read @tylercowen's Stubborn Attachments.
since many have already written an overview of one sort or another, i'll mostly focus on what i personally got from it, including some conundrums in the spirit of "a reader who wants Tyler to go further"
since many have already written an overview of one sort or another, i'll mostly focus on what i personally got from it, including some conundrums in the spirit of "a reader who wants Tyler to go further"
1) longterm-ism can be founded on many grounds, ranging from compounding economic growth to physics to intuitions about how to treat future generations. this felt *very* natural to me, and held stronger ground than typical moral philosophy arguments grounded in toy worlds
2) radical uncertainty is best addressed (for now) by focusing on big benefit, near-term policies without any obvious negative second-order effects. this was both reassuring (don't worry so much!) and depressing (that's the best we can do?)
3) growth can beat out inequality, at least for now.
4) happiness is *really* tricky to measure. this substantially reduced my credence on the idea of marginal returns on wealth for happiness.
now some questions i was left with.
broadly: what rights does growth/progress conflict with?
broadly: what rights does growth/progress conflict with?
example: what of the right to NOT need to move?
something like the right to preserve your place. (vs growth demanding relocation for opportunity)
something like the right to preserve your place. (vs growth demanding relocation for opportunity)
what about the deprecation of value of knowledge / training?
if the goal of growth is new knowledge, when does the demand for retraining do some form of harm in reducing the value of existing knowledge, skills etc. (a kind of creative destruction for wealth+?)
if the goal of growth is new knowledge, when does the demand for retraining do some form of harm in reducing the value of existing knowledge, skills etc. (a kind of creative destruction for wealth+?)
i'm also stumped on how to respond to a long-term view of human value. the conundrum is how to treat total value of wealth+ given a world with finite resources
if resources are limited, it might be better to not grow the population (or save lives), assuming eventually we'll create more cost-efficient ways to be product and wealth+ier. fewer people is also likely more sustainable and less prone to catastrophic risk.
in other words, should we aim instead to trade off our current consumption (inputs consumed for wealth+) to grow more slowly, but increase efficiency so later we can enjoy greater wealth+ production at the same cost?
at any rate, all of this is to say it's an excellent, thought-provoking, & clearly elucidated argument. one of my top books this year and well worth your time!
