a) Intelligence growth is intrinsically “good” (it expands human possibility space-> improve individual welfare for each person with more possibilities->increase total welfare for the society)
b) If intelligence growth has downsides, the downsides have to be addressed at the minimum cost.
Of course not. There can be substantial externalities and zero sum games related to IA, as to any other tecnology. AI is like the “internal combustion engine”. But “income” is a direct input for human welfare.
You can consider that externalities are not properly priced, and that natural resources are too cheap because their owners have too high discount rates. Then you need to tax both things to limit the resource use/ externality production.
Still, after you have put this “extra market” constraints in the economy, you want maximum GDP (that is more or less, the “aggregate” budget contraint). More degrees of freedom are inescapably “good”, and that is what growth give us.
One thing I forgot to mention: a substantial carbon tax that accounts for its externalities would be a policy like the ones you describe and would most likely lead to, at least temporary, degrowth.
Oh, sure. Many things can lead to degrowth, and some could be necesary. What I point out is that degrowth is allwayws a negative side consequence. You do not plan for it, you suffer it (the less, the better).
Economists often speak of “dematerialization” to refer to the natural trend of capitalism to increase GDP by unit of material input, both by increasing efficiency in inputs use and consumption substitution.
You can imagine a future where that people becomes more interested in virtual reality instead of physical consumption. That is a form of “dematerialization” but it cannot be considered degrowth (well, at least if our price indexes were properly constructed, that often is not the case).
But what shall be avoided at all costs, is people celebrating GDP contraction (=somebody’s income contraction).
This is obvious. And, again, the point is that the relationship between GDP and social outcomes after some point breaks down or becomes irrelevant.
Many things can lead to degrowth, and some could be necesary. What I point out is that degrowth is allwayws a negative side consequence. You do not plan for it, you suffer it (the less, the better).
It seems strange to argue in favour of not planning for a negative consequence of something that may be necessary.
You are Spanish. Spain’s GDP per capita is much lower than that in the USA, yet Spain’s life expectancy is 5 years longer than that of USA’s and Spain outperforms USA in many other social indicators. There’s much more than GDP in prosperity. Past a certain point, the relationship between GDP and social outcomes breaks down *or becomes irrelevant*, at least for many indicators.
The problem with macro GDP skepticism is that it implies micro personal income skepticism, and that is totally implausible (among other consequences of personal income skepticism, imagine how irrelevant becomes unequality for USA where more than 20.000 per capita income is so prevalent).
Those who tell me that more income will not make me happier are telling me that I do not know how to use additional freedom. It is a very marxist position: as (Groucho) Marx said: “Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?””
Regarding Spain, of course, many British people retire here: you have the Sun, the sunny people, and structural unemployment levels (or the realtive lack of tech and other “high end” jobs) do not affect you.
What about life expectancy by income bucket in the US? How objective is that relation?
It looks that income matters in the US, but then it does not matter across countries…
The US is an extremely diverse society, with extreme outcomes. You have a Bulgaria and a Denmark in each city, we have them in different countries. In fact the positive relation at the micro level between health and income shall be more relevant that aggregate comparisons, that can be extremely affected by ecological fallacies.
Of course, there is a lot causal reversion in the income—welfare relation; both people and countries that are richer are often better in extra economic terms.
But you cannot separate material and non material prosperity. It is the loop of activity and personal virtue what allows people to became affluent, and income gives the resources to have a fulfilling life.
What were the social and moral consequences of stagnating socialism in the USRR? Demoralization and collapse.
Macro growth can be disputed, because is removed from personal experience, but parents always try to put their children in the path of (micro) growth…
It looks that income matters in the US, but then it does not matter across countries…
Well, this is the whole point. Some ways to organise countries achieve better social outcomes without the need of better GDP. You don’t have Bulgaria and Denmark in each US city in this sense, which is the sense that counts in this conversation.
But you cannot separate material and non material prosperity.
This is not what degrowthers claim and it is not what I claimed: “*Past a certain point*, the relationship between GDP and social outcomes breaks down *or becomes irrelevant*, at least for many indicators.” Logarithmic plots show pretty straight lines. This basically means exactly that past a certain point the relationship becomes irrelevant.
In any case, this all shows my point. Saying “Growth is good” is like saying “Intelligence is good”. Precisely the point of the post. All this is irrelevant if the ecological collapse degrowthers fear is a big enough thing. This would mean something leading to a pretty bad humanity’s state, far worse than stark degrowth. If you want to argue with a degrowther, you have to argue about that, not say growth is good. Same that advocates for AI development have to argue (and mostly don’t do) that developing AI is not dangerous, not saying how wonderful AI could be.
