←back to thread

339 points throw0101c | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.536s | 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 #
giantg2 ◴[] No.44611558[source]
Why is 9% for financial services bad? This should cover fees/interest from everything like loans, transactions, mortgages, advice, investing, etc. It doesn't seem that surprising to me that the systems that are the backbone for all the money operations that power the rest of the economy make up about 10%.
replies(3): >>44611841 #>>44612103 #>>44612526 #
dontlaugh ◴[] No.44612103[source]
9% is very inefficient.
replies(1): >>44612265 #
wavemode ◴[] No.44612265[source]
"Inefficient" implies the money is being burned or something. It's flowing into the pockets of people who work in the financial services industry, who then spend it on other things. The economy isn't zero-sum.

And the industry itself greases the wheels of other industries. In other words without financial services like lending and payment processing there would be less spending and investment overall, so other industries would shrink along with it.

replies(3): >>44612320 #>>44612366 #>>44612655 #
dontlaugh ◴[] No.44612320[source]
That’s a lot of money for “greasing”. Nearly 10% on any kind of overhead is generally considered a lot.

Central planning is drastically more efficient, for example. It’s why large companies use it internally.

replies(2): >>44612383 #>>44614461 #
1. hatefulmoron ◴[] No.44612383[source]
Is there any evidence that central planning on a much larger scale is drastically more efficient? We're talking about a whole country, after all. I take your point that companies themselves are usually centrally planned internally, but centrally planned economies haven't fared so well.
replies(1): >>44613435 #
2. 9rx ◴[] No.44613435[source]
> Is there any evidence that central planning on a much larger scale is drastically more efficient?

If it were, why do we have more than one company?

> I take your point that companies themselves are usually centrally planned internally

Well, sort of. It is true that companies exist solely for the reason of exploiting efficiencies in central planning. If central planning was always inefficient, companies wouldn't exist! But, as I alluded to earlier, no company has found central planning to be efficient in all cases. Not even the largest company in the world centrally plans everything. Not even close.

As with most things in life, a bit of balance will serve you well.