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

GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#21

Post by adamc »

Retric wrote: post #17
jp555 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> assuming everything else has zero value Ah, so if you ignore almost everything, you have a point. Like, for example 99% of the people on the planet. Because there is no way a hunter-gatherer system could support our population. Not to mention I for one think not dying of the common cold has quite a lot of value.

No, I am dramatically understating the value of the average person from 10,000 years ago not the other way around. Child care for example has actual value which is part of current US GDP. A bow, tent, or clothing constructed using methods from 10,000 years ago has real world value today. But, I am calling all that 0 and just looking at food. Also, this is per capita GDP, having more people does not mean peoples stand…

True of communicable diseases to a great extent, but not, for example, diseases of aging or birth defects.

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#22

Post by a_c_s »

littletimmy wrote: post #18

How much of this comes at a cost of people being unhappier? Back in the time of hunter gatherers, humans "worked" for a few hours a day. The rest of the time was spent socializing and in leisure. It is fair to say they were happier compared to, let's say, an African American debt-laden minimum wage worker in the US today. Do we really need economic growth?

Are parents for whom 1/3 of their children die as infants happier than those with children who live to adulthood?

(Modern USA infant mortality is less than 0.6%)

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#23

Post by elthran »

leojg wrote: post #14

Its quite interesting to see how latin america gdp fall down during the 1500s (is the only region to do so, I think) And how asia is pretty much being the richest region in the world(but the largest, so maybe its a matter of proportions)

I assume that the latin american dip is the Europeans beginning their invasions and looting of the meso-american civilizations

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#24

Post by littletimmy »

adamc wrote: post #20
littletimmy wrote: post #18

How much of this comes at a cost of people being unhappier? Back in the time of hunter gatherers, humans "worked" for a few hours a day. The rest of the time was spent socializing and in leisure. It is fair to say they were happier compared to, let's say, an African American debt-laden minimum wage worker in the US today. Do we really need economic growth?

Well, except that people got sick and had very limited medical treatments, and their lifespans were shorter. How do you weight that? Also, how do you weight the absence of toys and creature comforts?

The point about toys and creature comforts is hardly important enough to address. Do you honestly think kids are happier with a motorized car than they are with a hand-stitched doll?

Your point about people being sick is valid, but not to the extent that you think. Firstly, it is not wise to suggest that hunter-gatherers were physically worse off than us. They got a lot of exercise, and were in all likelihood better physically. Secondly, the shorter lifespans statistic is an artifact of increased childhood mortality. Once you discount the child mortality, they had lifespans very similar to ours. Without all the diseases of affluence that we have, mind you (diabetes, for example).

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#25

Post by awl130 »

Kinnard wrote: post #3

GDP might actually be one of the worst ways to measure collective well-being.

defining well-being, and then measuring it, is as pointless as defining happiness, and then measuring that. happiness is a notoriously unreliable indicator of anything. it's based on an individual's perception of his/her state. there are cultural differences. there are differences by station in life. and worst of all, there are differences per individual based on everything from the season to their age to what they ate, read or did 5 minutes prior to measurement.

i use infant mortality as an objective measure of any society's success. that's because everyone in the world can agree that dead babies are a bad thing. and the data is objective and easy to measure. it is, in a sense, a better indicator than GDP. the recent example of China is probably the best example of this. For decades after the cultural revolution, China was able to decrease infant mortality, without similar increase in GDP per capita (which came later).

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#26

Post by VLM »

Retric wrote: post #12
kfk wrote: post #6

And if you ask a person in the 18th century if we could grow GDP 30+ folds while increasing various folds also the world population he would say... you are going to finish all the Earth resources and die before you even get to a tenth of that! It's just to say: 1. productivity is always very misunderstood by people (hence Malthus); 2. poverty is better fought with growth, not re-distribution of wealth

BS. Per person GDP did not grow 30+ fold. A hunter gather lifestyle from 10,000 years ago takes ~0.5-5$/day in food assuming everything else [ed: produced 10,000 years ago] has zero value. US Per capita GDP = ~125$ / day. Actual growth per year is on the order of 0.04% / year PS: Remember meat more than 1$/lb. For much of human history per capita GDP by todays measurements was actually dropping.

