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

Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

conversationswithtyler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 141 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#91

Post by s1artibartfast »

andrewprock wrote: post #81
edanm wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tyler Cowen has a book with basically that premise - that in the long run, economic growth is the only thing that matters. It's called Stubborn Attachments. It's not an intuitive position for most people, but it's a pretty convincing argument - it's certainly been the most important thing in the last 100 years, in my mind (think the incredible increase in health, standards of living, etc, which, even if they aren't s…

Endless economic growth is only a convincing argument if you don't understand basic math. Things that appear exponential locally usually turn out to be logistic or cyclic. I would like to say that I'm surprised that an economist doesn't understand math, but I can't.

Questions of endless economic growth are a red herring/off topic.

If exponential economic growth is possible now, then it should be invested in now. If yields change in the future, investment should be reassessed.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#92

Post by s1artibartfast »

eloff wrote: post #15
whb07 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't it be? Humans have infinite wants and needs. These change overtime in terms of taste/perception as well. So the counter point should be made as to how this isn't the case and that a "growing pie" is actually against human nature.

It's the compound interest problem. If you keep compounding growth, like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources within a sphere the same number of light years in radius. So clearly, growth is not sustainable and must eventually slow down until it approaches zero. To be clear, we're far away from that today. But the parent is mathematically correct, the be…

You are assuming that increased resource consumption always is tied to increased GDP. Others have argued that once GDP hits a threshold, both incremental and total resource consumption decreases.

For example, a richer economy might replace physical goods with digital goods which have higher value and lower resource demand.

[1] Check out Andrew McAfee on More from Less

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#93

Post by eloff »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #92
eloff wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the compound interest problem. If you keep compounding growth, like growing GDP at 1-2% a year, within some few thousand years you've grown bigger than all the resources within a sphere the same number of light years in radius. So clearly, growth is not sustainable and must eventually slow down until it approaches zero. To be clear, we're far away from that today. But the parent is mathematically correct, the be…

You are assuming that increased resource consumption always is tied to increased GDP. Others have argued that once GDP hits a threshold, both incremental and total resource consumption decreases. For example, a richer economy might replace physical goods with digital goods which have higher value and lower resource demand. [1] Check out Andrew McAfee on More from Less

I think that's a temporary setback only. It's a one time thing to replace your resource intensive good with a more efficient one. But that doesn't give you growth forever, because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe.

Sooner or later all exponential growth must end. That includes all forms of compound growth, such as GDP increasing at any percent you want year after year.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#94

Post by minblaster »

kelnos wrote: post #89
ramzyo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point, although I hesitate to see this as an effective counterpoint. People change, perceptions of people change, and those who were once maligned can become beloved, while those who were once beloved can become maligned. Bill Gates has followed the maligned to beloved arch over the last 25 years - it's easy for me to see how Mark could follow this same trajectory given that he's relatively early in his c…

I wouldn't call Gates "beloved", at least not in all circles. I consider his work with his foundation as basically table stakes in society for someone who has made his fortune from illegal, anti-competitive practices that damaged an entire industry. Beyond that, while I'll certainly admit that government has a ton of problems, I'm not sure that the best model for funding -- for example -- research into various diseas…

I agree. It’s amazing how easily people slip into the ends justifying the means.

Yes, he’s contributing now. Doesn’t excuse the practices that got him there.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#95

Post by throwawaytoday5 »

the_watcher wrote: post #77
mikorym wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to sound like I am trolling or something. However, I find it hard to take anything Mark Zuckerberg does seriously. For that matter, I am so biased that I have no interest in these interviews at all (maybe to your detriment). How do you see this? You say that you are an admirer of CZI. In my experience with obnoxious CEO types, they are happy to be philantrophic or "build" things when it suits them, and o…

If you went back 25 years, Bill Gates was considered by many (if not most) the "obnoxious CEO", but you're now using him as an example of "someone else I'd take seriously".

Or more recently, if Bill Gates doesn't get the will of the voters he will spend millions and millions of dollars circumventing state supreme court rulings based off of legal technicalities because you believe that you are right and people are wrong.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#97

Post by eigenvalue »

sova wrote: post #5

It seems that naturally with technological progress and population increase, we are doomed to always zero out our gains in the minute with losses in the aggregate. How is it that science and technology move forward but crop yields remain constant? Cowen mentions that it seems to be a "last mile problem" for delivering scientific research benefits to all. Collison has a cool list of "Fast" completed projects on his si…

It could be that the low hanging fruit in crop yields has already been reached. That is, the part addressable through better fertilizer, crop rotation, trait selection via breeding, etc., and to get a large leap from here requires something much more drastic (e.g., wholesale gene editing via CRISPR or the like) which may not be practicable given social pressures. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the low-single digit CAGR in crop yields this century is remotely replicable. It's not like we are ever going to get 10,000 bushels of corn per acre.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#98

Post by s1artibartfast »

eloff wrote: post #93
s1artibartfast wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming that increased resource consumption always is tied to increased GDP. Others have argued that once GDP hits a threshold, both incremental and total resource consumption decreases. For example, a richer economy might replace physical goods with digital goods which have higher value and lower resource demand. [1] Check out Andrew McAfee on More from Less

I think that's a temporary setback only. It's a one time thing to replace your resource intensive good with a more efficient one. But that doesn't give you growth forever, because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe. Sooner or later all exponential growth must end. That includes all forms of compound growth, such as GDP increasing at any pe…

>because any level of exponential growth with any level of resource consumption can't be reconciled with a finite universe.

I think you misread my post. Real world growth with negative or zero resource consumption can be reconciled with a finite universe.

On a mathematical level, there is no reason that GDP can not go infinite in a finite universe as GDP does not need material inputs.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#99

Post by ethbro »

kelnos wrote: post #89
ramzyo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting point, although I hesitate to see this as an effective counterpoint. People change, perceptions of people change, and those who were once maligned can become beloved, while those who were once beloved can become maligned. Bill Gates has followed the maligned to beloved arch over the last 25 years - it's easy for me to see how Mark could follow this same trajectory given that he's relatively early in his c…

I wouldn't call Gates "beloved", at least not in all circles. I consider his work with his foundation as basically table stakes in society for someone who has made his fortune from illegal, anti-competitive practices that damaged an entire industry. Beyond that, while I'll certainly admit that government has a ton of problems, I'm not sure that the best model for funding -- for example -- research into various diseas…

Rich people tend to be more beloved after they retire from actively running their companies.

See: Gates, Morgan, Carnegie

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Interviews Patrick Collison and Tyler Cowen

#100

Post by dv_dt »

nostromo wrote: post #75
dv_dt wrote: post #51

I'm always cautious about Cowen as he receives backing from the Koch network. https://macro.economicblogs.org/naked-capitalism/2018/05/sco...

The Kochs have also funded stem-cell research and gay rights initiatives -- are you similarly cautious about those things?

They also fund widespread climate denial, federal court stacking, and the tea party (probably not this anymore), likely at many times the magnitude. So yes I am cautious.
Post reply on HN