. There is no deception in saying your band is playing a Beatles tune.

> Music is only substantially different than software in that it isn't maintained after creation that requires continual support payments by its consumers.

That is indeed an oddity created by copyright law. Though nothing stops people from creating new versions of music (except copyright law, of course). People are still creating new versions of Debussy tunes. I'm a little tired of hearing various versions of "Roll over Beethoven", too.

> If you're in a position where you can freely distribute your work to others, you're in an incredibly privileged position to begin with.

A lot of people are paid very well to work on open source software. It's analogous to a lot of people being paid very well to perform music.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#55

> At the same time that the major factors expanding the economic pie were losing momentum, other powerful forces emerged that would push toward dividing the pie more unequally The framing of the issue influences what conclusions one draws. Here, the authors think of the economy as a "pie" created by "factors" that gets "divided up". What naturally follows is that if some get a bigger "slice" than others, it is inhere…

I’m not sure what you are objecting to. The section you quoted does not use the word unfair, but unequal. The linked article does not seem to be a call for socialism, but rather a series of proposals to increase growth via normal economic measures, like removing regulatory barriers to new housing, or being less hawkish on monetary policy since inflation has been consistently over-estimated. If you are arguing that fa…

> The section you quoted does not use the word unfair, but unequal

Calling unequal a problem means it's unfair.

> If I inherit (or even buy) a house in Palo Alto and it undergoes millions of dollars of appreciation due to a growing industry nearby that I do not work in, did I create that wealth?

Yes. I speak as a person who has repeatedly lost money in real estate. Real estate is hardly a slam-dunk guaranteed money making machine, as plenty of people in 2008 will attest to. It's a tough business. Just looking at the winners is called confirmation bias.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bob starts with 11 units of utility. Fred starts with 2. It costs 1 unit of utility to exist. Each of Bob and Fred invest their remaining utility in the utility market, which grows at 10% per year regardless of what either of them do. 25 years later, Bob has 109 units of utility, and Fred has roughly 12 units of utility. At the beginning of this thought experiment, Bob had 5.5x the utility units of Fred. At the end,…

>>This is a simple thought experiment that I hope illuminates something important: in an economy where there is year over year growth, inequality grows by default as a function of exposure to the market. This is not true. Investment rates of return are much higher when you have smaller amounts of capital to invest, ceteris paribus.

The comment you're replying to is a simplification, but so is yours. Returns on your investments are pretty much zero, if, like a disturbingly large number of people, you don't have any money left at the end of the month to invest and an unexpected expenditure of a few hundred dollars requires you to take on debt.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are people really going to stop writing books, composing music, painting pictures, etc, without copyright protection? Not a chance! Yes, authors who make a living selling books would definitely stop writing books if they couldn’t get paid for it. Hobbyist art will never die. But the definition of professional involves being paid. Open source software is not a meaningful comparison to Harry Potter books or Marvel fi…

Why is open source not meaningful? Open source software has proven to be very competitive and often superior to closed source, protected software. People even make money writing open source software.

>People even make money writing open source software.

Not many though.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#58
Notes:

On the one hand, the FDA’s foot-dragging on approving new (coronavirus) tests

The first round of tests were not very accurate. Some that did get approved were withdrawn within months.

As of 1940 only 6 percent of young Americans had college degrees, but by 1980 the figure had quadrupled to 24 percent. Put these together, and average years of educational attainment for American workers rose from 9.01 in 1940 to 12.46 in 1980 – for an average increase of 0.81 percent a year. Since then, however, the growth motor of rising educational attainment has stalled. Between 1980 and 2005, the rate of increase was only 0.33 percent a year, and since then average years of schooling have been more or less flat.

About half the new graduates with college degrees end up in jobs that don't require them. College has hit the point of diminishing returns.

The resources consumed by the financial sector have almost doubled.

Good point. Finance is supposed to be a support function. It's assumed far too much importance in the US.

For any agenda to improve conditions for inclusive economic growth, monetary policy is a logical starting point because its effects are so pervasive. Mess it up, and that failure alone will sabotage everything else you do right.

Maybe. US policy people over-focus on monetary policy because it is one of the things governments can control. But it has little effect on what gets emphasized in the economy. The US has shied away from industrial policy. China and all the "Asian tigers" got to where they are through industrial policy, emphasizing specific sectors of the economy. Britain tried that, though, and ended up with "lemon socialism" - the government was operating all the losers - coal, railroads, etc.

Nominal GDP... or, if real GDP doesn't go up, print money to force inflation. That needs more justification than they provide.

Once-vibrant regions across the United States are grappling with deindustrialization, population decline, and shrinking tax bases. Meanwhile, prosperous cities have failed to properly absorb newcomers in search of opportunity, driving up rents and exacerbating urban inequality. These seemingly distinct issues may have quite different short-run policy implications, but what if they are two sides of the same phenomenon?

Yet their solution involves higher density housing in the more popular cities.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#59

> At the same time that the major factors expanding the economic pie were losing momentum, other powerful forces emerged that would push toward dividing the pie more unequally The framing of the issue influences what conclusions one draws. Here, the authors think of the economy as a "pie" created by "factors" that gets "divided up". What naturally follows is that if some get a bigger "slice" than others, it is inhere…

The trouble is once Bob owns most of the pie he can use that wealth to build moats, buy political favours and extract rents from the Freds of the world.

Apple turns into a trillion dollar company and independent developers become share croppers on Apple's land.

Re: Faster Growth, Fairer Growth: Policies for a High Road, High Performance Economy

#60

> At the same time that the major factors expanding the economic pie were losing momentum, other powerful forces emerged that would push toward dividing the pie more unequally The framing of the issue influences what conclusions one draws. Here, the authors think of the economy as a "pie" created by "factors" that gets "divided up". What naturally follows is that if some get a bigger "slice" than others, it is inhere…

Whether the economy is fair or not is purely a function of government policy and right now the rules are heavily favoring rich people and companies. Just looking at it from a purely economic perspective doesn't cut it.
Post reply on HN