Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicchains | Hacker News Reader

>Given a fixed amount of resources

People don't consume resources, they consume goods and services. The IPhone is valued at a much higher price than the sum of raw resource components it contains.

Economic growth is what allows us to increase the amount of goods and services people can consume from a given set of resources. Economic growth is why a single farmer with modern equipment can produce more food than a hundred subsistence farmers could a few centuries ago. Economic growth is why we can have real-time high-definition video conversation with somebody anywhere in the world.

The more obstacles we put in the way of growth, the slower we improve our productivity, the slower we grow the amount of value we can extract from the resources we have.

View on HN

Using resources as a blanket term to describe goods and services as fungible with a market that can trade them, it's probably a better descriptor of available goods and services that can be consumed instead of the fluctuating cost of said goods and services. True we could produce more goods than we have before with a lower cost, but it isn't true that this enables us to provide more to those without means as this would impact markets and thus profitability of the producers. This is a reason why farmers dump milk and eggs into fallow fields. If they wouldn't do that and instead provide them to those without, it would break the market.

I would counter that it isn't economic growth that enables the technology of today, but technical innovation that drives economic growth that enables either larger populations or a more wealthy population. Given unequal societies, economic growth is only beneficial for those who are already benefiting from the system and serve to increase inequality, but given an equal society benefits all. Therefore instead of worrying about economic growth, I propose that we invest in technical innovation that will drive economic growth as a byproduct and legislate for a more equal society to benefit the most amount of people.

Economic growth and technical innovation go hand in hand. As the economy grows the pie gets bigger, as long as everyones absolute amount grows thats good - most people thing that some are shrinking which is not the case. Right now, some peoples are growing at faster rate.

Firstly, one can have innovation with no economic growth and vice-versa, the two phenomena are distinct and separate. Much of econonic growth is about organisatuonal aspect's of society, rather than inventing new technology. Technology depebds on world of atoms, ans discoveries do not come on demand, nor are they particularly well rewarded. Einstein did not die a billionaire. Neither did most great scientists.

Lastly, some pies are not growing.

Einstein didn't develop technology, he was a scientist. Science != Technology, but Science and Technology and are linked. Often times technology precedes the science, and then the science is developed and advances the technology.

What does this mean? Are Computer scientists developing technology?

All technology is a science, i think you are trying to draw is the distinction between fundamental science that discovers laws of nature, and indutrial kind that figures out the best process for manufacturing stainless steel.

>> "Often times technology precedes the science," This can happen by freak accident, but generally science has to find and researched some law of nature before you can take advantage of it to develop some product or manufacturing process.

Sorry, I should've said `disproportionately benefits`. Economic growth in this context only serves to further increase inequality.

It is not. People judge their own wealth relative to that of others. Thus reducing inequality is a lot more important than increasing total wealth.

I completely disagree - increasing total wealth allows new things and is more important than how people judge their wealth relative to others.

People are not equal in many ways - I don't see why we always focus on wealth. What about influence, what about looks, what about education, what about family life quality, etc...

I completely disagree - increasing total wealth allows new things and is more important than how people judge their wealth relative to others.

You just restated your opinion without providing any new arguments.

> People are not equal in many ways - I don't see why we always focus on wealth. What about influence, what about looks, what about education, what about family life quality, etc...

Most of these things can't be redistributed.

> Given unequal societies, economic growth ... serve to increase inequality

that's not true. Especially if you view it from the angle of absolute poverty.

I wouldn't care that Bezos has another bazillion dollars due to economic growth - because with said growth comes more economic opportunities for the poor. Where once they had no economic value, there could be from being an amazon deliverer.

Where once there was no economic value as a subsistence farmer, the outsourcing of labour has generated economic value for underdeveloped nations. SO much so that China is now threatening the hegemony of the USA!

Economic growth lifts all.

The poor never had no economic value to begin with, the question merely becomes who is the latest in the line of exploiters. When they have no power and no leverage they are forced to work for peanuts in menial jobs that can just as easily replace them. In an increasingly automated society the lowest tier of human labor slowly resembles replaceable cogs; how much would a business pay for those?

Economic growth does lift all, but in an unequal society disproportionately lifts those who are already well invested in it. It will barely improve the lives those at the bottom with no equity in the market, perhaps with slightly better consumer-grade technology, but nothing in terms of income, social safety, or health that comes with climbing out of poverty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com