Hacker News Reader

Comment by jaysonelliot | Hacker News Reader

Of all the speculation I've heard, my favorite is this bit of dreaming from TheNextWeb:

"Then there is the chance that Apple has decided to do something insanely revolutionary with its cash: figure out a factory template that will allow it, and other tech companies, to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.. This is right up CEO Tim Cook’s alley, as COO, he completely reinvented Apple’s manufacturing and supply chain. It also fits with the legacy of Steve Jobs’ vision of the NeXT factory, making products on U.S. soil."

http://thenextweb.com/apple/2012/03/19/acquire-reward-or-rev...

View on HN

The NeXT factory was mostly robots, so I'm not sure what the benefit to the US would be, in terms of jobs.

That would be the best use of their cash. but not the most capital efficient. Wall Street won't like it.

Until the towns and cities that grown up around new industries bloom and generate wealth? I was listening to a radio interview where an the idea was discussed where GDP should be decommissioned for GDE: gross domestic environment, where wealth is determined on the general health of your people and natural resources. Then I would have no problem with day-traders making money hand over fist because a new forest preserve or public transport system was allocated.

A public transport system powered by rainbows, no doubt.

I have no idea what you're suggesting, practically. Wealth isn't "determined" by some arbitrary choice of economic statistic. Wealth is a store of value to the person who owns it. If you value forest preserves there are organizations who will happily take your money to create and expand them for you.

>Wealth is a store of value to the person who owns it

Which is presently accurately measured by our fiat system? Were the Dutch crazy to base their early stock market on tulip bulbs? Considering a historical perspective I don't see what's so different about choosing 'how many trees I have in my forest' vs. 'how much gold I have'. There are perfectly measurable elements in a human/humane society to base wealth off, especially as measuring technology improves. Maybe I should get better interest returns if I go for a decent 20 minute jog every day? I don't see why our future can't be one of measuring wealth on something else entirely (and yes I am being glib about using forests and jogging as an example but I think we're all clever enough to figure something out).

I just have no idea what you're suggesting. It seems incoherent to me. You value what you value, I value what I value, and money and markets are how we exchange things we value less for things we value more.

If you want to start a bank that pays people better interest rates for running every day, what's stopping you?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com