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。

Lessons from the Long Depression

106 点作者 jajag大约 6 年前

10 条评论

kangnkodos大约 6 年前
The author refers to creating economic opportunities as making watering holes. In the Florida everglades, each alligator makes a watering hole in the flat, hard limestone ground. I don&#x27;t know how big the holes are. About 20 feet across and 6 feet deep? The alligator mostly lives in it for several years. The hole fills with water when it rains, and tends to stay full of water during the dry season. This is a huge benefit to all animals around it. And of course, the alligator benefits by occasionally eating one of the visitors, but fewer than you might think. But even with the alligator eating, making the watering hole is a huge net benefit to the ecosystem as a whole.<p>I think the question boils down to, &quot;How can the government encourage the creation of new job-creating watering holes, instead of pushing policies which increase the rent of existing watering holes?&quot;
评论 #19691156 未加载
andrepd大约 6 年前
Reading this sort of things is getting gradually more grating for me to read.<p>We organise ourselves in a system where: &quot;a world in which goods and services are so cheap to produce that less and less capital is required for investment, and so easy to produce that less and less labour is required to produce them&quot; is not a <i>life-transforming utopia</i>, but a catastrophe. The author constantly points this, points how growth in the &quot;long stagnation&quot; never materialised into better conditions and a better standard of living, and how that didn&#x27;t change until war came.<p>Yet he never ceases to operate in the same system and to try to find the answers <i>within</i> the system. It never even crosses his thought that... perhaps the fundamental tenets of the system should be changed, or at the very least questionable. All he does is find convoluted ways of patching the a broken system <i>from within the system</i>.
评论 #19691740 未加载
评论 #19690999 未加载
评论 #19690828 未加载
评论 #19692840 未加载
评论 #19690627 未加载
评论 #19690267 未加载
评论 #19690827 未加载
nostrademons大约 6 年前
The other part of the Long Depression that&#x27;s frequently glossed over is the substitution effect. While prices <i>in aggregate</i> declined, some prices declined extremely rapidly while others (thanks to Baumol&#x27;s Cost Disease) declined slowly or not at all. The resulting cost differential led to a fundamental change in the <i>structure</i> of society and its values.<p>What represents wealth in an agrarian society? Land, livestock, horses, slaves, servants, leisure time, and social connections. Many of these goods <i>increased</i> in price during the Gilded Age, or became impossible to obtain. No more homesteading the West, no more slave plantations, independent ranchers &amp; farmers were driven out of business by the meatpacking &amp; agribusiness industries, the domestic servant class largely disappeared.<p>But what happened, eventually, is that these definitions of wealth became marginalized in favor of ownership of new luxury goods. What represented wealth in the 1950s? Having an expensive car. Owning a house in the suburbs with electricity &amp; running water, and a washing machine, dishwasher, and vacuum cleaner. Flying on jets. None of these even existed during the Gilded Age.<p>It&#x27;s possible we&#x27;ll see a similar resolution to the current crisis, where the expensive and un-automatable pillars of a middle-class existence - health care, education, housing - simply get marginalized as a backward remnant of a previous era, and new status symbols - perhaps control of virtual currencies, prowess in computer games, neural net uplinks, bionic implants - take their place.
评论 #19695377 未加载
imtringued大约 6 年前
Honestly the problem doesn&#x27;t appear to be very complicated.<p>Basically people primarily buy stocks (maybe housing too?) not for the income they produce but for the price gains of the stock itself.<p>The goal of the central bank is to meet it&#x27;s inflation target by injecting money into the economy via policies like QE. The stocks rise in price as intended and therefore the yield decreased. What was not expected is that the stock owners do not care about the low yield because the capital gains caused by QE outweigh the comparatively low dividend payments (in some cases none at all).<p>So why not tax capital gains more and dividend payments less?<p>Capital gains happen whenever anyone (central bank or other investors) buys stocks for more than you bought, the profits are not bounded by the success of the company.<p>Dividend payments however always have to be paid out by the company based on how much profit it made and therefore they are independent of the share price. A stock with low yields is unattractive and therefore gets sold to buy a stock with higher yields.
评论 #19693854 未加载
评论 #19693865 未加载
simonh大约 6 年前
