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
GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
31–40 of 47 posts
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#32And 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
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…
Income remaining stagnant or going down for bottom quintile is not really a problem. When you look at the economy over decades what truly matters is the quality of life people could afford at that time compared to 20 years back despite being in the same quintile. That is going consistently up thanks to the efficiency brought in by the growth. A focus on redistribution might help the bottom quintile temporarily but it would hurt the efficiency of economy by moving the money from private hands to government hands. This hurts not just the poor people but also the middle class and rich.
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#34GDP might actually be one of the worst ways to measure collective well-being.
Can you back this statement up, please?
And most importantly, it measures the velocity at which these things occur.
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#35And 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
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…
The growth over the last 20 years is much less than before, which is a likely cause of the increasing inequality. In a zero-sum economy, trade tends to concentrate wealth.[1] Growth is plausibly strong enough to counteract this, and historically, is overwhelmingly correlated with falling inequality.
Policy is much weaker than growth at doing anything. I personally favor progressive taxation and a basic income, and I think we can continue to improve the effectiveness of policy, but governments (and humans generally) don't have so much freedom in economic matters as is often supposed.[2][3]
Free trade doesn't cause growth (as ten thousand years of history prior to 1800 shows) but it may be a necessary condition for it.
[1] http://nbviewer.ipython.org/url/norvig.com/ipython/Economics... [2] https://plus.google.com/+CarlLumma/posts/T2fdtAHtU9W [3] https://plus.google.com/+CarlLumma/posts/fWhcsTxvZVM
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 wor…
I think private charity is far more effective in helping people in need. The government redistribution is merely a ploy to steal our wealth in the name of fighting poverty. I am totally surprised to see the amount of money US government wasted on Iraq war for which no one ever got punished.
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#37Earlier 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…
Bottom quintile is a very vague term. Is it individual income of family income ? What is the breakdown of young population v/s > 40 year olds in this ? Income remaining stagnant or going down for bottom quintile is not really a problem. When you look at the economy over decades what truly matters is the quality of life people could afford at that time compared to 20 years back despite being in the same quintile. That…
I linked to a paper by the IMF where they could not find any evidence that redistribution hurt growth.
To my knowledge GDP captures changes in efficiency. If we become more efficient we produce more stuff. What efficiency changes do you think are invisible to GDP but make the poor's life significantly better?
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#38And 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
3. Learned people are consistently and dramatically underestimating the capacity of Earth's "limited" resources to support a growing population.
This is a clear failure in understanding of the exponential function.
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Taking away a kids phone and giving him a doll will likely elicit a violent response, but cool on you to decide what brings people happiness.
I think it's important to look at war, disease, hunger, and displacement, in some order.
Re: GDP growth of humanity over the very long run
#40Earlier 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…
It has very little real effect on middle income taxpayers who both pay for and receive it, because in the middle range the benefit cancels the tax.
And the consequence for immigrants is hugely advantageous to nearly everyone. The problem we have today is that we have a large number of undocumented immigrants, which consume the capacity we have to absorb immigrants and therefore reduce the number of documented immigrants we can reasonably accept.
Something that makes it economically infeasible to be an undocumented immigrant would allow us to accept that many more documented immigrants through official channels and give them the basic income, thereby allowing much the same people to immigrate, modulo the few criminals who can't pass the background check and we don't want anyway. And then they're above board and don't have to live in the shadows, which is clearly much better for them. But meanwhile it allows us to affirmatively choose how much immigration we want instead of having people who break the law choose for us.