Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I largely agree with the observations in the article although I believe the author misstates the intention of government with "But in the 1980s, folks in power decided bigger was better, and conventional political wisdom followed suit." The issue with the 80's was that the US economy was in a very weird place where we had low growth and very high inflation (called 'stagflation' at the time). The mechanics of the economy were adjusted not to make 'bigger better' but instead to break out of the state of stagnant inflation.

That the changes weren't undone in the 90s when much of the economic forces were re-aligned was a problem, but understandable since nobody wanted to go back to that mode. We are living in the opposite local minimum of growth and deflation where the economy is growing but inflation isn't happening because real income is going down.

That said I believe that making single supplier contracts unenforcable would be an interesting change to try.




This was just after US got off the gold standard, and around the time of the savings and loans crisis. More recently, Medicare and drug prices is one of my favorite examples, and the same logic apply to things like the NSA.


A fair point. Missing the connection to the NSA though :-)

And repeating that I agree with the basic premise that single supplier contracts should be made unenforcable however to do that you have to provide a way to penalizing companies that do things to enforce them.


The point is that the NSA is funded by government debt, which is their way of printing money. One of the reasons why we got off the gold standard is government spending.


What if the burst of growth in the 90s could be attributed to the inflation in the 80s?

That'd be pretty unfortunate, if the low inflation mandate of the fed kept inflation below some inflection point where economic growth is more likely.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: