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

Why Economic Growth Will Fall

nybooks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#21

Post by gggggg11111 »

eru wrote: post #16
gggggg11111 wrote: post #7

Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate. Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there) Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend thei…

How do you know the size of the universe we live in? (To be pedantic, even in an infinite universe the size of the human-sphere couldn't grow faster than a ball expanding at the speed of light.)

Because that is the prevalent scientific opinion

We are on a course for a confluence of some major technologies this century which could result in another great leap forward.

Anyways i forgot why i dont bother to reply much on this site, got down voted for my above comment yet no indication as to why (is it my comment about working on advertising? its ok that's what I work in too myself have to pay bills somehow, but would rather do something more interesting).

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#22

Post by amelius »

gggggg11111 wrote: post #7

Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate. Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there) Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend thei…

Wealth will increase. Economic growth not, because the wealth will be poorly divided. Only few will reap the benefits of AI.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#23

Post by dzdt »

Sounds like an interesting book. From the linked review, the main thesis that many improvements from 1870-1970 are one-time-only events seems sound. I also agree with the assessment that 'singularity' theories are hokum. (That may be more controversial here on HN!)

It does sound like he might underestimate the effects of the coming AI/robot revolution. Over the next 75 years, any job definable by its output may be taken over by a robot. What is left are service and creative occupations where the human presence and artistry is valued. But this will entail a huge economic upheaval.

The other giant quality-of-life advancement that might be out there is slowing or eliminating the effects of aging. That would also come with giant problems of inequality (if it is narrowly available) or population pressure (if it is widely available). But it would surely be another huge advancement for its beneficiaries.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#24

Post by skywhopper »

I agree that it's impossible for the rates of economic growth and lifestyle improvements we saw since the late 1800s to continue indefinitely, but the key to growth is investment. And from the late-1800s till the mid-1900s, there were huge government investments made in building new and innovative infrastructure in the US--railroads, the phone network, state universities and K-12 public education, electricity generation and distribution, highways, airports. Those investments in common infrastructure allowed private investment to piggyback and provide the enormous success the US economy has had in the time detailed.

But today, we've forgotten the formula. Education funding is falling, basic maintenance isn't being performed on much of the infrastructure, and we aren't investing enough in the new things that can provide growth for the next hundred years. High-speed and light rail could help address the limits of airport and highway capacity, and provide better mobility in and between cities. Investing in clean electricity generation, a national power network, and improved battery technology could revolutionize how our homes and cars get their power. Very-low cost higher education was a thing in mid-20th-century America--it was possible to attend your in-state university for a few thousand bucks in today's dollars. What happened? As long as we pretend these things are too expensive to invest in, then we're sure to enter a long slow decline.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#25

Post by cheriot »

collyw wrote: post #20
wildmusings wrote: post #12

There are many breakthroughs waiting to be made in medicine, energy production, geoengineering, space exploration, transportation, etc. Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time, which will allow the market for entertainment, travel, and luxury to grow much larger than today, and be accessible to many more people. But if we succumb to this pessimism, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time". We got told this in the 70's (the automation part at least), yet seem to be working more and more hours now.

Well, we can produce what was considered enough back then without working so much. People just keep want more, more, more.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#26

Post by ThePhysicist »

gggggg11111 wrote: post #7

Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate. Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there) Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend thei…

I also think that we underestimate the amount of unused resources that we haven't tapped into yet (e.g. planets in our solar systems) and the resources that we might not even know about yet (e.g. new forms of matter or "new" laws of physics). Also, it seems likely that paradigm-shifting technological breakthroughs will continue pushing the boundaries of our growth further out. An interesting read in that respect is "Thinking in Systems" by Donella Meadows. In the 60s and 70s, the systems thinking approach outlined in the book also predicted that our planet would soon hit it's "carrying capacity" and further growth would be stunted. A major reason this didn't happen was (IMHO) the rate of technological change, which moved the carrying capacity of the planet well beyond what would've been possible 30 years ago. The same processes that were at work then are still at work today and constantly change the technological background against which we make our assertions, which makes systemic estimates of macro-economic systems a very tricky business.

As they say, the stone age didn't end because of the lack of stones ;)

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#27

Post by nabla9 »

To keep discussion grounded. We should think this trough economic growth models. What model we use is not that important. You can use simple neoclassical Solow-Swan model as starting point and add more factors as you go.

You can play with the model in Wolfram Alpha http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrow...

Techno-optimists often argue naively that technological progress or increase in human capital works like magic without understanding how they dynamically interact with more basic factors of production like capital, output and labor.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#28

Post by Qantourisc »

gggggg11111 wrote: post #7

Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate. Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there) Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend thei…

Because we haven't gotten a way to get fuel outside earth yet (that I know of), or a solution to long travel times. As such we are practically still bound to earth, which is finite.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#29

Post by nabla9 »

gggggg11111 wrote: post #7

Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate. Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there) Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend thei…

Economic growth of 1% per year is exponential growth.

Light of speeds puts limit to the economic growth and it's less than exponential.

Maximum sustainable economic growth in infinite static flat universe is f(t)/dt where f(t) = 4/3×π×t^3.

Re: Why Economic Growth Will Fall

#30

Post by feral »

piaste wrote: post #4
crimsonalucard wrote: post #2

This. Finally. People on HN think that startups, technology and economic growth have unlimited potential. This is pure stupidity at its finest. Observations of the natural world show a general trend: that everything, from physical resources to energy has limits. It is a mistake to believe that this general observation does not apply to technology and the human imagination. While we can comprehend what a limit in oil…

This is some of the shallowest, most misleading insight I've ever read. "Human achievement will probably reach a limit at some point" is effectively an empty statement. Even if you could take its truth for granted, it is completely useless information. There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and a limit that is unknowable and unguessable. Your behaviour should stay exactly the same eit…

I think the strongly worded logic in your post is questionable.

> There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and a limit that is unknowable and unguessable.

Thought experiment:

Situation 1: I rely on a single food source, which I know is unlimited.

Situation 2: I rely on a single food source, which I'm not sure is unlimited, but I can't guess when it'll run out.

> Your behaviour should stay exactly the same either way, until that limit becomes known or guessable in some way

Really? Because if I was in situation 2, I would be preparing a contingency. Trying to find another food source. By the time the limit of my current source became knowable, it might be too late and I would starve. The right time to prepare is from a position of strength.

That's an actionable difference - do you think this is a valid counterexample to your logic? Or is something not appropriate?

Post reply on HN