undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmmooss29d ago0 comments

Would you share a more detailed argument? Right now we only have adjectives: "ridiculous", "idiotic".

The US economy generally did very well with those standards, maybe the best it ever did, especially considering distribution of benefits.

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

slibhb29d ago· 1 in thread

> The US economy generally did very well with those standards

Spurious correlation. Few experts (economists) think old regulations caused economic growth.

If we really want to recreate post-war growth, we should destroy half our infastructure and fight a world war. Then, in the years following the end of that war, we can experience catch-up growth.

mmoossOP29d ago

Spurious strawperson.

I didn't say they caused it, but they sure didn't stop it.

I specifically said it was about distribution, not aggregate growth.

There's still no argument for the GGP presented.

> the years following the end of that war

Until the 1980s? I think some evidence is needed.

muddi90028d ago

This is a good podcast on the old regime: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/696337392

Summary of the old regime: Mergers that lead to 5+% market share were blocked.

Then the "consumer harm in terms of prices" was adopted. Which swung the pendulum the other way. That is the fundamental economic policy now. Which has lead to abhorrent results.

I wrote a comment on previous post that was about how consumer harm standards have warped the discussion on tariffs: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48096236

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse