Half of All Economic Progress Has Happened After the Year 2000!
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 09. 2024
- Half of all economic progress that has ever happened has happened after the year 2000. This is also just about the most important subject in the world that has the fewest people even aware of it. I am one of at most three people who has contributed substantially to this field in the last 20 years.
The Exponential Trendline of Economic Growth : atom.singulari...
This is an audio remastering of a 2021 video, that you can compare the sound to : • Half of All Economic P...
#EconomicProgress #WealthCreation #Singularity
If you have spent the 21st century in China this is an inescapable reality. If you are in the bottom 50% of Americans you can be forgiven for not noticing. Americans have a smartphone, a much bigger TV, and a better car but it was much more expensive. Almost everything is more expensive and your income would need to be 80% higher just to have kept up with inflation. Your life certainly doesn't feel 200% better than it did in 2001. In the US I feel most of it has been in paper gains and most Americans don't own very much paper.
Yes, it is a worldwide aggregate.
The US is losing ground to many other parts of the world because of :
i) Immigration into the US no longer selects for higher-skilled people.
ii) The two-party system can't withstand the social media age, since too many people expect nothing from 'their' side, and will excuse any ineptitude or corruption by 'their' side.
@@KartikGadaATOM More importantly, I would add that the US is becoming less of a society based on capitalism and more of a society based on socialism. The more we tilt towards socialism, the less wealth and prosperity there will be in the US. Eventually, if that trend continues, we will become the next Argentina: a once prosperous, 3rd world country.
You aren’t supposed to feel richer. These talking points have been recorded for as long as we could. Back in the 1920’s they were saying life didn’t feel as good as the 1900’s and 1940’s where saying life didn’t feel as good as the 1920’s, it goes on and on. You are not supposed to feel content. If you do then the system isn’t working. Humans don’t diminish the prevalence of sadness or happiness. There’s a reason 1st worlders are more depressed than 3 rd worlders despite having better lives. It is what it is.
I remember as a child in Canada in the 1980s I had two pairs of pants, two or three shirts, one jacket and two pair of shoes. We had one TV. 40 years later I have closets full of clothes and many TVs. What I don't have a lot of is houses. My family went from having one home to having none.
The housing situation in Canada is due to policy failure, where a huge amount of immigration is not being matched with proportional construction. But overall, the living space per capita has risen in aggregate, despite instances of governmental management as I described.
The telework revolution has enabled people to live further from cities.
Will you make even an updated video regarding high tech vs low tech? I am curious to know whether or not something has changed in this regard compared to your last video about it, and if the world economy is now 4% high tech or still 3%. Or maybe 5%? But I think 5% is a bit too much optimistic
4% now.
Hasn't half of all money ever printed also occurred after the same year?
No.
Now, if you recognize that money printing accelerates technology without inflation, I would be very impressed, as that is a much more sophisticated point.
@KartikGadaATOM Speaking of tech, how about this concept. 0% inflation is still an inflation of the money supply.
How pray tell does inflation accelerate tech? Maybe forces people and industry to advance and produce wealth faster than the bankers and governments can steal it?
@@KartikGadaATOMit is still impossible to explain to many people how massive supply chain issues where behind much of the spike in inflation and other causes beside money printing.
The advance in technology will cause massive deflation as new technologies get incorporated into supply chains and shorten supply chains.
I’m not a trained economist though so I like the idea prices should start to go lower
@kennethoneill4176 Not being a 'trained economist' is a huge advantage, as most PhD Economists know things that are 50-70 years behind the times. They don't yet know about the existence of software.
@GeoFry3 There are many videos on this channel of about that.
'Inflation of the money supply' does not mean anything. Since 1/1/2010 (almost 15 years), M2 has risen 170%, while CPI has risen just 40%.
"Why the West rules - for now: Patterns of History" by Ian Morris has a similar chart, but includes the ups and downs of the waves we always have, because we weren't able to unlock the next step to more growth than the current system. In essence, because of exponential growth of people and capital, much of humanities economic growth to current levels has happened in very recent times. I'm a historian and I agree and most colleagues would, although their math is more shaky and they might disagree in their estimates before trying to crunch the numbers. Try to put it in different terms and you might get more of an audience, how is the balance of power shifting due to changing balances of economic potential? Americans will love you, because it includes the ability to turn money into guns.🤣
Great video, Kartik!
However, I still side with Kurzweil that the tech singularity will occur by 2045 due to underlying super acceleration effects (positive 3rd and higher order derivatives).
***Go Blue!***
Haven't heard of these effects. Can you give an example or two?
@@AnteLene It just means that the rate of acceleration is itself increasing.
@@suncat9 Of course, but that's the case for all exponential functions - their n-th derivatives are just ln(b)^n scalings of their values (b is the base of the exponential). So an exponential technological increase by definition has increasing velocity, increasing acceleration, increasing jerk, etc.
What exactly is the distinction with 'super-acceleration' effects? Did Kurzweil define it or is it just used to aggrandize the concept of exponentiation for the less technical-minded? The only distinction I can see is that it's based off a composition of exponentials (i.e. tetration) rather than a single exponential (products of exponentials can be reduced to single exponentials).
The second derivative of acceleration is taken into account. I still say 2062 or so, since the bottom 4 billion people in the world are still very poor. So they have either a huge distance to cover, or are going to die off.