WRT your PS about meat prices, I did some engineering back of envelope estimates with a million grams per ton and a ton of post-green revolution rice costing about three hundred bucks in 1990 (or so google says) and about 4 calories per gram of carbs, the world GDP "always" being $300 per person before the industrial revolution, and ended up with something around ten thousand calories of rice per person per day. Some googling indicates the green revolution plus industrialization plus factory farms has temporarily quintupled grain production per acre, well, absolute best case anyway. So assuming world productivity was solely focused on rice ag (cheapest calories there is... right?) then every human on the planet consumed 2000 calories per day of rice and absolutely nothing else happened. That sounds very unlikely. I'm not entirely sure people can live long term off absolutely nothing but heavy manual labor and 2000 calories or less of rice per day, for vitamin and mineral deficiency reasons if nothing else.

Generally when you're doing data analysis and some textbook curve pops out, that's a very strong indication you've screwed up your data, not that you've actually discovered anything. Far more likely despite attempts at short term correction the value of a supposedly fixed standard 1990 international dollar inflated exponentially over the past century or so, on a long enough scale. Once that correction is made, the data could be re-run to gather actual, useful results. Or rather than using inflation adjusted counters, just pick a valuable commodity like gold. Supposedly an ounce of gold has represented a year of labor from the dawn of trade up to the invention of steam powered mine pumps. A graph vs gold price might be useful. Or a hybrid of gold/oil for more recent stats.

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#27

Post by RobertoG »

kfk wrote: post #16
JamesBarney wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redistribution has very little effect on growth except at extreme levels.[0] Over the last 20 years the U.S. economy has grown 25% but the income for the bottom quintile has stagnated.[1][2] I would agree growth is probably the best medicine for the third world but the IMF shows it's not at odds with redistribution. I would strongly disagree that we can solve poverty in the 1st world using growth. We have two options…

If you want to look at things from a humanitarian perspective, then sure, let's talk re-distribution. But it should be in form of education and competitive markets (free milk quotas, anyone?). I struggle with the idea of making war to make peace (aka "democratization"). I also struggle with domestic re-distribution through "citizen income", because it makes life worst for all that pay taxes and those that are not "ci…

The issue is far for being so white and black.

Not all the growth come from free markets. More efficient use of resources and the discovery of new technologies come from improving our knowledge. Sometimes this is done by business, sometimes no.

Also, there are economic theories (even mainstream economic theories) that express the view that some kind of redistribution is necessary for keeping the engines of growth working.

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#28

Post by codingdave »

a_c_s wrote: post #22
littletimmy wrote: post #18

How much of this comes at a cost of people being unhappier? Back in the time of hunter gatherers, humans "worked" for a few hours a day. The rest of the time was spent socializing and in leisure. It is fair to say they were happier compared to, let's say, an African American debt-laden minimum wage worker in the US today. Do we really need economic growth?

Are parents for whom 1/3 of their children die as infants happier than those with children who live to adulthood? (Modern USA infant mortality is less than 0.6%)

Loss and grief are part of life. Your parents will die. Your grandparents as well. You either die young or live long enough to see some of your own generation die before you. If you are really "lucky", you see all of your friends die.

Death is a part of life. Everyone hopes that they outlive all their children, but even if you do not, tragedies during your life do not mean that your entire life was unhappy.

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#29

Post by VLM »

kfk wrote: post #6

And if you ask a person in the 18th century if we could grow GDP 30+ folds while increasing various folds also the world population he would say... you are going to finish all the Earth resources and die before you even get to a tenth of that! It's just to say: 1. productivity is always very misunderstood by people (hence Malthus); 2. poverty is better fought with growth, not re-distribution of wealth

"you are going to finish all the Earth resources and die before you even get to a tenth of that!"

Its fun to watch the debate about the "before" clause, as if the precise fraction or integer matters in the long run, when the real problem is nobody wants to face the reality of chopping off the entire "before" clause.

Once we stop economically extracting cheap oil energy, resulting in a roll back of the green revolution productivity gains, in a couple years at best its game over for about 95% of present humanity. Good thing the supply of cheap oil is infinite, right?

Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run

#30

Post by beefman »

Retric wrote: post #12
kfk wrote: post #6

And if you ask a person in the 18th century if we could grow GDP 30+ folds while increasing various folds also the world population he would say... you are going to finish all the Earth resources and die before you even get to a tenth of that! It's just to say: 1. productivity is always very misunderstood by people (hence Malthus); 2. poverty is better fought with growth, not re-distribution of wealth

BS. Per person GDP did not grow 30+ fold. A hunter gather lifestyle from 10,000 years ago takes ~0.5-5$/day in food assuming everything else [ed: produced 10,000 years ago] has zero value. US Per capita GDP = ~125$ / day. Actual growth per year is on the order of 0.04% / year PS: Remember meat more than 1$/lb. For much of human history per capita GDP by todays measurements was actually dropping.

Parent comment says GDP, not GDP per person.
Post reply on HN