Peter Thiel on the dangers of progress

I'm not sure the title captures the actual thinking. Consider:

> For example, much of what looks like GDP growth since the Fifties was simply a matter of changing how we measured the value bundled up in family life. If, he points out, “you shift an economy from a single-income household with a homemaker to one with two breadwinners and a third person who’s a child-carer, statistically you have three jobs instead of one and therefore you have more GDP, and you will exaggerate the amount of progress that’s happened.

To the degree that this is a true statement about employment and GDP measurement, I'd agree. It's a reflection of using money exchanged as the definition of economy. If money isn't exchanged, it isn't counted as part of the economy. Yet it is.

Why wouldn't this be then a suggestion to find a non-financial (ie "squishy esg") method of accounting for things like quality of life? What else is the economy for?

That was a pretty good “interview.” I don’t much agree with Thiel’s politics but I liked the book Zero To One.

I think we do have to adjust to a low growth economy, as does the rest of the world. Thiel’s forever growth will crap out when/if global supply chains collapse (take away the US Navy, and shipping becomes less convenient).

Peter Thiel is like the Jordan Peterson of capitalism. Milking a lucky investment in Facebook till the end of time and saying things which make zero sense.