Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Economy

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 270 posts

Re: The Economy

#131

Post by api »

dnautics wrote: post #125
api wrote: post #20

I have gradually become convinced by mountains of evidence from many quarters that the Keynesians are right-- we are in a demand constrained economy. One of the problems I think is that economists and politicos tend to always be fighting the last war. In the late 1970s to early 1980s -- the last time the economy seemed this systemically bleak -- the problem was insufficient capital available for investment combined w…

I take a very very dim view of Keynsianism prescriptions, although their analysis may be correct (sometimes). Let's agree that we're in a demand constrained economy (I am not sure but it may be the case). 1) Why should you believe that governments are good at readjusting the economy to "unconstrain" it from demand? From Halliburton/Iraq to Solyndra to Fisker to 38Studios ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/38_Studios ) t…

Your first point is a deeper problem that goes far beyond economics. We do have a government corruption problem.

As for #2, the problem is that economic demand and economic activity means doing anything at all, including fixing environmental problems.

Imagine there's no growth. Why adopt solar power then, and who's going to pay for it since there'd be no investment capital? Nope, just run those coal burners forever. No need to upgrade if there's no growth.

The deflationary road leads to the dystopia portrayed in The Hunger Games: one or two massively advanced cloistered cities for the mega-rich, and vast feudal slave classes feeding them with coal and other should-be-obsolete things.

Re: The Economy

#132

Post by wslh »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #87
klunger wrote: post #7

He just suggested a basic income for everybody. I just wanted to point this out in case people missed it when skimming.

I'm wondering at point do we stop relying on the government to provide us with everything we need. What happens when we have too many unfunded liabilities and the government runs out of money and all the millions of people who suddenly depend on government from everything from medical care, income, employment, and other forms of support? All you have to do is take a good, hard look at countries like Greece and Argent…

Argentina did pretty well after it defaulted its obligations in 2001 and the commodities prices significantly increased. The issues in Argentina are more related to poor infrastructure (transport, Internet, mobile, financial) and corruption.

There is a saying in Argentina that we should stop stealing for at least two years [and the country will flourish].

Re: The Economy

#133

Post by scarmig »

moblahbl4hblah wrote: post #9
doyoulikeworms wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that they were called entitlements precisely because we pay for them.

They are called entitlements to make people think that some undeserving class is getting over...they think they are "entitled"...is the way that is put. It was done on purpose by conservatives. Its a dog whistle.

Entitlements are simply something people are legally entitled to.

No one thinks that entitlements Social Security and Medicare go predominantly to minorities and a lazy underclass, and yet they're the biggest parts of our budget. (Some people do, however, labor under the impression that SS and Medicare make up 5% of the budget and the remaining 95% goes to welfare, foreign aid, and greedy public employees, but that's another issue entirely.)

Re: The Economy

#134

Post by nostromo »

We need to find the next big growth engine. Like "the internet" big, or its baby brother "mobile" big. (Imagine what the US economy would be like without those growth engines. Even with them, their effect on the US GDP growth chart in the article is unnoticeable.)

I have a hard time thinking of things that could be so dramatic in terms of growth. AI, radical life extension, space elevators, renewables... I'm not sure.

The sad thing is we only have one Google. Very few other well-monied companies are taking big moon-shot risks. We need a dozen Googles and a hundred Elon Musks to find the next growth engine.

But instead we have billionaires buying NFL teams, the government taking money from STEM to fund entitlements, and corporations too risk-averse to make any big bets.

Re: The Economy

#135

Post by DINKDINK »

pkaler wrote: post #110

Almost any argument that relies on GDP numbers to back up its claim is specious at best. For example, you could have a tornado destroy a town and the disaster recovery spending would increase GDP. You could build a teleportation device that puts all delivery drivers out of work. GDP would decrease but there would be an overall increase in wealth and quality of life. Thinking about economics through the lens of GDP is…

Additionally none of this is population normalized. https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=a7jenngfc4um7_&...

Additionally, the first GDP chart conflicts with what it's reporting: Title "United States GDP Growth Rate", Subtitle "Percent change in Gross Domestic Product". Additionally, percent change relative to what?

Re: The Economy

#136

Post by joelhaus »

sama wrote: post #33
tdees40 wrote: 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 am a bull. i just think that we should talk about what the problems are. ignoring them is not a good way to fix them.

You missed the trend of growing inequality. I think this is important because the marginal propensity to spend for someone low on the income scale is much higher than the wealthiest.

Otherwise, good points.

Re: The Economy

#137

Post by yxhuvud »

ef4 wrote: post #78
lexcorvus wrote: post #49

In this context, I hope at some point sama has a chance (if he hasn't already) to read the post "Sam Altman is not a blithering idiot" by Mencius Moldbug: http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2013/03/sam-alt... The basic problem with our society is a disconnect between consensus reality and actual reality. We actually have no shortage of natural leaders. But they cannot actually lead us anywhere. They are ope…

It's also critically wrong in understanding technology: "one run of a time machine, with a printout of Wikipedia, would be pretty much all the real 1950 needed. Send the technology back to 1945, and you'll have iPads by '55 at the latest. Those guys got things done." That kind of thinking betrays a common misunderstanding. The limiting factor on what we can build at any given time is very rarely ideas . In 1950, peop…

Not only capital structure, but lots and lots and LOTS of various minor improvements in all areas.

They would not be making iPads, because simply having one around doesn't automatically create the production technology to create it. That would still take a whole lot of work. It may well be that it would be more efficient to send them a bunch of C64's if you simply wanted them to improve faster, since the gap between the technologies are lesser.

Re: The Economy

#139

Post by fchollet »

nostromo wrote: post #134

We need to find the next big growth engine. Like "the internet" big, or its baby brother "mobile" big. (Imagine what the US economy would be like without those growth engines. Even with them, their effect on the US GDP growth chart in the article is unnoticeable.) I have a hard time thinking of things that could be so dramatic in terms of growth. AI, radical life extension, space elevators, renewables... I'm not sure…

Although Google has done a much better PR around its research efforts, IBM and Microsoft are both investing much more in R&D. Microsoft is the tech company with the most research investment.

Re: The Economy

#140

Post by ThomPete »

nostromo wrote: post #134

We need to find the next big growth engine. Like "the internet" big, or its baby brother "mobile" big. (Imagine what the US economy would be like without those growth engines. Even with them, their effect on the US GDP growth chart in the article is unnoticeable.) I have a hard time thinking of things that could be so dramatic in terms of growth. AI, radical life extension, space elevators, renewables... I'm not sure…

I actually think the the Block-chain could be such growth engine.

It basically holds the promise to potentially take out any middlemen from server to bank, from company to nation which in itself would cause a major shift in the economy.

Post reply on HN