Hacker News Reader

Comment by pas | Hacker News Reader

Advertising encourages people to spend, even in some times to do it by going into debt. This in turn leads to more economic activity, more widgets ordered, which in theory should mean we can reap benefits of economies of scale, we can better amortize costs, etc. Which leads to R&D and innovation, which helps technological change, which leads to a more efficient economy, which leads to more surplus, which means more wealth created, etc.

Now, of course we could do this probably without spending so much on ads, but just saying ads are zero-sum is incorrect, because there's a bigger picture.

Social status is again not so simple. Because after a certain group size there will be value in being different. See also the classic equilibrium between strategies in any game (as in game theory).

That said, yes the race to the bottom is a real problem, see the oft cited Meditations on Moloch: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

View on HN

> which helps technological change, which leads to a more efficient economy

You made a leap of logic here. The technological innovations in finance directly contributed to a more volatile economy that crashed and inflicted massive losses on huge swaths of the global population, many of whom never recovered.

Not too mention, at least in America, the vast majority of American lives are far worst off than they were in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Making smart phones and personal computers just made rich people richer.

Correlation, causation.

Smart phones and PCs both coincide with big shifts in global politics, the post 2001 War on Terror, Operation Iraqi/Afghan Freedom, etc. Trillions spent on insurgency control, that could have been spent a lot more effectively.

All the while the middle class shrinks. (David Autor's 'Why there are still jobs?' paper is open access and has striking graphs that show just how much happened/happening.)

Globalisation lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, while the financial benefits of this economic optimization were not distributed back to those who lost their old socioeconomic status. (They only got the lower prices, but that's not much considering most of those people affected were not living in a distortion-free "free market", they had no idea what to do, they were not used to chasing new skills-in-demand, not prepared to relocate, etc.)

That said comparing healthcare outcomes, civil rights to the 70s is worthwhile, and if you think it was better then, that is mighty strange.

> Making smart phones and personal computers just made rich people richer.

With some positive sides also. Having a free encyclopedia, cheap universal access to educative videos or detailed satellite photos of the whole planet in 70s would have been mind blowing. Being poor today is more frustrating, but the DIY part is much easier, as making connections, and this has also an economic value.

Knowledge is not protected in semi-secretive guilds anymore. The counterpart effect is the disparition of entire sets of steps in the social stair. You can not make a living anymore selling printed maps for example. Poor people could climb, a little, but there is no so many stairs to grasp.

Singling out one causal chain in one period while ignoring the rest is not a good way to weigh "progress".

Yes the lack of oversight led to a crash, the lack of social safety net prolonged it, and the lack of effective adult education keeps people chasing low-income jobs and in poverty.

And lo and behold Basel III was signed, now systemic risk analysis is regular part of the financial sector checks, even if the current US administration tries to (and succeeded in) roll back some of these protections. That's the rent seeking regression. (And many people are happy for it, for they don't understand these processes, but they also don't trust "technological change" and economics, because it took their jobs - which is an understandable sentiment, even if incorrect.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com