←back to thread

383 points imartin2k | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
jstanley[dead post] ◴[] No.14330589[source]
Only for the short term. Once enough people have died, prices will reach a new equilibrium.

And you can't keep everybody alive. Population will grow exponentially until something bounds it. The ultimate bound is the amount of resources we can extract per person.

There's going to have to be competition for resources, and those who lose out will die. We may as well get used to that now.

1. euske ◴[] No.14330683[source]
I think this argument is misleading because we're not guaranteed to find this "equilibrium" in a reasonable amount of time.

Think this of as a machine learning problem. The market is trying to get the global optimal point. I'm sure it exists, but the way we do this is pretty much by doing hill climbing, which may end up with a bad local maxima. And there are billions of parameters. You might sometimes want to try a different strategy even if it looks worse temporarily.