Hacker News Reader

Comment by FeepingCreature | Hacker News Reader

As far as I'm concerned, the optimal size of the economy is when everyone can have everything they want.

Until then, there's work to do.

But the point is that increasing it does not improve life for everyone, only those at the top. The idea of "trickle down" economics is a (frankly laughable) fallacy.

Right, but isn't that the problem then, not "growth" per se? If fulfilling the interests of the rich needs growth, surely fulfilling the interests of everyone will need even more growth.

Well no, because the interests of the rich are never fulfilled, they just scale accordingly. Capitalism isn't a collaboration, it's a competition.

I don't think our economic growth is driven by yachts and mansions.

No it's driven by the desire for yachts and mansions - otherwise why the need for infinite growth? Nobody needs billions or even millions of dollars to live a good life.

If desire for yachts and mansions is what drives people to create value for the rest of us, isn't this the system working exactly as intended?

For those at the top, yes the system is absolutely working as intended, and they do their level best to keep it that way. The problem is that the system itself has some serious drawbacks and that's what the original article is about. Most of the 'created value' you mention is created as a side effect of the quest for wealth (and on a very related note, power) but for most people on Earth doesn't come close to compensating for the created costs (which can largely be avoided by the wealthy). Did you actually read the article? It's all explained there much more eloquently than I could do it.

No matter how big the economy gets not everyone can have the best real estate. There will be always be locations that are preferable to others and no amount of growth will change this.

I suspect this will be fulfilled by improved transportation.

Improved transportation won't get you the choicest pieces of real estate because you still won't be allowed there. It will make the public places even more crowded perhaps.

Some of what expensive real estate buys you is the _lack_ of other people.

If you're out in the boonies, you can have lack of other people for miles. What you won't have is easy access to the nearest city. Transportation solves that.

You also won't have a nice coastline view. Money buys lack of other people in locations where lots of other people want to be.

People always want more. They want a nice car than their neighbours, nicer phone, better clothes. We are way beyond what you need to survive, everything else is about comfort, security and status. And why is these things so important? Mate selection is based on status (among other things).

It is also typical of a famous writer and a very high status person not to see that others would want/have to compete for status in other areas. Not that she is wrong, but the world is a complex place than one can imagine.

There is a difference between wants and needs.

You have a giant industry trying to change your wants, making sure you are not satisfied with what you have.

Isn't it a truism in economics that needs are finite, wants infinite?

I'm not convinced it's actually true.

If you want to explore this you can watch "the century of self" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04

For some reason people want more wealth than anyone could possinly hope to enjoy or need. Talking about multi billionaires.

Isn't this just hedonism?

Well, it's preference utilitarianism.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com