←back to thread

339 points throw0101c | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source
Show context
jonas21 ◴[] No.44609857[source]
I don't know... 1.2% of GDP just doesn't seem that extreme to me. Certainly nowhere near "eating the economy" level compared to other transformative technologies or programs like:

- Apollo program: 4%

- Railroads: 6% (mentioned by the author)

- Covid stimulus: 27%

- WW2 defense: 40%

replies(18): >>44609903 #>>44609914 #>>44609929 #>>44609942 #>>44609978 #>>44610058 #>>44610176 #>>44610526 #>>44610627 #>>44610705 #>>44610847 #>>44611010 #>>44611147 #>>44611151 #>>44611385 #>>44612266 #>>44612358 #>>44614934 #
raincole ◴[] No.44609942[source]
Yeah that's my first reaction to. 1.2% doesn't sound much. It's just people making headlines out of thin air. If it lists the water and energy consumption I might be more concerned.

Slightly off-topic, but ~9% of GDP is generated by "financial services" in the US. Personally I think it's a more alarming data point.

replies(5): >>44610013 #>>44610794 #>>44611558 #>>44611598 #>>44613030 #
linotype ◴[] No.44610013[source]
https://youtu.be/HA1YKg_OLBw

Financial services makes the unrealistic consumption of rich countries possible. That’s worth 9%.

replies(3): >>44610067 #>>44610538 #>>44610672 #
UltraSane ◴[] No.44610538[source]
How do they do that?
replies(1): >>44611367 #
dismalaf ◴[] No.44611367[source]
Money multiplier, resource allocation.
replies(1): >>44611658 #
1. UltraSane ◴[] No.44611658[source]
Odd, they just seem mostly parasitic to me.