If the growth rate of bad shit is higher than the growth rate of good shit, you're screwed...if the reverse is true, you're golden.
Romer's new Growth theory:
Innovation = Growth
The Hanson-Falkenstein hypothesis:
Status/Envy dominates human social decision-making.
Aretae's competition law:
Power comes from scarcity/economics, not from formal structure or guns.
Commentary: The only mechanic in a (sufficiently isolated) mining town has more power than the guy who tells the guys with the guns what to do. Furthermore, if 10 different groups have guns...the power of each is highly constrained.
The Mancur Olsen equation:
All stable systems tend to damage innovation
Commentary: This is because innovation upsets status-patterns, and the high status people ALWAYS lose relative to some newcomer.
The Game Theory hypothesis:
The results of most social or biological systems can be predicted by calculating the Game theory (at an individual level) of various behavior patterns.
Pournelle's Iron Law:
All systems are captured by folks who attempt to increase/stabilize the system's power vs. outsiders.
(Yes, Aretaevian reformulation)
BBdM's theory:
The game theory patterns of how to increase/stabilize a ruler's power are well-defined, and (nearly) completely determined by the size of the selectorate (% of population necessary to have support of in order to maintain power).
Modern experimental epistemology:
Individual prediction-making/rationality sucks badly.
When compared experimentally to betting markets, aggregation, team-based decisionmaking, experiment, or automated statistical analysis
Hayek's knowledge problem:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to effectively plan an economy in a way that increases welfare over what the market will provide. Information of the important types CANNOT be centralized.
Conclusions:
BECAUSE the above are true
- there are precisely 2 political choices...
- unstable growing systems with constantly changing power dynamics
- stable systems that travel towards the malthusian wall.
- established powers are guaranteed to prefer B, based on status stability.
- Government is the most established power, and will always move towards prefering B.
- The stronger the government, the MORE they prefer B.
Posts
3 comments:
This leads one to suppose:
1. Disruption of the governing status quo in any way that does not lead to destruction of our intellectual capital will lead to long run improvements in our lives.
1a. This may even be true of disruptions that DO destroy physical capital, ie. losing a war (Japan, Germany in WWII)
2. Hence we should support anything that has a good chance of disrupting the governing status quo (the 50s and 60s civil rights movement, first wave feminism, wikileaks, China overtaking the USA as economically dominant, the internet breaking down previously secure industries such as bookstores and newspapers...)
Note that in the case of civil rights and feminism I've put restrictions on the dates. The early movements disrupted the status quo and arguably helped innovation at the time. These movements were then co-opted by the new status quo and can now be restrictive on innovation.
Dr. Pat....
I think your extension is even smarter than my initial formulation.
China > US should disrupt the worldwide status quo...and promote total benefit/growth. However, that won't necessarily be true for the sitting fatcats (Us in the US)
Other than that...it's a softer reformulation of Jefferson:
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
The tree of innovation must be refreshed form time to time with the blood of existing institutions and upstarts?
that won't necessarily be true for the sitting fatcats (Us in the US)
That would be YOU in the US...
But really, if China>USA results in 1% more innovation over the next 3 decades or so, (and hence 35% more growth by the end of that time period) that may well outweigh the damage done to the average American, if not those with a current seat in the Senate or NYSE.
Post a Comment