Always love reading your posts. 2 points/questions:
1) You mentioned that 2% growth in energy consumption roughly matched labor productivity until 1970 and after that energy consumption grew in line with population growth, which may be interpreted as the evidence for slowing productivity growth in the US henceforth. Didn't the US economy slowly start to shift towards a less oil-dependent, more service oriented economy since that time period? If an economy shifts towards a service economy, why would productivity get affected? In the US's case, that seems to be the case.
2) On the hypothetical 15 hour workweek, I think that would probably never come true. I think as automation and AI reshape and restructure work as we know it, mankind would always re-orientate themselves towards filling up the void with more "fulfilling" work, this is definitely going to be very interesting episode to watch in the next couple of decades.
https://www.econlib.org/productivity-puzzles/ [I disagree on the inflation analogy.] I think, however, that Sumner implies that regulation is inevitably growth inhibiting. I claim it is only when the regulators have not passed their Econ 102 class (where optimal regulation/taxation of externalities is covered), which is indeed, pretty frequent.
:) Well I was still in high school so cannot be counted as a full-fledged '50s "futurist." Flying cars may be a good metaphor, but only that. Space travel is more like it. And I don't think anyone, but Keynes wanted a 15 hour work week as opposed to more pleasant and much better paid 40 hour week. In general, I'd say the "disappointment" is that the rate of increase of good things in general seemed to slow down. To be fair, I do not think people were optimistic enough about reducing poverty abroad; that is a pleasant surprise.
I agree with the diagnosis and prescription in general.
I'd be more specific in pointing to mis regulation of externalities -- restriction of an indicator rather than the externality itself (noise, CO2 emission, parking/traffic, safety not equal for all risks, etc.) -- as the problem.
For taxation, I'd say use taxation of personal consumption rather than of personal or business INCOME.
Always love reading your posts. 2 points/questions:
1) You mentioned that 2% growth in energy consumption roughly matched labor productivity until 1970 and after that energy consumption grew in line with population growth, which may be interpreted as the evidence for slowing productivity growth in the US henceforth. Didn't the US economy slowly start to shift towards a less oil-dependent, more service oriented economy since that time period? If an economy shifts towards a service economy, why would productivity get affected? In the US's case, that seems to be the case.
2) On the hypothetical 15 hour workweek, I think that would probably never come true. I think as automation and AI reshape and restructure work as we know it, mankind would always re-orientate themselves towards filling up the void with more "fulfilling" work, this is definitely going to be very interesting episode to watch in the next couple of decades.
You may like this:
https://www.econlib.org/productivity-puzzles/ [I disagree on the inflation analogy.] I think, however, that Sumner implies that regulation is inevitably growth inhibiting. I claim it is only when the regulators have not passed their Econ 102 class (where optimal regulation/taxation of externalities is covered), which is indeed, pretty frequent.
:) Well I was still in high school so cannot be counted as a full-fledged '50s "futurist." Flying cars may be a good metaphor, but only that. Space travel is more like it. And I don't think anyone, but Keynes wanted a 15 hour work week as opposed to more pleasant and much better paid 40 hour week. In general, I'd say the "disappointment" is that the rate of increase of good things in general seemed to slow down. To be fair, I do not think people were optimistic enough about reducing poverty abroad; that is a pleasant surprise.
I agree with the diagnosis and prescription in general.
I'd be more specific in pointing to mis regulation of externalities -- restriction of an indicator rather than the externality itself (noise, CO2 emission, parking/traffic, safety not equal for all risks, etc.) -- as the problem.
For taxation, I'd say use taxation of personal consumption rather than of personal or business INCOME.