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

221–230 of 270 posts

Re: The Economy

#221

Post by gfodor »

diafygi wrote: post #158
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 nominate cleantech, energy efficiency, and renewable energy. Over the next 30ish years, the entire globe will have to transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy. The amount of growth that needs to happen is probably bigger than what we experienced in the internet boom. Already in California, green jobs outnumber Hollywood jobs, and solar is now profitable without subsidy. These are the areas that are going…

I don't know how you can qualify this as growth. The transition to renewable energy should be applauded, but at the end of the day it is a displacement of the fossil fuel industry, which is massive. It seems less like a wealth creation engine and more like a "we will destroy the earth otherwise" necessity.

Re: The Economy

#222

Post by CamperBob2 »

jeffdavis wrote: post #212
throwawaymsft wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd caution using R&D investment as a metric. Historically, it seems the huge game changers (Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.) came from motivated individuals and not corporate research labs. Microsoft's early and enormous investments did not help them catch/contribute to the search/social/tablet/mobile wave which generated much of the value in the tech economy the past decade.

What about, say, the solid-state transistor?

The massive catalog of Bell Labs innovations came from a heavily-regulated monopoly, not a half-forgotten research arm of a software or advertising company whose mission can best be summarized as "Hire smart people so the competition doesn't get them."

Why the Bell Labs approach worked so well while most such heavily-subsidized and centralized research efforts fail is something I don't entirely understand. It could be because their charter was centered on the improvement of telecommunications in general. In the twentieth century, that covered endless acres of fertile intellectual ground. To extend the cliche', there was a lot of low-hanging fruit on the physics trees, and once it was picked, that was it for Bell Labs.

Re: The Economy

#223

Post by lsc »

hipcactus wrote: post #192
toomuchtodo wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if growth in the US is being prevented by technology innovation? If I replace 100 jobs with 1, and no further jobs are need for those 99 people, and that's the core of what technology does, growth in the traditional sense isn't possible. I agree that a basic minimum income may be necessary; I don't believe it'll fix the growth problem though.

Tech Innovation kills existing jobs by replacing 100 humans with one machine, this is true. If you're a cab driver, you may not be ecstatic about self-driving cars. But those same technological advances invent new goods and services for an ever increasing population. More people are fighting over the same set of resources, which technology allows markets to distribute more efficiently. The new tech creates new demand…

>While it's tough luck for the 99 workers who are not in a position to learn new skills, the bet is that tech advancing will create more economic opportunities for the next generation (while improving the quality of life)

Sure. Personally, long-term, I think that will be true. The thing you have to understand, though, is that in the short-term, this hasn't been happening, for whatever reason, and the short-term, if it goes on for long enough, becomes the long-term. This is a problem that needs human effort before it will be solved.

Now, some people argue that it's a macro thing; Corporations are sitting on a bunch of cash right now, and not hiring. Some of those people say that we need some inflation so that those corporations are incented to do something (which usually means hiring people) with that money.

Personally, I don't understand macro. I understand Micro, though, and on the Micro level, I don't see a lot of entrepreneurs putting a lot of effort into figuring out how to create at-least-minimum-wage jobs for the less than awesomely skilled. I do see some effort being put into commoditizing third-world labor, you know, fiver and mturk, which you could argue is probably good on the global scale, but if you are focused on America, is decidedly counterproductive.

I think solving this problem using market-based tools would be an awesome project. I think it would be a possible project, especially if we are okay with another "service sector revolution" type deal where unemployment is low, but most of the jobs are kinda shitty. (which would certainly be better than the current case.)

Do you have an idea for a business that scales that could pay relatively unskilled folks better than minimum wage?

The thing I do see is that many companies seem to be cutting customer service more than I think makes sense; Most of the time, I'd pay another 10% if I could get good customer service rather than a bad robot. Of course, I'm one of those nerds who would prefer a robot to a human, for most service, assuming the robot was good enough... but the robot usually isn't good enough, and I think most people would prefer a human, if the human and robot were equally good at solving the problem at hand.

I think the problem, though, is good customer service isn't a low-skill job. If you can do customer service all day, every day, if you can do so without developing a deep hatred for humanity, you are a better person than I am.

