How To Make Trillions Of Dollars • Hacker News Board

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#61

Post by tossacct » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 3:26 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #52

rndmize wrote: post #40

Happiness, health and stability are not core objectives of our society. The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success. I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures.

Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. GDP is a derived statistic. > I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures. And your proposal is? A lot of alternatives have been tried in the past several thousand years and almost all of them suck.…

>>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate.

What makes you say that, mate?

Are intelligence and consciousness emergent phenomena?

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#62

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 3:31 AM UTC

tossacct wrote: post #61

jacques_chester wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. GDP is a derived statistic. > I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures. And your proposal is? A lot of alternatives have been tried in the past several thousand years and almost all of them suck.…

>>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. What makes you say that, mate? Are intelligence and consciousness emergent phenomena?

Do you think intelligence and consciousness have "an objective"?

They might have a post-hoc discernible function, but that's not the same as a predetermined purpose.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#63

Post by majormajor » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 3:34 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

majormajor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's always appeared to me that the main driver is geography. And housing regulation is pretty much the same thing—having more high-rise housing on Manhattan would keep prices down in the same way that being able to build further and further out does for DFW. I'm very interested to see what DFW looks like in a couple of decades if it keeps growing rapidly. Will it be a sort of sprawl of still-low-density suburb…

I wouldn't say regulation is the same as geography. For one, it's self-imposed. Second, it costs a lot less to build up than to build out. Note that Chicago has a very densely built core, even though it has no real barriers to sprawl to the north, west, or south. That's the result of (lack of) regulation plus good urban planning.

Right, I overstated the equivalency, I should've said something like "plays a similar role."

But, does it still cost less to build up than out, in a city with nearby land for the cheap, taking into account that you have to build your upward development in a way to be competitive with 2000+ square foot houses and yards? There's definitely some upwards building being done in the cores of the cities in Texas, but a whole lot more building out. Overcoming the lack of urban planning in the past is where it would get pricey, and need a lot of buy-in.

Would you say the relative cheapness of housing in a lot of Chicago compared to more mountain- or water-locked cities has more to do with the planning/regulatory environment or with the open geography on the non-lake sides?

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#64

Post by tossacct » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 3:35 AM UTC

jacques_chester wrote: post #62

tossacct wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. What makes you say that, mate? Are intelligence and consciousness emergent phenomena?

Do you think intelligence and consciousness have "an objective"? They might have a post-hoc discernible function , but that's not the same as a predetermined purpose .

Yes, because the concept of an "objective" is very useful when trying to describe emergence.

A semi-related question:

If no emergent systems have "objectives", then what things do have "objectives"?

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#65

Post by snogglethorpe » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:13 AM UTC

fumar wrote: post #37

swlkr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you afford your utilities, food and other basics without a job? Freelance?

Two big events happened before I left my job. My car was taken from me, insurance labeled it a total loss. I received money from that. I was also hit by a car while riding my bike. This also provided me with some money. This money, has run out at this point. I have done some freelancing for people, graphic design. I also help my girlfriend run her dog treat business. Arrfscarf.com But most importantly, now that I hav…

> But most importantly, now that I have no income, [my girlfriend] has been a huge help.

Ah, you must play bass...

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#66

Post by jacques_chester » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:16 AM UTC

tossacct wrote: post #64

jacques_chester wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think intelligence and consciousness have "an objective"? They might have a post-hoc discernible function , but that's not the same as a predetermined purpose .

Yes, because the concept of an "objective" is very useful when trying to describe emergence. A semi-related question: If no emergent systems have "objectives", then what things do have "objectives"?

Please, I'm too old for running down teleological rabbit holes.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#67

Post by vicks711 » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:17 AM UTC

Thanks for this enlightening article. I now know hot to make my first million.

Thanks again mate for posting this here on Hacker news.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#68

Post by 001sky » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:17 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #59

majormajor wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's always appeared to me that the main driver is geography. And housing regulation is pretty much the same thing—having more high-rise housing on Manhattan would keep prices down in the same way that being able to build further and further out does for DFW. I'm very interested to see what DFW looks like in a couple of decades if it keeps growing rapidly. Will it be a sort of sprawl of still-low-density suburb…

I wouldn't say regulation is the same as geography. For one, it's self-imposed. Second, it costs a lot less to build up than to build out. Note that Chicago has a very densely built core, even though it has no real barriers to sprawl to the north, west, or south. That's the result of (lack of) regulation plus good urban planning.

it costs a lot less to build up than to build out

This is another fair point, but consider the land is massively more expensive. The dynamic is relative scarcity and bargaing power. The more scarcity, the more the economics look like monopoly on the underlying asset. At that stage, the cost of building out is sort of second order.

The other examples, such as London, Geneva, and SF have a combination of massive wealth (in both flow and assets stocks) combined with constraints on the ability to build due to geography/history/etc.

I agree some of ths (like greenbelt and listed buildings in london) is by way of law, but most rent control follows from the combination of scarcity/wealt co-existing prior to legislative means to "provide access". In other words, those laws follow the sort of self-evident understanding that if left unchecked, the dynamic of quasi-monopoly rents being extracted from the real-estate market will lead to all kinds of bad things down the road (social tension, and its variants, primarily).

The other counter-example perhaps to chicago or LA is tokyo (which is pretty spread out). But again, there is a social dynamic of scarcity (JP is very hiercarchial/aristocratic society) and Tokyo is both the financial/business and political capital of JP. Even in the 80's the somewhat absurd cost/ft did not hinder people from needing to be in Tokyo for their careers. Rather, the all just gave up having more than 1 kid to afford the astronomical cost of living. A generation later, the population growth is almost not feasible given the entrnched cost structure of real-estate and the need for the few young (workers) to support the many old (retired).

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#69

Post by Jayschwa » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:24 AM UTC

femto wrote: post #27

mikekij wrote: post #7

This is a great post. My only disagreement is with the insinuation that the lack of universal healthcare in the US is there to intentionally trap people in unfulfilling jobs. While I agree that it sometimes has this affect, I think universal healthcare may actually make people even more dependent on the system the author is writing against, all while decreasing the quality of the health care we receive. Great article…

From a global perspective, I'd argue that the relationship between employees and employers should be kept nice and simple, with employees being paid only cold hard cash, and using that cash to buy things like health care, nice lunches and equity. Complicating the relationship starts to reduce the mobility of labour. In turn that introduces inefficiency and detracts from national productivity. Granted that reducing la…

I agree completely. Health insurance from employer vs. health insurance from government is a false dilemma.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#70

Post by rayiner » Wed, Jan 09, 2013, 4:33 AM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #63

rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say regulation is the same as geography. For one, it's self-imposed. Second, it costs a lot less to build up than to build out. Note that Chicago has a very densely built core, even though it has no real barriers to sprawl to the north, west, or south. That's the result of (lack of) regulation plus good urban planning.

Right, I overstated the equivalency, I should've said something like "plays a similar role." But, does it still cost less to build up than out, in a city with nearby land for the cheap, taking into account that you have to build your upward development in a way to be competitive with 2000+ square foot houses and yards? There's definitely some upwards building being done in the cores of the cities in Texas, but a whol…

I guess my point is there is more to it than just geography. Clearly the availability of cheap land lowers the price of housing, but Chicago is more densely built than say Seattle or Portland while also being cheaper. The downtown core is comparably dense to San Francisco but much cheaper.