lmm comments on Stupid Questions Thread - January 2014 - Less Wrong

10 Post author: RomeoStevens 13 January 2014 02:31AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (293)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: gwern 13 January 2014 06:42:16PM 7 points [-]

Firstly, resources are spent on freezing people, keeping them frozen and researching how to improve cryonics. There may be fringe benefits to this (for example, researching how to freeze people more efficiently might lead to improvements in cold chains, which would be pretty snazzy). There would certainly be real resource wastage.

How does this connect with the funding process of cryonics? When someone signs up and buys life insurance, they are eliminating consumption during their lifetime of the premiums and in effect investing it in the wider economy via the insurance company's investment in bonds etc; when they die and the insurance is cashed in for cryonics, some of it gets used on the process itself, but a lot goes into the trust fund where again it is invested in the wider economy. The trust fund uses the return for expenses like liquid nitrogen but it's supposed to be using only part of the return (so the endowment builds up and there's protection against disasters) and in any case, society's gain from the extra investment should exceed the fund's return (since why would anyone offer the fund investments on which they would take a loss and overpay the fund?). And this gain ought to compound over the long run.

So it seems to me that the main effect of cryonics on the economy is to increase long-term growth.

Comment author: lmm 13 January 2014 10:49:03PM 0 points [-]

Money circulates more when used for short-term consumption, than long-term investment, no? So I'd expect a shift from the former to the latter to slow economic growth.

Comment author: gwern 13 January 2014 10:53:56PM 2 points [-]

I don't follow. How can consumption increase economic growth when it comes at the cost of investment? Investment is what creates economic output.

Comment author: Chrysophylax 14 January 2014 11:28:13AM -2 points [-]

There is such a thing as overinvestment. There is also such a thing as underconsumption, which is what we have right now.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 16 January 2014 06:23:52AM 1 point [-]

Can you define either one without reference to value judgements? If not, I suggest you make explicit the value judgement involved in saying that we currently have underconsumption.

Comment author: Chrysophylax 16 January 2014 09:33:44PM -2 points [-]

Yes, due to those being standard terms in economics. Overinvestment occurs when investment is poorly allocated due to overly-cheap credit and is a key concept of the Austrian school. Underconsumption is the key concept of Keynesian economics and the economic views of every non-idiot since Keynes; even Friedman openly declared that "we are all Keynesians now". Keynesian thought, which centres on the possibility of prolonged deficient demand (like what caused the recession), wasn't wrong, it was incomplete; the reason fine-tuning by demand management doesn't work simply wasn't known until we had the concept of the vertical long-run Phillips curve. Both of these ideas are currently being taught to first-year undergraduates.

Comment author: lmm 15 January 2014 12:48:30PM 0 points [-]

Economic activity, i.e. positive-sum trades, are what generate economic output (that and direct labour). Investment and consumption demand can both lead to economic activity. AIUI the available evidence is that with the current economy a marginal dollar will produce a greater increase in economic activity in consumption than in investment.

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 16 January 2014 06:21:42AM 1 point [-]

I think you are failing to make a crucial distinction: positive-sum trades do not generate economic activity, they are economic activity. Investment generates future opportunities for such trades.