>"Do what you’re least-bad at."
>You quit art, math, sports - to attract a job.
>Start flipping burgers.
>Boss invests in improving burger flipping skills.
>Forty years, golden spatula, wrist fuses to handle.
>Peak skill: 27 combo meals memorized.
>Graph climbs for them, flat for you.
>Rent, food, gas: at best the same percentage of income as always.
<Start saving early.
<Don't give up on your aspirations of being developed.
<Upgrade your skills yourself, take what you need.
<Forty years, golden mind,
<Peak skill: frontiers of global technology at your fingertips.
<Graph climbs for you, flat for them.
<Mortgage, food, gas: works not precarious, not a concern.
Why do we still think TFP (total factor productivity) growth is the primary means of development when the Four Asian Tigers and the Soviet Union saw development which was 75% explained by growing inputs (savings rate, schooled workers), and only 25% by TFP. And this is excluding that the savings rate increases investment in technology and training which can increase TFP. In the case of Singapore TFP was effectively zero, and yet they still developed.
Suppose you're Singapore you make investments using the frontier of technology in any given sector as you enter. TFP is zero, and what you do to increase the economy is increases inputs, namely of machinery and human capital. Am I wrong?
>>2680013>TFPMystical bullshit invented by "economists" (high priests of capitalism). Get GDP out of your head and then learn real economics. Everything else will make sense to you. To clarify: TFP is not a real thing, it's a catch all term for all the other metrics they cannot classify. As you can see, this is pure idealism and the reality is an intersection of things. For example: Savings rate, but into productive equipment is different from Savings rate into yachts and corporate buybacks. Also, goods transfers between state-owned enterprises don't count in GDP because no money was exchanged even if real economic activity happened.* I could go on, but the whole premise of modern economics is bullshit which is why people ask questions like OP.
>Congrats you discovered neoclassical economics is bullshit*watch vidrel to see example of "free good" that is not counted in GEE DEE PEE @ 39:15
>>2680045>Mystical bullshit invented by "economists" (high priests of capitalism). Get GDP out of your head and then learn real economics.My understanding is that TFP was increases to productivity without increasing costs, so replacement of depreciated machines with upgraded alternatives (not scaling), or improved management techniques, or improved techniques in the usage of existing machinery.Truthfully am perhaps too incompetent today to really learn the alchemical recipes of bourgeois economics. Never really understood what GDP was, in part because of confusion over the Soviet case. Even the math presented here has been forgotten by me. It's quite sad really.
It's very interesting the idea that labor value would be sets rather than values. I'll look forward to reading this fellows book when it comes out. It does sound rather difficult to plan with, but then again what do I know.