Live data from Hacker News

The Demoralization is just Beginning

geohot.github.io

331–340 of 812 posts

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#331
post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>there is more to an economy than manufacturing. Not really. Most developed economies are basically 70% Baumol's cost disease[1]. The 20% of the American GDP that goes to healthcare, half of the military budget that goes into salaries, public services, the police isn't billed on productivity. Those are non-tradeable services whose compensation inflates with growth in the productivity gaining sectors of the economy. T…

How is "Baumol effect" different from supply and demand for any limited resource? Let's say that some new use for copper is discovered, that drastically increases the demand for copper. The cost of existing items that use copper is going to go up, even if those items are no more productive than they used to be, because the new items are now in high demand. You can see this effect in real life with GPUs; it's much mor…

>How is "Baumol effect" different from supply and demand for any limited resource?

It isn't, but nominal growth as a consequence of demand without increase in real output makes you no better off, that's the "fake" part. More practical example than graphics cards is houses. Large chunk of the US market, constantly goes up in price, but not because housing is becoming more productive. It's because money from other sectors spills over. Good for landlords, bad way to measure real economic activity. You'd be better off if you could roll houses from the conveyor belt and collapse prices.

Rising education prices don't reflect greater quality in education, faster teachers, or more graduates, i.e. output, which is what we ought to care about, but just higher spending funded by real gains in other sectors.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#332
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two quick thoughts… one, because every transaction in theory happens because the purchasing party values the good or service more than the money, every transaction does — in theory — create wealth, velocity of money is sort of measuring a proxy for growth. But I agree it’s weird. Second, “GDP/watt” is absolutely an economic metric, and it captures something about energy efficiency but also the mix of an economy. Soft…

Normalising GDP for the amount of money in the system suggests that velocity of money is the is actually the interesting metric. Say the monetary base is $100 and the GDP is $1,000 initially, then the monetary base doubles to $200 and the GDP doubles to $2,000. It looks suspiciously like no real economic activity was generated and that suggests that velocity is the growth measure.

You're essentially assuming an increase in the money supply leads to inflation, which it does if nothing else is different either, but if you also have e.g. a larger population then you're looking at something else.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#333

Beware of anyone who hordes trust, because they may be planning to cash in on that trust to screw you over when you need them most. The United States is shifting toward a zero-trust model. All deals and agreements must be based on tangible incentives and benefits. It will be an interesting era.

Yeah, except it's the world shifting to zero-trust towards USA after Trump torched the Budapest Memorandum and started threatening with expansionism. Please leave calling things "interesting" to Musk. This situation is tragic.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a good economy and what's the purpose of economy?

Arguably, the economy just is . It has no purpose, other than what it does[0]. It's not like anyone designed it, or has any control over it. Some people are in position to make adjustments, nudge some aspect of it towards a desired goal or away from undesirable one, but there's only so much they can do - it's all strongly path-dependent. Put another way, the shape of the economy is just an exercise of descending down…

Many countries in the former soviet block would very much contradict this take.

Entire economies were indeed planned and designed, and their shape was controlled and changed at will. Individuals and groups had control, and did do major changes, including but not limited to forced resettlement and labor camps.

You can of course argue that this ended almost universally in failures, but people did try, and the amount of control over economies is very much a spectrum.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#335
post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy the argument that every transaction in theory creates wealth. The only way that holds true, is by using a subjective/arbitrary meaning of wealth, which would imply, I can become wealthier/poorer by merely changing my mind. In such a case, I can be the wealthiest man in the world, and the poorest 10 minutes later, when no transaction or anything really even happened. Sure mind over matter, but I'd prefer u…

If you can truly come up with an objective measure of wealth, I believe there might be a (quasi) Nobel Prize in economics for you. The reason economics is hard, in part, is that there isn't some core firmament you can rest on; there is no fundamental, provable truth. And yet, with fancy statistics and clever experimental design, you can still make intelligent statements and understand the world better. To me, economi…

> If you can truly come up with an objective measure of wealth, I believe there might be a (quasi) Nobel Prize in economics for you.

Is it actually that hard?

