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

What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

mitsloan.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 418 posts

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#291

Post by MarkusQ »

tootie wrote: post #165

The article says: US Government surveys are suffering from poor response rates and decreasing budgets so business leaders will have to explore other options to improve reliability. This thread says: American Empire is dying and the world is a fraud. Are all of you bots? Is apocalyptic cynicism this widespread? Fact is that most of the world already gets by with a fraction of the economic data we produce. We have enjo…

I was just thinking the same thing.

The vitriol/projective pessimism on display above seems wildly inauthentic.

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#292

Post by MarkusQ »

XorNot wrote: post #255
SoftTalker wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not just that the US government is encouraging fraud, it's also that the average American hates AI and data science. When all they see is it being used to push narratives, they'd rather not have it at all. Also, "There Are Three Kinds of Lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" dates to the 1800s. This is nothing new.

It is impressive how much damage that phase has actually done to human progress over the last two centuries.

Nothing compared to what the misuse of statistics to give bunk a veneer of mathy authority has done though.

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#293

Post by genthree »

gcanyon wrote: post #239
culi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. The super rich have been in "prepper" mode for a long time now https://www.theguardian.com/news/2022/sep/04/super-rich-prep... > They started out innocuously and predictably enough. Bitcoin or ethereum? Virtual reality or augmented reality? Who will get quantum computing first, China or Google? Eventually, they edged into their real topic of concern: New Zealand or Alaska? Which region would be less affected…

> Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? Do you have evidence that the ultra wealthy are actually taking this into account? Over a human timeframe every ultra wealthy person has access to plenty of “climate change safe“ locations, no particular advance planning is needed.

“Climate change safe” for the rich:

- Hard to reach by land (not vulnerable to migration waves)

- Not so small there will be incredible deprivation if sea trade volume plunges (this rules out the vast majority of island nations)

- Not badly overpopulated

- Correct latitude (not too close to the equator)

- Stable liberal democracy (so they probably won’t take all your stuff)

- Unlikely target for outright conquest in great-powers games or expansion.

Bonus points:

- Interesting, varied natural environments.

They are indeed thinking about this stuff. It’s why so many are buying New Zealand citizenship and buying land there (and sometimes building their survival bunkers there too). It checks every single box, and basically nowhere else does.

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#294

Post by samrus »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #168
input_sh wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue the empire already collapsed, about a year ago when DOGE was tasked with killing every form of soft power that were put in place to present the country in the best possible light across the world. Even with tons of talented and well-intentioned people and everyone fully aligned to re-build everything broken, it'd take decades to rebuild that trust that was lost in a matter of weeks.

> would argue the empire already collapsed The republic may be collapsing. The empire comes after. The rich benefit if we transition to an autocratic empire based on American military might.

When the roman republic collapsed, they were still at their upwards inflection point. Ceasar was still on a roll. They hadnt peaked yet. This feels more like when the empire was in the early stages of coming down from its peak.

I think the roman republic to empire transition doesnt have much to do with the trajectory of rome at all. Their institutions were still strong. With america, her institutional knowledge is being stripped apart. Thats hard to pull up from

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#295

Post by genthree »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #203
gwerbin wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, it's the classic "both sides" myth. It is promulgated in order to manufacture consent for doing the thing that "both sides" are supposedly already doing.

> It is promulgated in order to manufacture consent for doing the thing that "both sides" are supposedly already doing Manufacturing consent is horseshit because it gets the direction of causation wrong. Nobody is master planning any of this. Storytellers sell stories. And then politicians sense the vacuum of attention. Fox News and Shadowstats don’t whip their flock up so DOGE could cut budgets. They did it to sell…

Right-wing media strategy has been a lot more heavily-planned and intentional than you’re suggesting.

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#296

Post by xienze »

genthree wrote: post #293
gcanyon wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? Do you have evidence that the ultra wealthy are actually taking this into account? Over a human timeframe every ultra wealthy person has access to plenty of “climate change safe“ locations, no particular advance planning is needed.

