TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why Economic Growth Will Fall

104 点作者 kosmos1337将近 9 年前

22 条评论

skywhopper将近 9 年前
I agree that it&#x27;s impossible for the rates of economic growth and lifestyle improvements we saw since the late 1800s to continue indefinitely, but the key to growth is investment. And from the late-1800s till the mid-1900s, there were huge government investments made in building new and innovative infrastructure in the US--railroads, the phone network, state universities and K-12 public education, electricity generation and distribution, highways, airports. Those investments in common infrastructure allowed private investment to piggyback and provide the enormous success the US economy has had in the time detailed.<p>But today, we&#x27;ve forgotten the formula. Education funding is falling, basic maintenance isn&#x27;t being performed on much of the infrastructure, and we aren&#x27;t investing enough in the new things that can provide growth for the next hundred years. High-speed and light rail could help address the limits of airport and highway capacity, and provide better mobility in and between cities. Investing in clean electricity generation, a national power network, and improved battery technology could revolutionize how our homes and cars get their power. Very-low cost higher education was a thing in mid-20th-century America--it was possible to attend your in-state university for a few thousand bucks in today&#x27;s dollars. What happened? As long as we pretend these things are too expensive to invest in, then we&#x27;re sure to enter a long slow decline.
评论 #12201603 未加载
评论 #12201661 未加载
评论 #12201654 未加载
评论 #12201592 未加载
评论 #12201738 未加载
评论 #12205189 未加载
评论 #12202190 未加载
评论 #12202658 未加载
评论 #12201627 未加载
mark_l_watson将近 9 年前
Our economy depends on growth, and I think this will cause lots of problems.<p>I saw a quote by a US congressman blaming young people today for our financial problems because many of them are unwilling to put themselves into debt for homes, cars, etc. An outrageous statement, blaming people for doing what they believe to be in their own self interest.<p>If the value of production mostly stayed with the people and local businesses then I can imagine our society thriving with minimal growth.<p>In my opinion, the requirement for growth to keep the financial sector going is like a cancer. Wall Street, central banks, etc. grow in power and consume more of the productive segments of society like a cancer.
评论 #12202863 未加载
cheriot将近 9 年前
Bill Gates&#x27; review of this book takes a techo-optimist view of it.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gatesnotes.com&#x2F;Books&#x2F;The-Rise-and-Fall-of-American-Growth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gatesnotes.com&#x2F;Books&#x2F;The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Americ...</a><p>&quot;Most reviews have focused on the “fall” indicated in the title: the last hundred pages or so, in which Gordon predicts that the future won’t live up to the past in terms of economic growth. I strongly disagree with him on that point, as I discuss below. But I did find his historical analysis, which makes up the bulk of the book, utterly fascinating&quot;
评论 #12202457 未加载
georgeecollins将近 9 年前
Thomas Piketty is so important about this because he shows how exceptional America was in that it had plentiful capital in terms of land, so that labor was unusually valuable vs capital when compared to Europe. It shapes American&#x27;s thinking in a positive way, but we need to acknowledge things have changed. Formerly, almost anyone who was willing to work hard and take a risk could build a homestead. Now the conditions for opportunity are available but more restricted.
评论 #12205888 未加载
评论 #12202500 未加载
gggggg11111将近 9 年前
Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate.<p>Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there)<p>Tho&#x27; yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend their free time locked in their walled garden...
评论 #12201548 未加载
评论 #12201576 未加载
评论 #12201519 未加载
评论 #12201455 未加载
评论 #12202091 未加载
评论 #12201564 未加载
评论 #12201495 未加载
评论 #12204446 未加载
tonyedgecombe将近 9 年前
Up to 1700 the British went through a period of 400 years with virtually no growth per capita:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lse.ac.uk&#x2F;economicHistory&#x2F;seminars&#x2F;ModernAndComparative&#x2F;papers2011-12&#x2F;Papers&#x2F;Broadberry.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.lse.ac.uk&#x2F;economicHistory&#x2F;seminars&#x2F;ModernAndCompa...</a><p>One thing that did boost growth in that period was the black death.