@AnteLene
For the longest time we were stuck in the 10 kilowatt range with our computers, up to the 2000's pretty much. But then came scalability and so called hyperscale.
If this "breakthrough" didn't happen we could have been looking at singularity in who knows, 10,000 years, depending on how good we are with limited resources.
But computers that can be built at 10 megawatts, 10 gigawatts scale and the supporting energy production put us so much realistically into the decades horizon with the singularity.
GDP and the S&P500 does not equal "economic progress." The chart shown at 7:32 is unsourced and the methodology behind its compilation dubious, but its main problem is, again, that GDP does not equal "econic progress." The chart is also inaccurate because economic output at around 2000 years ago from 2050 should be noticably larger than 1500 years ago from 2050 so the monotonic increase is wrong.
The best measurement of all is dollars per unit of computation/storage/bandwidth/energy. Of course, that would indicate economic progress being even faster, which would move even further away from your incorrect narrative.
But you are wrong about World GDP in 50 AD being larger than in 550 AD, particularly in the logarithmic vertical axis of the chart. There was a world outside Europe in the first five centuries AD, you know. The chart is correct.
Lastly, by failing to describe what you consider to be 'econic' progress, your rejection of widely-recognized measurements does not build credibility.
@@KartikGadaATOM No, the chart really can't be correct. The world outside Europe, at the time that is importantly the Middle East and China, also collapsed. Therefore, the world economy hit an early peak in the 2nd century, and 500-600 saw a radical decline. That should be reflected in a chart like this. Source? Your "per unit of bandwiith-energy" is vague. Anyway...
Our World in Data agrees with me :
ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-gdp-over-the-long-run
I hope you know how exponentials work.
Plus, every single remotely credible Futurist or Technologist already knows this is true.
With all due respect, I clicked on your handle, and you are a lecturer in English and Linguistics. That doesn't mean you *can't* know a few things about mathematics, technology, and finance, or the histories of each. But as none of your published output is in any of these subjects, your extremely overconfident belief in your knowledge of these very different subjects is a bit comical. Especially since you have clearly never heard of the concept of 'dollars per unit of computing' until now.
@@KartikGadaATOM The Maddison Database, which this link is based on, is extremely dodgy for data before 1820 so cannot be relied on for accurate GDP reconstructions. As a supposed expert, you should know this. Attacking my credentials hardly does justice to a supposedly academic video, so what's the point of that? I can assure you I know a thing or two about history and antiquity.
"I can assure you I know a thing or two about history and antiquity."
Apparently not, since from your answer, you mentioned the Middle East and China, but not India, which was the largest economy in the world in the first Millennium AD. Plus, China's big decline was around 740 AD, not 550 AD.
Maddison Database is not 'dodgy' just because it refutes your narrative. There is no detailed report online refuting the Maddison databse. All pre-1820 historical accounts of measurements such as 'days of labor to purchase X calories of food', or life expectancy, or infant mortality corroborate this well-established reality of exponential economic progress.
Plus, one would have to know a lot about technology, mathematics, and finance to challenge the claim of this video.
Since you are so big on 'sources', what is your source that Maddison is 'dodgy'? I assure you that people with any knowledge of the history of engineering and technology don't think it is dodgy.
I recommend you read Ray Kurzweil's books, particularly his recent one, 'The Singularity is Nearer'.
China
Thanks for the video. Possible acceleration of this exponential trend due to AI?
Internet
Does it mean that spy 500 will be a good investment? Will it grow much faster that 12% in future ?😊
It could if one considers an acceleration in earnings as per of an acceleration in technology-derived productivity.
*GDP is Grossly Distorted Propaganda*
What is *NDP?*
Net Domestic Product !!!
Funny how economists do not say much about NDP. What kind of businessman does not know Net from Gross?
You see there is Depreciation that economists subtract from GDP, at least when they want to. But that depreciation is only for Capital Goods.
Consumer Durable Goods got added to create GDP also. But somehow the depreciation of Durable Consumer Goods disappeared into space. How many automobiles have American consumers trashed since Sputnik? There were 200,000,000 motor vehicles in the United States in 1995. Where did all of that Depreciation go?
That has nothing to do with the macroeconomic point. Debt taken by one country is lent by another, so the global figure is unaffected.
@@KartikGadaATOM
Debt taken by consumers in the country for garbage designed to become obsolete doesn't get added to GDP????
Where does the depreciation of the garbage get subtracted? I asked a PhD economist to explain how an automobile engine worked. He couldn't even start. But he drove a white SUV. The Laws of Physics do not care about the economy. Come to think of it, they do not care about people either.
None of that discounts exponential economic growth as a reality.
PhD Economists are fools, which is why futurists have to do the work that economists can't do.
World poverty has fallen from 94% in 1820 to under 10% today.
@@KartikGadaATOMWhat does this mean, "World poverty has fallen ... 1820..."
I get that a random drug addict on the st has a cell phone today. Yet any 19th Cent Robber Baron would have given me anything for an antibiotic to save his child. How can being in poverty in the 21st Cent be compared to 19th Cent poverty?
If I stepped off a boat in Baltimore in 1820 only able to speak English and work, I could find work. And the same us essentially true. But my minimum is so far beyond what wealthy merchant could want.
@spadeespada9432 Certain metrics like life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, and hours of work to purchase certain universal staple foods are pretty solid and unanimous metrics.