“Climate change safe” for the rich: - Hard to reach by land (not vulnerable to migration waves) - Not so small there will be incredible deprivation if sea trade volume plunges (this rules out the vast majority of island nations) - Not badly overpopulated - Correct latitude (not too close to the equator) - Stable liberal democracy (so they probably won’t take all your stuff) - Unlikely target for outright conquest in…

> Stable liberal democracy

Isn’t it precisely these stable liberal democracies where we have the most “the rich aren’t paying their fair share” rhetoric?

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#297

Post by maxerickson »

genthree wrote: post #293
gcanyon wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which region would be less affected by the coming climate crisis? Do you have evidence that the ultra wealthy are actually taking this into account? Over a human timeframe every ultra wealthy person has access to plenty of “climate change safe“ locations, no particular advance planning is needed.

“Climate change safe” for the rich: - Hard to reach by land (not vulnerable to migration waves) - Not so small there will be incredible deprivation if sea trade volume plunges (this rules out the vast majority of island nations) - Not badly overpopulated - Correct latitude (not too close to the equator) - Stable liberal democracy (so they probably won’t take all your stuff) - Unlikely target for outright conquest in…

There's about 1 billion people in North and South America. If there's some sort of catastrophic collapse, there's not going to be overpopulation or problematic waves of migration anywhere on those continents.

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#298

Post by xienze »

dh2022 wrote: post #273
giardini wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is your local city and county, not the "American empire". And your judgement in choosing where you live!8))

Take a drive on an interstate highways. Whenever I take an Uber/Lyft to the airport I ask the usually (more like 100%) foreign born driver to compare the highway (I5) and the airport (SeaTac) with the same from his country. The comparison is bad for the US. US is a third world country, but Americans do no want to admit that.

> I ask the usually (more like 100%) foreign born driver to compare the highway (I5) and the airport (SeaTac) with the same from his country. The comparison is bad for the US. > US is a third world country, but Americans do no want to admit that.

So why do so many people want to keep coming here?

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#299

Post by hackyhacky »

nine_k wrote: post #251
suzzer99 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Does not apply to native Americans or slaves.

Slavery was not supported in half of the initial US of A, and initially Native Americans had relatively benign relationships with the settlers, while the latter were weak. The course of America as a moral project was pretty meandering, but the moral dimension was almost always there.

> Native Americans had relatively benign relationships with the settlers, while the latter were weak

Translation: Native Americans were nice to the European settlers, until the European settlers were in a position to murder and expel in the Native Americans. The genocide against the Native Americans happened both before and after the founding of the United States, which casts serious doubt on a claim that the US has a "moral" mission.

> Slavery was not supported in half of the initial US of A,

Not sure where this math came from. Slavery was legal in all 13 colonies at the time of the revolutionary war. It wasn't until later, and in some cases much later, that the so-called "free states" actually freed slaves.

Re: What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable

#300

Post by michaelchisari »

dh2022 wrote: post #288
michaelchisari wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was ahistorical in many ways. It's rare that collapse of an empire can be pinpointed to a single day. And what you saw was a result of shock therapy imposed from the outside. I doubt that would happen to the US. It's unlikely collapse will be felt as a singular, apocalyptic event. More like a slow, steady loss of influence and excess wealth. Countries on the periphery stop considering…

I beg to differ. The collapse of USSR was 100% caused by internal causes. First was the abominable low productivity in oil/gas and agricultural sectors from 1950s through 1980s. Then came the corruption of Brezhnev era. Andropov tried to get some reforms going: first against corruption and then some Chinese-style economic changes. But Andropov died very quickly. Eventually came Gorbachev- who had good intentions. Unf…

| The collapse of USSR was 100% caused by internal causes.

I wouldn't take the time to argue otherwise, although it's a question of what's considered an "internal cause." Afghanistan comes to mind. But generally, yes, absent any external pressure, the internal mismanagement still would have had the Soviet system in a very bad way and collapse would have been a matter of time.

So we're not particularly in disagreement there, except for matters of degree (100%? eh.)

But I disagree strongly that shock therapy can be put solely on the shoulders of Gaidar. You can't talk about shock therapy without talking about Jeffrey Sachs. Although I wouldn't put it all on his shoulders either. It was an extremely complicated situation from top to bottom.

But most of all, my post was really more about the how the American empire's fall will not look like the Soviet's. And I stand by that completely.

Post reply on HN