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

The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)

academic.oup.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–155 of 155 posts

Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)

#151

Post by mensetmanusman »

chii wrote: post #138
mensetmanusman wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An economy is simply the number of people times the average productivity per person. If lots of people are doing a lot of work powered by a lot of energy and productive technology equipment, the (material) economy is good.

There has to be a level of personal/private intent for this to be true. I would argue that under a centrally planned economy, you could have the same number of people working, using the same tech/equipments and energy, but not be a good economy because the output isn't what those individual participants in the economy wants to consume.

If it’s the wrong output, it’s not productive. The productivity metric includes useful output. It’s not productive to dig a hole and fill it up.

Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)

#152

Post by chii »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #151
chii wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There has to be a level of personal/private intent for this to be true. I would argue that under a centrally planned economy, you could have the same number of people working, using the same tech/equipments and energy, but not be a good economy because the output isn't what those individual participants in the economy wants to consume.

If it’s the wrong output, it’s not productive. The productivity metric includes useful output. It’s not productive to dig a hole and fill it up.

and you've also casually mentioned 'useful', without saying to whom.

Basically, i am arguing that for productivity to be 'useful', it must be privately useful. Therefore, an economy must be producing something that an individual decided they want, rather than something that is commanded by an authority (such as a top-down command economy).

After all, the gov't authority might consider it useful to have holes dug by shovel, in order to occupy people and prevent them from doing other things.

Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)

#153

Post by adammarples »

thfuran wrote: post #122
adammarples wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its variance is though. It is all owned, and controlled. If there was a new land rush then new housing would be almost free until the land was all claimed.

Building a second Australia in the middle of the Pacific would have very little effect on the price of housing in London.

Not true, because millions of people would migrate away

Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)

#154

Post by JetSpiegel »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #63
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #54

“the only exceptions to that rule happen in the years in or around wartime. In peacetime, r has always been much greater than g” This explains the enduring link between populism and war mongering.

> In peacetime, r has always been much greater than g This is an ultra simplistic formula, made by someone who's been born, raised and fed in a highly socialist country where the only word politicians know is "tax".

France, that socialist country. The current government is a right-wing neoliberal and the next are neo-fascists.

Re: The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)

#155

Post by neilwilson »

Etheryte wrote: post #144
neilwilson wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does it mix it up? The example was a barber. There is no difference between transferring an existing credit to the barber and generating a new credit for the barber. The result is the same - an additional haircut is performed. In the case of a new credit that is an additional haircut that wouldn't otherwise have been performed because the person wanting it has desire, not demand (desire backed by the ability to p…

This is a mixup of money and wealth. Money is not wealth, and in the same vein, the point of the game if you'd like to call it that, is not to make money, but to become wealthy. These are two very different things. Wealth is possession of real assets, natural resources, real estate, valuable companies, in classical econ terms, any scarce resource. Money is not a scarce resource, for nearly marginal cost we could crea…

Yet the wealthy have very large bank accounts and own an awful lot of financial assets.

Almost like you are completely wrong.

Not everybody is enamoured with shiny yellow metal.

The wealthy are not interested in hoarding stuff. The wealthy are interested in the flow of money that lets them do stuff - primarily by freeing up their time.

It's control of the annual pie that's the key, not a sitting on a pile of gold like Smaug.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/How-Get-Rich-Greatest-Entrepreneurs/d...

Post reply on HN