wazoox将近 9 年前
By definition, growth is unsustainable in the long term.<p>GDP growth is totally, completely correlated to energy consumption. In the future, energy availability will at best plateau, or more probably decline. GDP growth then will be a blip in a long trend of stability, and steep decline is ahead to fall back to a sustainable level (i.e. entirely from renewable resources, as it was for the past millions of years).<p>Data speaks for itself, see many article from a physicist here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;physics.ucsd.edu&#x2F;do-the-math&#x2F;2015&#x2F;03&#x2F;bbc-questions-indefinite-growth&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;physics.ucsd.edu&#x2F;do-the-math&#x2F;2015&#x2F;03&#x2F;bbc-questions-in...</a><p>See immense resources from a specialized engineer here: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;manicore.com&#x2F;anglais&#x2F;documentation_a&#x2F;greenhouse&#x2F;kaya_equation.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;manicore.com&#x2F;anglais&#x2F;documentation_a&#x2F;greenhouse&#x2F;kaya_...</a>
Meegul将近 9 年前
Freakonomics made a good podcast with the author of this book regarding this topic [1]. I can&#x27;t say I agree with it, but it&#x27;s an interesting listen nonetheless.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;freakonomics.com&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;american-growth&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;freakonomics.com&#x2F;podcast&#x2F;american-growth&#x2F;</a>
cheriot将近 9 年前
Maybe growth has slowed, not because of an inherent limit of technology, but because we just don&#x27;t have problems as big as our great-grandparents. The biggest enemy we have left is ourselves. We crave attention more, overeat, and look forward to a retirement where our minds waste away.<p>There are some exciting advances we need to extend the modern world to all of humanity without destroying the planet. But for those of us already living with the best humanity has to offer, our biggest limitation is ourselves.<p>I keep trying to come up with a reason for how recent advances are improving our lives without increasing GDP. Does anyone have a compelling one? Things like wikipedia are valuable and don&#x27;t contribute to GDP. But then shouldn&#x27;t people be happier than 20 years ago?
评论 #12202241 未加载
评论 #12202198 未加载
throw2016将近 9 年前
Growth and progress are dehumanised meaningless terms when divorced from quality of life of all citizens on earth. You can have massive unsustainable growth that only filters to the top percentages and destroys the environment. This is quasi feudalism.<p>Currently we seem to have an economic system whose sole purpose seems to make a few wealthy. Any technological, social and political progress is a side effect to sustain the primary purpose of wealth for a few, and should any of the side effects come in the way of the primary purpose it will be quashed, which seems a tad uncivilised. These billions are just a social number more than anything else, and do not do anything meaningful, apart from affording power, privilege to sustain an inherently exploitative cycle with serious environmental consequences.<p>Capitalism by its very nature can only reward the top percentages, the moment demand rises with scarce resources prices rise too, leaving a small exclusive group with disproportionate wealth and power always in control.<p>The market cannot decide anything without heavy constraints, and will take us quickly to a gridlock. In a non functioning traffic intersection, humans will always act not in enlightened self interest or common interest but short term immediate self interest which is neither good for them, everyone else or their environment, evidenced in the ensuing gridlock that will leave everyone including themselves stranded. Yet we set up a system that rewards this uncivilised base individual behavior to get ahead at all costs nevermind anything else. If low cost drives choices it only means the market will rush to exploitation and plunder without constraining rules. If someone is plundering the environment or using slaves an informed choice can only happen if the consumers know about it, cares about it and by the time this happens irreversible damage to the environment or social structure may already be done. Power could ensure information is not available, propaganda or lack of choice for alternatives. Capitalism cannot deliver an egalitarian enlightened sustainable society and is not designed to, only promise to while the small elite control the cycle.<p>Currently the elite will always support the system out of self interest nevermind the consequences for everyone else or the environment while others seek a way to break into the club or an alternative way. This is inherently unstable and will lead to periodic purges or paranoia and control of the population. Like the old quote goes there is enough for everyone&#x27;s need but not for their greed.
crimsonalucard将近 9 年前
This. Finally. People on HN think that startups, technology and economic growth have unlimited potential. This is pure stupidity at its finest. Observations of the natural world show a general trend: that everything, from physical resources to energy has limits. It is a mistake to believe that this general observation does not apply to technology and the human imagination.<p>While we can comprehend what a limit in oil production is... we simply cannot comprehend exactly where or what a limit to the human imagination or technology is... This leads to a false illusion that there is no limit... The reality is: An inability to comprehend something does not lend any evidence to the idea that human potential is unlimited. Like science, true understanding comes from observations of the natural world and as all things observed in the natural world... it is far more likely for humanity to eventually reach a limit in technology.<p>Whether that limit is among us is debateable. Computing has shown dramatic improvements in the past decade but outside of having an app for everything in my phone, nothing has really changed in the past two decades.
