That doesn't mean you own any software or ebooks obtained by ill-gotten means. Nor does it mean you can replicate and sell an application, as though it was your own, that you paid a licenses or rental fee for. But you still own your hard-drive and are free to erase it and sell it.
Eh, what standard are we holding people to? You ever shop for a used car(maybe even some rare spec of a sports car)? When you finally found a good deal did you shout in the streets and put out an ad to make sure no one else is around to make a greater offer?
~~Plus, who plays out a mental moral dilemma with a historical museum any time they want to buy something?~~
Actually I think this might be a false equivalency OP, because this isn't just any old used car. I think it's fair to at least stop and question whether this should go to some greater good or not.
> The book referenced argues there have been no major innovations that have changed society and the economy in large ways since that time period, or at least nothing that shows up in any economic metric.
Apple makes $400 billion a year largely selling a product that was at best a sci-fi imagination item in the 1970s.
> Or health metric: there was a step change when treated water and indoor plumbing (including sewage treatment) came in. We got penicillin in ~1945, and widespread vaccines in the 1950-60s. CT scans were invented in the 1960s, and MRIs in the 1970s.
Possible contender. The book was published in 2016 (and has statistics up to 2014), so perhaps if a second edition is ever published they'll mention this.
But the mortality rate from chlorinated indoor plumbing and sewage treatment, is a hard metric to beat when it comes to improving human mortality. Along with penicillin in 1945 and widespread vaccines in the 1950-60s (especially against smallpox, measles, diphtheria, poio), I'm not sure if MRNA would be as much of a step change.
> I believe the user is referring to the iPhone here.
The author of the book in a 2016 interview:
> Q. As you note in your book, many of the inventions in the special century took as long as five decades to reach their full potential. Since the iPhone was introduced in 2007, isn't it too early to say that smartphones aren't transformative?
> A. I think the potential of smartphones has played out very rapidly. We're still at the dawn of payment systems based on the smartphone. We may 10 years from now look back and marvel at the fact that people had to pull credit cards out of their wallet.
> But remember, the entire decade of the rollout of the smartphone and all the applications have not caused productivity growth to budge. There are many people who think we're missing the benefits of the smartphone in our measures of productivity and GDP. But we've always missed the benefits of new inventions.
Economic growth has always been understated. But the degree of understatement was more important in the past, because the innovations were more transformative to every aspect of human life.
> […] In the last 15 years, we’ve had the invention of smartphones and social networks, and what they’ve done is bring enormous amounts of consumer surplus to everyday people of the world. This is not really counted in productivity, it hasn’t changed the way businesses conduct their day-to-day affairs all that much, but what they have done is change the lives of citizens in a way that is not counted in GDP or productivity. It’s possible the amount of consumer welfare we’re getting relative to GDP may be growing at an unprecedented rate.
It's very nice to have maps and the world's knowledge in your pocket, but how much has it cause the economy to growth? Has it reduced rates of poverty? If it has, it's not showing up in the numbers, so how can we tell?
(The technology may be having more of an impact in other countries, especially those starting at a lower 'base', but there isn't a measurable economic impact in the US.)
Does nobody really justify it? The argument for inflation is pretty simple I think. It encourages everyone to do something with their money now, invest or spend.
I think that is a valid argument and makes some sense. have to toss the hot potato. The argument for the trade offs are pretty simple I think. It encourages more concentration of wealth in assets and increases the amount of malinvestment.
The question is to what degree. I am saying there's no analytical argument for 2%.
I think most people would agree that 10% or 50% inflation would be bad. But why is 2% better than 1% or 0%?. Why is 1% better than -1%? it depends on the time horizon. higher inflation today will cause more economic activity, higher inflation in the long run encourages debt and misallocation of resources.
And we can't ignore that ebooks exist.
reply