The material worth of something is what someone will pay you for it, i.e. the value it would sell for at auction. Your material wealth is the sum of the worth of what you have.

That means if you own something and the market price of it changes, i.e. someone changes their mind, then your wealth changes. But is that even wrong?

The real trouble here isn't measuring wealth, it's measuring surplus. If you sell your widget for $5, that implies it was worth less than $5 to you and at least $5 to someone else, but the gain isn't $5, it's whatever the difference is between how much you valued it and how much they did. If that was $4.50 and $5.50 then it's $1. If it was $3 and $1500 then it's $1497, even though they only paid $5. Imagine, for example, a $5 generic drug to someone who has what it treats.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#336
post #52
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, 50 years later, they appear to have lost the title of the world's major superpower. And how is that causally related to the abandonment of the gold standard? Is the CNY somehow backed by gold, or the RUR?

The part I don't like is it confuses the situation to make it harder to tell if goods and services are getting cheaper or more expensive in real terms. But I don't know if I'd say it was causal. I'm more just pointing out that there isn't much evidence that the gold standard failed and there isn't a reason to think that all the economists reject it. They're more probably neutral to it.

This article is fundamentally good sounding bunk. Intellectual quicksand. Pretty much ideally skewered by someone with experience working with such things.

Anyone else who isn’t prepped will take far too long to get their heads around all the major errors, and by discussing it, propagate its ideas further.

Since people recall even incorrect things, repetition of it ends up creating the idea that it is true - the truth effect.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#337

I prefer my economic takes from economists, or people who actually study these things. -there is more to an economy than manufacturing. Using manufacturing metrics to rate an economy is like scoring a soccer game based on how far your players run: in some contexts correlated with “winning” but in others it’s not. -gold is not a good currency or basis for monetary policy. -these ideas only sound self consistent withou…

> I prefer my economic takes from economists, or people who actually study these things.

Hmm

> you’re better off reading Krugman

It used to be kind of a meme to make fun on how wrong Krugman was but now it's kind of like beating a dead horse.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/22/economists-globalizatio...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/paul-k...

In particular, Krugman was the flag bearer of "countries that borrow in their own currency should not worry about government deficits because they can always create money to finance their debt". (paraphrasing) This was incredibly wrong. It ended up in sky high debt and now interests on it are non-zero. And most of the added money ended up in the top 10% making inequality much, much worse.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#338
post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intuitively, if a toaster costs 5x in the US what it would cost in China, GDP says that a sale in the US was more productive when in reality it’s the same thing in both places. My opinion is the money is a means to an end and we’d be served better by focusing on those ends instead: healthcare, housing, education, life expectancy etc.

> in reality it’s the same thing in both places. the utility of a toaster is different in different places. It may also be the case that a toaster costing 5x in the US, because this is including an opportunity cost for that toaster being made (which means a different thing wasn't made).

The the benefits the new owner of the toaster derives from it.

Maybe toaster is not the best example to illustrate this by, so say we use microwave --and the time saving based off of it-- instead. A 100k/y worker's time savings are 5x the 20k/y workers savings when equal in time.

So the microwave is accepted to cost more. Sellers are great in caching in on this.

Re: The Demoralization is just Beginning

#340
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the gold standard 'effective' at? In the 19th century, the US had a more or less continual stream of panics and recessions. In 1932, everyone had to get off the gold standard because there was no mechanism to stop the deflationary death spiral otherwise. 'Bretton-Woods' failed to control inflation, and it became possible to arbitrage gold across markets.

> In the 19th century, the US had a more or less continual stream of panics and recessions. In 1932, everyone had to get off the gold standard because there was no mechanism to stop the deflationary death spiral otherwise. Disabling the feedback mechanisms isn't a win. When it had the feedback from continuous minor panics the US built an economy capable of taking on the entire word and winning by a massive margin in…

America marginalized itself after January. And as the world major superpower, the level of marginalization is something India, China, Russia, Uk, and even Europe - would aspire to.

Good lord, why are these malformed talking points being engaged with here. I see these things being shared amongst my hoaxer and antivax groups.

Post reply on HN