One can say the same about intelligence:
a) Intelligence growth is intrinsically “good” (it expands human possibility space-> improve individual welfare for each person with more possibilities->increase total welfare for the society)
b) If intelligence growth has downsides, the downsides have to be addressed at the minimum cost.
Of course not. There can be substantial externalities and zero sum games related to IA, as to any other tecnology. AI is like the “internal combustion engine”. But “income” is a direct input for human welfare.
You can consider that externalities are not properly priced, and that natural resources are too cheap because their owners have too high discount rates. Then you need to tax both things to limit the resource use/ externality production.
Still, after you have put this “extra market” constraints in the economy, you want maximum GDP (that is more or less, the “aggregate” budget contraint). More degrees of freedom are inescapably “good”, and that is what growth give us.
When you are against GDP, you are against people.
One thing I forgot to mention: a substantial carbon tax that accounts for its externalities would be a policy like the ones you describe and would most likely lead to, at least temporary, degrowth.
Oh, sure. Many things can lead to degrowth, and some could be necesary. What I point out is that degrowth is allwayws a negative side consequence. You do not plan for it, you suffer it (the less, the better).
Economists often speak of “dematerialization” to refer to the natural trend of capitalism to increase GDP by unit of material input, both by increasing efficiency in inputs use and consumption substitution.
You can imagine a future where that people becomes more interested in virtual reality instead of physical consumption. That is a form of “dematerialization” but it cannot be considered degrowth (well, at least if our price indexes were properly constructed, that often is not the case).
But what shall be avoided at all costs, is people celebrating GDP contraction (=somebody’s income contraction).
This is obvious. And, again, the point is that the relationship between GDP and social outcomes after some point breaks down or becomes irrelevant.
It seems strange to argue in favour of not planning for a negative consequence of something that may be necessary.
You are Spanish. Spain’s GDP per capita is much lower than that in the USA, yet Spain’s life expectancy is 5 years longer than that of USA’s and Spain outperforms USA in many other social indicators. There’s much more than GDP in prosperity. Past a certain point, the relationship between GDP and social outcomes breaks down *or becomes irrelevant*, at least for many indicators.
Objective measures of subjetive welfare?
The problem with macro GDP skepticism is that it implies micro personal income skepticism, and that is totally implausible (among other consequences of personal income skepticism, imagine how irrelevant becomes unequality for USA where more than 20.000 per capita income is so prevalent).
Those who tell me that more income will not make me happier are telling me that I do not know how to use additional freedom. It is a very marxist position: as (Groucho) Marx said: “Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes?””
Regarding Spain, of course, many British people retire here: you have the Sun, the sunny people, and structural unemployment levels (or the realtive lack of tech and other “high end” jobs) do not affect you.
I don’t find “Spain’s life expectancy is 5 years longer than that of USA’s” to be subjective. Do you?
What about life expectancy by income bucket in the US? How objective is that relation?
It looks that income matters in the US, but then it does not matter across countries…
The US is an extremely diverse society, with extreme outcomes. You have a Bulgaria and a Denmark in each city, we have them in different countries. In fact the positive relation at the micro level between health and income shall be more relevant that aggregate comparisons, that can be extremely affected by ecological fallacies.
Of course, there is a lot causal reversion in the income—welfare relation; both people and countries that are richer are often better in extra economic terms.
But you cannot separate material and non material prosperity. It is the loop of activity and personal virtue what allows people to became affluent, and income gives the resources to have a fulfilling life.
What were the social and moral consequences of stagnating socialism in the USRR? Demoralization and collapse.
Macro growth can be disputed, because is removed from personal experience, but parents always try to put their children in the path of (micro) growth…
Well, this is the whole point. Some ways to organise countries achieve better social outcomes without the need of better GDP. You don’t have Bulgaria and Denmark in each US city in this sense, which is the sense that counts in this conversation.
This is not what degrowthers claim and it is not what I claimed: “*Past a certain point*, the relationship between GDP and social outcomes breaks down *or becomes irrelevant*, at least for many indicators.” Logarithmic plots show pretty straight lines. This basically means exactly that past a certain point the relationship becomes irrelevant.
In any case, this all shows my point. Saying “Growth is good” is like saying “Intelligence is good”. Precisely the point of the post. All this is irrelevant if the ecological collapse degrowthers fear is a big enough thing. This would mean something leading to a pretty bad humanity’s state, far worse than stark degrowth. If you want to argue with a degrowther, you have to argue about that, not say growth is good. Same that advocates for AI development have to argue (and mostly don’t do) that developing AI is not dangerous, not saying how wonderful AI could be.