Economic calculation problem - how serious is it?

[keenir]

Still not going to wipe out all life. Not even going to hit 90%

We are if we keep experimenting for all eternity.

I think I see the problem: you're equating human life with all life. (which is worse than confusing Tito's brand of communism, with wind-borne pollination...they both involve forms of exchange, after all)

don't worry, humans will be extinct long before all life on Earth is anywhere near gone.

You are wrong.

thats your response...to the entire collection of my replies? you're not going to say which part of it was wrong, just that somewhere in there, some detail I said, is wrong.

Now I know how President Obama felt, when he gave a speech, and someone called out "You lie!"

You don't understand the economy as a dynamic system.

if you mean dynamics as in fluid dynamics, I do, actually. should we start a thread for you to explain your economic fluid dynamics?

Lots of people don't, smart people, professional economists, even Marxists. I didn't around 2016. Like problems in dynamics, the branches of physics, it's very difficult to explain it to someone who doesn't understand it. I'm not sure I have the time right now.

maybe explain tomorrow, then, instead of replying to a page and a half over the course of several hours? that might help with the time problem.

[keenir]

Since when do we have to conduct experiments about what effects giving options to the poor will have on a social level? The rich have no compunctions about taking everything they can.

are the rich the same as the poor? is that your way of saying that both groups are equally greedy, and because the rich take every option, therefore we have to limit the options we give to the poor?

Not sure whom you're addressing there. I'm all for giving options to the poor.

Commiserating?

okay, thats an answer; but who are you commisserating with, Rotting Bones? with Raphael? maybe next time, be less vague that you're commisserating with someone?

just a thought.

[Raphael]

Since when do we have to conduct experiments about what effects giving options to the poor will have on a social level? The rich have no compunctions about taking everything they can.

are the rich the same as the poor? is that your way of saying that both groups are equally greedy, and because the rich take every option, therefore we have to limit the options we give to the poor?

It looks pretty clear to me that rotting bones is saying that because the rich take every option, we should increase the options we give to the poor.

[keenir]

Since when do we have to conduct experiments about what effects giving options to the poor will have on a social level? The rich have no compunctions about taking everything they can.

are the rich the same as the poor? is that your way of saying that both groups are equally greedy, and because the rich take every option, therefore we have to limit the options we give to the poor?

It looks pretty clear to me that rotting bones is saying that because the rich take every option, we should increase the options we give to the poor.

oh, okay; I wasn't sure where that statement was aiming for. thank you for clarifying.

[Raphael]

thank you for clarifying.

Note that I can't actually speak for rotting bones; I was just giving my best guess.

[keenir]

thank you for clarifying.

Note that I can't actually speak for rotting bones; I was just giving my best guess.

I like your guess better than mine or Rotting Bones'.

[zompist]

I'm not certain growth is necessary myself in developed countries. While I generally defend social democracy, I think their cardinal sin is planning their budgets according to unrealistic expectations.
I believe rich Western countries could be just as happy with half the GDP. More importantly, we could definitely have twice the GDP and be twice the misery.

I actually talked about this here: life at the globe's mean income would really not be bad.

Not that we shouldn't be aiming for productivity gains, or better, less destructive technology. But these aims themselves should be our targets, not GDP growth. If the GDP grows, it grows. If it doesn't, no big deal.

Goodhart's Law applies here: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

All this sounds good in theory, but I do worry about two likely corollaries:

* People get cranky when living standards go down— even if it's for a good cause like saving the ecosphere. And cranky people are likely to elect reactionaries. Progressives need to have a positive program. Maybe instead of cars we finally get jetpacks?

* It's way too easy to forget the half the world whose living standards need to keep rising. This is the big blind spot in most systems, left and right. It's not even that countries like the Congo are exploited: they're ignored.

[Raphael]

Progressives need to have a positive program. Maybe instead of cars we finally get jetpacks?

AaaaAAAAaaaaaaaAAAaaahhhhhhh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDIojhOkV4w

[zompist]

Progressives need to have a positive program. Maybe instead of cars we finally get jetpacks?

AaaaAAAAaaaaaaaAAAaaahhhhhhh! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDIojhOkV4w

Well, we don't make the Brits the engineers.

[Raphael]

Well, we don't make the Brits the engineers.

Reminds me of a joke I read somewhere decades ago:

AMERICAN ENGINEER: Your quaint European method of shaving is ridiculously outdated. In America, we simply put our chin into a machine, and that's it.
EUROPEAN ENGINEER: But how can that work? After all, not every chin has the same shape!
AMERICAN ENGINEER: Not at the first time.

[Ares Land]

I actually talked about this here: life at the globe's mean income would really not be bad.

Good post, and I think we broadly agree on this.

People get cranky when living standards go down— even if it's for a good cause like saving the ecosphere. And cranky people are likely to elect reactionaries. Progressives need to have a positive program. Maybe instead of cars we finally get jetpacks?

There's no reason for living standards to go down. The average living standard can stay right where it is, and in fact the median could improve.
I do agree this is a problem though. With a high growth rate, negotiations are not easy, but nobody needs to lost; the rich just win a bit less. Stability, or even degrowth means the 1% would have to lose a little. That's not an easy situation to navigate.

It's way too easy to forget the half the world whose living standards need to keep rising. This is the big blind spot in most systems, left and right. It's not even that countries like the Congo are exploited: they're ignored.

My personal pet peeve: pundits bemoaning the fact that France has fallen from #5 to #25 for whatever metric. It doesn't mean we lost anything, it means other countries are catching up. There are more than a handful of rich countries now, and that's a positive development.