Live data from Hacker News

The Economy

blog.samaltman.com

61–70 of 270 posts

Re: The Economy

#61
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't remove the profit motive from health care.

Please expand on that - I personally think for-profit health care is one of the most ill-conceived ways of doing business I have ever heard of. Saving people's lives but only in ways that are investor-friendly?

healthcare innovation requires enormous investment. How should society pick healthcare problems to focus on, and how will we know a solution when we see it? The distributed price signal is an elegant mechanism for solving this problem and has worked to guide innovation in many other areas of human endeavour.

Re: The Economy

#62
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft. i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems. i'm also not sure it's the right approach, but i haven't heard any better ideas yet.

i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income. with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term. of course, what constitutes "essential services" can be the subject of a lengthy debate.

There are a couple ways to view this. By covering "essential services" you really are just guaranteeing a lot of inflation in those sectors (they are now on a fixed minimum income as a group). Some would argue that many of the same cost run-ups we've seen in university education (with government loans and other programs) will affect those essential service sectors in the same way.

One of the benefits of a basic income is that it serves as a really effective wealth redistribution program. It is partly a social safety net, but it's also something that can potentially give the economy as a whole a boost thanks to a lot of spending on the bottom (as opposed to income hoarding at the top).

I'm not sure I agree with those positions. I think I lack enough knowledge of economics to form a good opinion. I have definitely seen both of those arguments made in support of a simple basic income, however.

Re: The Economy

#63
post #24

I'm not clear on how any of this will lead to a recession. Why will high Debt-to-GDP or government spending send the economy into a recession? Q1 GDP numbers were clearly affected by dismal weather (although still bad), but labor markets are improving markedly, and there are reasons for optimism. I don't see this as a very convincing bear case. For the bull case, see this post, from a guy who's been right about every…

Even though you qualified it, the weather is not worth mentioning when we are talking about an incredible and unacceptably low rate like -3%.

It takes a whole mountain of suck to create that type of suck sandwich.

Re: The Economy

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing as how "natural economic growth" is not infinitely sustainable (I'm operating under the assumptions that there are finite quantities of natural resources and human ingenuity is not infinite and infallible). It's probabilistically inevitable.

Natural resources are finite, but so long as we can improve our efficiency faster than some rate N, we will never run out of a given resource. Thank you Zeno's Paradox. (Recycling also plays a part, though I don't know if it should be considered increasing the supply, or increasing our efficiency) The only one that is a real problem is energy. Thanks to the laws of physics, we may not be able to forever increase our…

[deleted]

Re: The Economy

#66
post #24

I'm not clear on how any of this will lead to a recession. Why will high Debt-to-GDP or government spending send the economy into a recession? Q1 GDP numbers were clearly affected by dismal weather (although still bad), but labor markets are improving markedly, and there are reasons for optimism. I don't see this as a very convincing bear case. For the bull case, see this post, from a guy who's been right about every…

If government debt grows high enough then an increasingly large percentage of federal spending will be devoted to paying interest on that debt rather than on arguably more useful areas which create future prosperity, such as education and scientific research.

After a certain point this becomes unsustainable and bad things start to happen, ranging from total political & economic collapse (Germany in the 1920s) to hyperinflation (Zimbabwe) to, in the best of the worst case scenarios, a large default/restructuring and subsequent downgrading of a country's debt to junk status (Argentina in the 2000s).

As F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman and numerous other economists have written, government spending tends to be more inefficient than the free market because the government isn't constrained by profits and losses, which are society's way of indicating whether a company is producing goods and services that are valuable and desired. Of course, there are some goods and services that only the government can provide well, and the current left-right political divide is largely a debate over the point at which government taxation and spending becomes undesirable and inefficient. However, it's undeniable that at a certain level (almost certainly a level below our current level of spending in my opinion) each marginal dollar the government sucks out of the economy is used less efficiently than it would have been used if it remained in private hands.

Re: The Economy

#67
post #24

I'm not clear on how any of this will lead to a recession. Why will high Debt-to-GDP or government spending send the economy into a recession? Q1 GDP numbers were clearly affected by dismal weather (although still bad), but labor markets are improving markedly, and there are reasons for optimism. I don't see this as a very convincing bear case. For the bull case, see this post, from a guy who's been right about every…

>> I'm not clear on how any of this will lead to a recession.

Here are some reasons: 1) if government spending is half of GDP that means any increase in non-government economic activity will only have half the effect it otherwise could (with zero govt contribution) this works both ways though, but more importantly it means government spending is critical to the economy. 2) Debt is high, so there is a LOT of pressure to reduce govt spending, which would directly (negatively) affect GDP in the short term - see 1, gov spending is 0.5 of GDP. 3) Any rise in interest rates will result in 2 (the alternative is to just increase the debt). To spend more in interest, you have to spend less elsewhere. 4) If we get inflation (and they're trying really hard) they'll want to keep it low by raising interest rates, resulting in 2 (see 3).

Re: The Economy

#68

Does anyone think we are heading towards an economic collapse?

True economic collapse , in which ammo becomes more valuable than money? No. Depression? Quite possible. I'd give it a 50% chance in the next 20 years (read my post on this thread, I explain some of why.) The very long term outlook is positive; the short-term outlook is dismal. The global elite and the middle class have been at war and the latter is losing.

Just read it, very interesting. I just have a fear of the economy and dollar collapsing and life as we know it going to shit since the whole world is so dependent on us. I don't have a very solid basis for this fear, but that's the nature of many fears (I saw someone on Maury with a fear of pickles). Just hearing bad news all the time about the direction this country is going makes it loom in the back of my head.

Re: The Economy

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please expand on that - I personally think for-profit health care is one of the most ill-conceived ways of doing business I have ever heard of. Saving people's lives but only in ways that are investor-friendly?

healthcare innovation requires enormous investment. How should society pick healthcare problems to focus on, and how will we know a solution when we see it? The distributed price signal is an elegant mechanism for solving this problem and has worked to guide innovation in many other areas of human endeavour.

We can do better, though. For example, if poor people are hit harder by something, there might be less "price signal" than if a few rich people are sick.

Re: The Economy

#70
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oops, i accidentally published an earlier draft. i added a bit more of my thinking here--my sense is that it would probably lead to less waste than current systems. i'm also not sure it's the right approach, but i haven't heard any better ideas yet.

i prefer universal essential services (healthcare, education, etc.) over a guaranteed basic income. with basic income, you run the risk that the receivers spend it on shiny objects (especially in an economy like ours with rampant consumerism) instead of things that benefit them and their families long-term. of course, what constitutes "essential services" can be the subject of a lengthy debate.

This article has a few examples of basic income experiments, with encouraging results. For instance, when the town of Dauphin had basic income implemented, hospital visits went down by 8.5%, which suggests real benefit rather than just frivolous spending.

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/why-we-should-give-free-money...

Post reply on HN