
Another ‘Samuelson, 1948’ moment? Evidence from machine learning - hhs
https://voxeu.org/article/another-samuelson-1948-moment-evidence-machine-learning
======
jhoechtl
Gettin somewhat astray from the original intention of the arcticle:

Macroeconomics still proclaims the BIP as the ultima ratio to measure economic
performance. The BIP has been invented in times of extremely dire social and
economic conditions, where deficit spending has been considered as the last
resort to prevent a nation from collapsing. It proved to be a meaningful
number during and after WWII where living on credit was somewhat necessary.

BIP measures growth and favors deficit. But we know that unbounded growth is
neither healthy nor possible. I think the biggest problem is that we still try
to shoehorn every economy into this single number, while it would make more
sense to switch to another measure, depending on the operational mode a
country/economic region/social system is operating in.

Maybe change operational economic mode according to the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave)
?

~~~
logicchains
>BIP measures growth and favors deficit. But we know that unbounded growth is
neither healthy nor possible.

GDP growth doesn't mean using more resources. If I find a way to cut hair
twice as fast, that's GDP growth. If somebody makes a CPU that's faster and
consumes less energy, that's GDP growth. If someone finds a way to distribute
parcels more efficiently via a better heuristic for the travelling salesman
problem, that's GDP growth.

GDP growth is only bounded if there's a hard limit on the amount of useful
ideas people can have, and I think even if such a limit exists, we're
extremely far away from reaching it.

~~~
lonelappde
GDP measures sale prices.

> If I find a way to cut hair twice as fast, that's GDP growth.

Only it makes people get more haircuts or their is a labor shortage you get a
second job.

> If somebody makes a CPU that's faster and consumes less energy, that's GDP
> growth

Only if it inspires more CPU purchase or usage that costs more energy use
overall.

~~~
Mirioron
> _Only it makes people get more haircuts or their is a labor shortage you get
> a second job._

There are things that are productive that aren't jobs. You having more time to
read HN probably has some productive value, because it teaches you things. It
doesn't directly translate to an increase in GDP immediately, but it does do
that over time. The hair dresser might end up learning new things during that
free time, which would eventually lead to an increase in GDP.

> _Only if it inspires more CPU purchase or usage that costs more energy use
> overall._

Or we get to use the same amount of energy to do more computation. There's a
lot of things that can eat up more computation.

------
ngcc_hk
There is always a struggle whether macroeconomic really exist or it is an
aggregative only, except for Money Supply. You can have all your ISLM model
but it assumed equilibrium for it to work. But real work never have that (and
hence you have money which does not need in a global perfect equilibrium
model).

------
snidane
What is this? Economics for ants?

These acquarium models of economy are so inadequate to describe real world it
hurts. If the only thing we as economic agents supposedly do is borrowing and
transacting, the central banks keep lowering interest rates to spur demand for
goods. Unbeknownst to them there is this thing called real estate market and
when they lower interest rates people start parking their hard earned money
into it for safety instead of spending it for goods like crazy. It's only
indirect effect of people feeling safer with their money parked in houses that
they start spending more for goods.

But somehow land and real estate and how it affects economics is never
included in these textbook economics for ants that are used globally at
schools and central banks.

Land and real estate is not just some detail to be left out. It is actually
the thing which defines employment and unemployment. In the old days it was
customary to set up your own farm and self subsistence if you could get hold
of enough land for it. You asked yourself: why would I have to get a job with
a shitty boss yelling at me when I can grow my own corn?

It's only after all land had been taken that you no longer have that option.
Back then unemployment was a choice - there was always a 'job' of cultivating
your own land.

Let's see if the world wakes up from blindness of their economic religions and
discover other explanations of people interactions.

Ideas around universal basic income seem to gain traction in times of crisis.
Perhaps this is the time Henry George's land economics start shining again
after 100 years.

~~~
Mirioron
The problem is that nowadays your land is not your land. You can't do whatever
you want on it. Everything is heavily restricted by permits and regulations.
Sure, you can farm, but you can't start a factory or mine the minerals on it.
You can't build even a house on it without permission from someone else. All
of this means that land is only a means of realistic production if you can
navigate the arcane rules of the government. I agree that real estate is an
important part of the economy, but for many it essentially is just an
investment or rent generator (to lower the investment costs). Our modern
economy is about making stuff and land use isn't directly related to it as
much as it used to be.

~~~
blacksmith_tb
While this may cramp your style, it also prevents your nextdoor neighbor from
tearing down their house to start an open-pit mine... I don't think you'll
encounter too many building code problems if you buy a parcel of remote land,
if all you wanted was to live in a geodesic dome?

~~~
Mirioron
I don't disagree with the regulations. I'm saying that there are enough
regulations that land doesn't directly translate to means of production
anymore.

> _I don 't think you'll encounter too many building code problems if you buy
> a parcel of remote land, if all you wanted was to live in a geodesic dome?_

But you probably aren't allowed to live there. You might be fine if you're
entirely alone, but your kids would probably be taken away from you if you had
kids.