That&#x27;s a log way from being the whole story, then or now. In the 1870s ok unemployment was high at 25%, but the rate of growth of the population had only just dipped below 30% per decade. Job growth was actually also booming, just not as much.<p>Similarly if we take a global view over the last few decades, China added hundreds of millions of people to the labour force. It&#x27;s been the period of the greatest reduction in poverty ever. That&#x27;s got to count for something.<p>EDIT In fact enormous wealth has been created, and it&#x27;s not all been concentrated in the top 1%. The bottom 30% or so globally has also benefited massively. It just hasn&#x27;t really benefited mid range workers in the West, but let&#x27;s not pretend the last few decades have been a disaster, or even particularly bad in the grand scheme of things.
评论 #19690856 未加载
11thEarlOfMar大约 6 年前
&quot;..for production costs to fall, either there must be fewer people earning wages, or wages must be lower.&quot;<p>Prices can go down without production or labor costs falling. Equipment is frequently capitalized. The approach that CFOs take to applying both the payments (interest) and depreciation are valves they can turn to modulate the P&amp;L. This is totally disconnected from supply, demand and pricing.<p>Moreover, the margins earned can be very high at the beginning of a product cycle and therefore, still robust enough to justify the investment and labor costs even when prices have dropped.<p>Finally, in many cases, the lower prices induce more demand. Average selling price drops, demand grows, offsetting the price decrease.<p>This is all modus operandi for the display, semiconductor and computing industries, among others.
评论 #19692896 未加载
roenxi大约 6 年前
The paragraph starting &quot;Some people regard this sort of deflation as benign.&quot; is a lead in to some interesting observations and raises classic questions about what &#x27;success&#x27; means in an economy.<p>Consider a case of demand deflation where farmers decide they don&#x27;t need anything any more, stop growing crops in excess of what is needed to feed themselves and sit on productive land like stone toads. I think there would be near-absolute consensus that the situation was very bad.<p>The same situation but with coal and oil swapped for farmland would be different. I happen to think that would still be a bad outcome, but there is a pretty sizeable environmental lobby that wants exactly that and would call it good. Assuming it happened over a bit of time so that alternatives could be bought on line.<p>There is a key question here - who exactly should have the power to deny an economy access to primary resources (particularly those linked to land ownership)? Under what circumstances is that acceptable and unacceptable? That is the mechanical underlying issue for why bad employment numbers correlate to bad outcomes.<p>At the end of the day, reflecting on these issues makes me think we just need a land tax based on an assessed value of land + mineral wealth underneath the land. Something large enough that families have to repurchase their land once a generation. That is the only idea I have that is even a little consistent with property rights. The issue with dropping demand isn&#x27;t that people are unemployed - I <i>like</i> being unemployed in the classic not-looking-for-work sense. The problem is that people are willing to work and don&#x27;t have enough to live comfortably but are unable to get raw resources to do so.<p>The correct solution is to acknowledge that land is maybe the only resource that a human can&#x27;t fabricate through hard work and then construct a gentle system of rewards and incentives to make sure that resources are deployed.
评论 #19693238 未加载
paulpauper大约 6 年前
<i>However, the well-off don’t like paying taxes to support the unemployed and the low-paid, so they use their electoral muscle to pressure governments to cut welfare bills. As welfare bills are cut, poverty rises among the unemployed and poorly paid. Governments may adopt draconian measures to force the unemployed into work, even at starvation wages, and to quash civil unrest.</i><p>The opposite has happened. In spite of low taxes, entitlement spending keeps rising, such as dissablty, healthcare, education, and housing. Who is paying for it? Bondholders. Other countries are unable to sell so much debt so cheaply and thus have to resort to austerity.
评论 #19691878 未加载
PeterStuer大约 6 年前
If only we could price in negative externalities, we would see a very different supply&#x2F;demand point. Since this is completely antithetical to the current socio-economic powers and mores, I&#x27;m confident that true costs of consumption and thus production will never be charged to the culpable.
microcolonel大约 6 年前
(2013)<p>A lot of this essay is about &quot;right now&quot;, which at the time was November 2013.
评论 #19690446 未加载