Re: The Economy

#224

Post by ericd »

VLM wrote: post #100
ericd wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that comes from where you think it does. I think it comes from the fact that people are literally entitled to that money via the legal contract we've set up - it is spoken for.

Too many mixed metaphors. Aside from employees, .gov gives people money two ways: 1) Contracts. 200 F-22 for $100B or so. $1M for the service contract for that server for a year. Usually involves a psuedo competitive bidding process, a lack of one is unusual enough that you get the phrase "no bid contract" because its an oddity. 2) Entitlements. If you meet these requirements, you get this money, or income tax credit…

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. "Contract" is used metaphorically in relation to the government all the time, though. "Social contract", for example.

Re: The Economy

#225

Post by muzz »

jeffdavis wrote: post #201
muzz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interest payments as a percentage of GDP are actually much lower now than they've been in the past: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FYOIGDA188S

That doesn't dispute my point at all. I'm not worried about the payments now . I'm worried about the payments if interest rates go up. And we shouldn't be surprised if rates go up substantially, because they are at historic lows right now.

There is a reason why they are at historic lows-- it is the decision of market participants. Your concern is essentially that market participants will somehow do a complete 180, for no stated reason.

Re: The Economy

#226

Post by 001sky »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #222
jeffdavis wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about, say, the solid-state transistor?

The massive catalog of Bell Labs innovations came from a heavily-regulated monopoly, not a half-forgotten research arm of a software or advertising company whose mission can best be summarized as "Hire smart people so the competition doesn't get them." Why the Bell Labs approach worked so well while most such heavily-subsidized and centralized research efforts fail is something I don't entirely understand. It could b…

This is an important point. There are times when confidence in your future enables a longer term investment horizon. And from that good things may often follow. But neither that confidence nor the good things may be enough to keep any social/economic position in perpetuity.

Re: The Economy

#227

Post by nerfhammer »

AJ007 wrote: post #151
jeffdavis wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that worries me about our debt is that it's not like the rates are locked-in for 1000 years. After bonds mature, we need to issue new bonds to pay for them. And if the interest rates are higher at the time, the new debt will have a higher interest rate (I guess, technically, the bonds will sell for a lower price, which has the same effect). Paying our current level of interest on our debt is not crushing. B…

My guidance to others, when they ask about US debt, I suggest they watch Japan. When Japan's interest rates rise, even just a little, their debt will become unserviceable. Once that happens, it will be time to think hard about US debt. The plan is clearly to inflate out of it. Survivable for the wealthy, devastating for everyone else. The blog post raises some fair points, but the author does a pretty poor job at get…

> The plan is clearly to inflate out of it.

[[Citation needed]]

Re: The Economy

#228

Post by jqm »

rplst8 wrote: post #83
autokad wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think the writer ever said that a high Debt-to-GDP / government spending will send the economy into a recession. it means the government's ability to fight a recession if one comes will be extremely constrained; furthermore, having high debt prior to a recession makes the pains of having the high debt extremely painful as revenues will decline significantly.

This. Especially when some economists recommend recession spending as a way to fight it. We've already spent the money, maxed out the "credit cards" and currently interest rates are poised to go up. If another recession does take hold, it will be a nasty fight.

"it will be a nasty fight"

Yes, possibly literally. Major wars are often the ultimate solution to this kind of problem. When the dust settles a new order exists.

I detest war. I detest human suffering. But it appears sometimes war has amazing cleansing power. Hopefully this isn't always the case.

Re: The Economy

#229

Post by at-fates-hands »

marincounty wrote: post #119
at-fates-hands wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When the government stops making it illegial, or charging fees for---Living. If Jesus Christ reappeared; what would his first few days look like? He couldn't fish without a license. He couldn't hunt without a license. He couldn't light a fire without a permit. He couldn't sleep unless in a sanctified Homeless Shelter. He would probally get a loitering ticket while preaching to the masses, or worse-- thrown in jail ov…

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to help those less fortunate, but not in a way that promotes aheavy reliance on the government.

All my Liberal friends conveniently forget that Bill Clinton took millions off of welfare and brought them out of poverty. Not from relying on government, but through incentives and job training.

Interesting to note that this was a bipartisan bill, introduced by a Republican, and heavily endorsed by Clinton himself. And yes, it went through two veto's before getting signed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wor...

Post reply on HN