Comment by Xcelerate | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xcelerate | Hacker News Reader

Perhaps my perspective is too nescient (I'm an engineer — not an economist), but this claim seems sketchy to me:

> How does [sharing] add value to the economy over the longer term? There is no production. It is entirely consumption. Recycling is all very well – and we do need secondary markets – but we cannot build an economy solely on sweating existing assets. An economy that exists solely on consumption has no long-term future.

Sharing is a process that optimizes usage of available resources. Why should we make more cars than we need? Why should everyone have a boat if not everyone needs a boat? Sure, more boat-building jobs are "created" if we feel everyone really needs their own personal boat, but there seems to be a strong opportunity cost that is being forgotten here: the labor necessary to build boats could instead be directed into a more useful form that advances society as a whole much more quickly.

What do I mean by advance? Well, I guess to some degree that's subjective. But I'm fairly certain everyone can agree on at least some universal goals that humanity would like to achieve, and artificially increasing the number of jobs available for the sake of having more jobs available seems like it would hurt our overall progress in the long run.

I think this quote from Warren Buffet sums up what I'm trying to say much better than I can:

> The way I see it is that my money represents an enormous number of claim checks on society. It is like I have these little pieces of paper that I can turn into consumption. If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GNP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing. I don't do that though. I don't use very many of those claim checks. There's nothing material I want very much. And I'm going to give virtually all of those claim checks to charity when my wife and I die.

A old Canadian critique of jobs for the sake of jobs:

> Taking up the policy of a public works program as a solution for unemployment, it was criticized as a plan that took no account of the part that machinery played in modern construction, with a road-making machine instanced as an example. He saw, said Mr. Aberhart, work in progress at an airport and was told that the men were given picks and shovels in order to lengthen the work, to which he replied why not give them spoons and forks instead of picks and shovels if the object was to lengthen out the task.

That reminds me of the hypothetical idea of central banks increasing productivity/employment by burying money in the ground. Suddenly you create lots of mining jobs and shovel sales. Or the 'broken window' fallacy.

> Sharing is a process that optimizes usage of available resources. Why should we make more cars than we need?

Isn't it weird how we spend so much time talking about conservation of resources and then an article like this will make the same people say, "Sharing leads to no production!". Like you mentioned, this is simply a matter of humans getting better at making things and using the things we make. We'll find new things to make.

Production != progress. Increases in wealth == progress.

I don't think the article is trying to imply that we should be making stuff just for the sake of making stuff, or creating jobs just for the sake of creating jobs. It's just giving an explanation for why many new industries don't show up in productivity measurements.

If car sharing did take off in a big way, then it will redistribute value. Presumably fewer cars will be sold, so car manufacturers will be worse off. The people sharing cars might be better off (they would earn money through sharing, but note that they are sacrificing several things for the added income), and the companies running the sharing business definitely become wealthier.

That Buffet quote certainly reminds me that the rich are different from you and I. He could also hire those 10,000 people to do AIDS research, etc., but he really wants to die with the most toys. "Charity" can have them afterwards.

That's certainly true for many super-affluent people, but Warren Buffett is hardly the poster child. He lives a relatively modest lifestyle, and has already given away a large portion of his fortune.

I agree, he seems not to have lost his moral compass -- he's no Larry Ellison. But something about the phrase "enormous number of claim checks on society" suggests that he's collecting points, and trying to rack up a high score by the end of the game.

To me, it suggests exactly the opposite. Rather than simply seeing wealth as a high-score indicator, he recognizes that by holding onto it he is squandering a huge amount of potential wealth for society at large.

I'd argue the super-wealthy are only different than the "rest of us" in terms of scale on this issue.

Relevant Louis CK:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC4FnfNKwUo

I drive a cheap Honda Fit, not an Infinity, but the concept still applies to almost everyone who lives a decently comfortable western life.

If Buffett wants to try to rack up a high score, and plays by fair and equal rules in the process (not hurting anyone, not pressuring people into transactions, paying his taxes on time, et cetera), what's wrong with him doing that?

I'm veering off-topic here, but Buffett's large deals are often cunningly crafted so that taxes are eliminated. He's got the right to do that, but it doesn't make him a shining example of a taxpayer.

Still, the charities he is giving his wealth to will get some of this benefit!

One huge benefit to Warren Buffett waiting until he dies to give his money away is that he has consistently achieved outstanding returns on his capital, so by holding onto it now, he has much more to donate tomorrow. If he had given away all his money when he had $1 billion he wouldn't have $50 billion to donate today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com