评论 #12201401 未加载
评论 #12201379 未加载
评论 #12201321 未加载
评论 #12201445 未加载
评论 #12201413 未加载
评论 #12205991 未加载
评论 #12201420 未加载
评论 #12201683 未加载
评论 #12201386 未加载
评论 #12201843 未加载
评论 #12201453 未加载
评论 #12201419 未加载
dzdt将近 9 年前
Sounds like an interesting book. From the linked review, the main thesis that many improvements from 1870-1970 are one-time-only events seems sound. I also agree with the assessment that &#x27;singularity&#x27; theories are hokum. (That may be more controversial here on HN!)<p>It does sound like he might underestimate the effects of the coming AI&#x2F;robot revolution. Over the next 75 years, any job definable by its output may be taken over by a robot. What is left are service and creative occupations where the human presence and artistry is valued. But this will entail a huge economic upheaval.<p>The other giant quality-of-life advancement that might be out there is slowing or eliminating the effects of aging. That would also come with giant problems of inequality (if it is narrowly available) or population pressure (if it is widely available). But it would surely be another huge advancement for its beneficiaries.
bubbleRefuge将近 9 年前
Modern money is created by keystrokes[1]. We(the US) are no longer on the gold standard(a good thing). In order to have conditions for economic growth(say GDP growth) to occur aggregate income must increase. There are only two possible drivers: Government goes into debt or the private sector goes into debt where debt = spending more than ones income. If government policy makers were to use fiscal policy based economic models that paid closer attention to aggregate debt and aggregate income balances we could have much smoother business cycle and avoid deep recessions where the private sector wants to deleverage. The only thing to fear is inflation and we have never truly sniffed demand pull inflation in the US ever. The 80&#x27;s was supply shock petroleum based inflation.<p>The Federal government needs to put its foot on the accelerator and not the brakes but the politicians don&#x27;t know where the accelerator is.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;neweconomicperspectives.org&#x2F;2012&#x2F;03&#x2F;where-did-the-federal-reserve-get-all-that-money.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;neweconomicperspectives.org&#x2F;2012&#x2F;03&#x2F;where-did-the-fed...</a>
wildmusings将近 9 年前
There are many breakthroughs waiting to be made in medicine, energy production, geoengineering, space exploration, transportation, etc. Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time, which will allow the market for entertainment, travel, and luxury to grow much larger than today, and be accessible to many more people.<p>But if we succumb to this pessimism, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
评论 #12201504 未加载
评论 #12201501 未加载
tim333将近 9 年前
&gt;At the point where computers have achieved superintelligence, we have reached the Singularity<p>&gt;...Gordon has no sympathy for these futuristic views.<p>Kind of dumb really. Like discussing growth at the start of the industrial revolution and having no sympathy for the idea of an industrial revolution.
nabla9将近 9 年前
To keep discussion grounded. We should think this trough economic growth models. What model we use is not that important. You can use simple neoclassical Solow-Swan model as starting point and add more factors as you go.<p>You can play with the model in Wolfram Alpha <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;demonstrations.wolfram.com&#x2F;DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrowthModel&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;demonstrations.wolfram.com&#x2F;DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrow...</a><p>Techno-optimists often argue naively that technological progress or increase in human capital works like magic without understanding how they dynamically interact with more basic factors of production like capital, output and labor.
minikites将近 9 年前
This article reminds me of <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2010&#x2F;05&#x2F;peter-victor-deficit-growth" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.motherjones.com&#x2F;politics&#x2F;2010&#x2F;05&#x2F;peter-victor-def...</a><p>&gt;It took a couple of decades, but unemployment eventually fell to 4 percent, most people&#x27;s standards of living actually rose, and greenhouse gas emissions decreased to well below Kyoto levels. The economy reached a &quot;steady state.&quot; And if the model is accurate, then something like it, say some ecologically minded economists, may be the only way for humanity to survive in the long term.
known将近 9 年前
First things first <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;inequality-is-worse-than-you-think-2013-3" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;inequality-is-worse-than-you-...</a> AND this <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;social-mobility-is-a-myth-in-the-us-2013-3" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.businessinsider.com&#x2F;social-mobility-is-a-myth-in-...</a>
haywirez将近 9 年前
Degrowth[0] is an interesting related perspective&#x2F;solution to check out.<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Degrowth" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Degrowth</a>
edoceo将近 9 年前
Growth at scale, to bubble up to the oligarchs maybe fails.<p>Sustainable Growth for the local business, small market business keeps going.<p>Small business employs more people than the &quot;big guys&quot; and is a real core economic driver.
damptowel将近 9 年前
Mandatory post :)<p>Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;physics.ucsd.edu&#x2F;do-the-math&#x2F;2012&#x2F;04&#x2F;economist-meets-physicist&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;physics.ucsd.edu&#x2F;do-the-math&#x2F;2012&#x2F;04&#x2F;economist-meets-...</a>
havetocharge将近 9 年前
I think it would be helpful to quantify the measure of world warfare. I think it would correspond to economic growth.<p>Nuclear weapons and public opinion on war act as a huge deterrent to large scale mobilizations, so we&#x27;ve reached peak war, and with it, peak economy.