291–299 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own a microwave, well not really, the apartment im renting comes with one and in all the years I’ve been here I did not use it even once. If it broke I wouldn’t miss it, I’d probably use the space it occupies more efficiently. Im inferring the point op was making was the price we pay for all these shortcuts and modern lifestyle should make us think well what is essential and do away with the rest.
Using your stove is far more environmentally costly than the microwave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, I read the interview and it honestly wasn't clear what he was saying. He never mentions any particular policy that should be enacted (other than tariffs against other countries that don't follow our lead), and the interviewer doesn't seem interested, opting instead to ask questions about cosmology. It's a bizarre interview. His issue seems to be mostly with overconsumption of resources. But instead of c…
He's saying that growth (GDP) is an absolute measure that is only a sum without any costs. As one economist I can't recall put it "the hero of GDP is a cancer patient going through a costly divorce". GDP measures economic activity, with no consideration of the benefit obtained from that activity. The interview was pretty bad, I agree. It's not clear what a "steady state economy" would look like, or what measures are…
Economic activity is an indication for benefit for people. I see no need to make a distinction between economic activity and a benefit obtained from that activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true if the change could happen overnight, but in reality that is never what happens. It will take a considerable amount of time to reach this end state where robots are cheap and plentiful. How this will start out is with limited production with high profits on the robots that is eroded over time as production capacity comes online and a stock of robots is built up. This will give the displaced labor time to…
Yep, it's a crazy hypothetical. It's perhaps a bad attempt to show that efficiency and GDP aren't the same thing. GDP is simply measuring transactions by end users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
50% is still a LOT of people. the point is, It's not like policy decisions are made in favor of like less than 5% of the population. Just as a crazy example, here in CA shelter is one of the biggest issues. I was shocked to discover that local politicians were bragging about how much housing development they were blocking. that tells you nearly half or more of the population is in support of that.
As a counter, what percentage of San Fran residents think open air drug markets and homelessness is okay?
of course, they'll say otherwise, but look at how people vote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, it's a crazy hypothetical. It's perhaps a bad attempt to show that efficiency and GDP aren't the same thing. GDP is simply measuring transactions by end users.
well, to be clear, I'm saying it is only true that efficiency gains don't cause higher GDP under very stringent scenarios that broadly have not happened. while GDP and efficiency aren't the same thing, they are extremely highly correlated with a bit of a lag. The situations where people thought GDP will fall and stay down with a technological change have so far been completely wrong because the calamity comes from as…
Your claim has been true for labor to this point. Not sure it's a given going forward.
Goods and services have gotten better in a way which isn't captured by GDP because the price for the good/service hasn't gone up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well, to be clear, I'm saying it is only true that efficiency gains don't cause higher GDP under very stringent scenarios that broadly have not happened. while GDP and efficiency aren't the same thing, they are extremely highly correlated with a bit of a lag. The situations where people thought GDP will fall and stay down with a technological change have so far been completely wrong because the calamity comes from as…
I don't think this is knowable. Efficiency can result in various things - less labor required, higher quality goods and services for the same cost, more convenience, less uncertainty (and probably others i can't think of off hand). Your claim has been true for labor to this point. Not sure it's a given going forward. Goods and services have gotten better in a way which isn't captured by GDP because the price for the…
And yes, this is definitely knowable because the one thing efficiency results in causes a wealth effect for all consumers (and/or a wealth effect for capital owners to the extent they can capture the gains from efficiency vs having them competed away causing lower prices and a wealth effect for consumers) and a negative income effect on the subset of workers no longer needed because of the efficiency gain. For an efficiency gain to not cause a GDP increase eventually the income effect has to swamp the wealth effect for all time, which has never happened and is unlikely to happen any time soon, as there are no signs of any abatement in consumption demand that would cause a wealth effect to not cause a consumption increase (this is especially true given the incremental nature of efficiency improvement implementation over time primarily because of various productive limitations on adopting new tech. The more time people have to grow into a higher consumption state the more likely and easier it happens.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is knowable. Efficiency can result in various things - less labor required, higher quality goods and services for the same cost, more convenience, less uncertainty (and probably others i can't think of off hand). Your claim has been true for labor to this point. Not sure it's a given going forward. Goods and services have gotten better in a way which isn't captured by GDP because the price for the…
efficiency results in one thing: more stuff for the same cost as before (or put another way the same stuff as before for less money). And yes, this is definitely knowable because the one thing efficiency results in causes a wealth effect for all consumers (and/or a wealth effect for capital owners to the extent they can capture the gains from efficiency vs having them competed away causing lower prices and a wealth e…
And even then there are holes in this position. Efficiency often won't lead to a wealth effect. In many industries (Buffett highlights textiles frequently, but it's also true of agriculture, many consumer electronics, cars) the competitive dynamic is such that increasing efficiency just lets the company stand still. Cars and TVs for example have become significantly better over 40 years(not all due to efficiency, but a good amount) and the prices haven't much changed, due to competition. The companies in question are still earning low returns on capital despite their efforts. I don't feel richer because my $600 TV is 60 inches v 30 inches, and I don't go spend more money because of it.
GDP has holes like this. It's literally just measuring end user transactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He's saying that growth (GDP) is an absolute measure that is only a sum without any costs. As one economist I can't recall put it "the hero of GDP is a cancer patient going through a costly divorce". GDP measures economic activity, with no consideration of the benefit obtained from that activity. The interview was pretty bad, I agree. It's not clear what a "steady state economy" would look like, or what measures are…
Is cancer treatment not a benefit? And I guess some people regard a divorce (even a costly one) as a benefit, or they wouldn't do it. Economic activity is an indication for benefit for people. I see no need to make a distinction between economic activity and a benefit obtained from that activity.
A rise in cancer treatments is probably not a good thing, all else equal.