[ExI] Free Trade

[spike at rainier66.com]

From: John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> 



 >> OK cool, common ground, a basis for discussion.  I propose some limit or goal, a defined hard limit, some finite number between zero and infinity.  A previous political leader suggested 2%.  Well OK, I can go with 2%. 

 

>…So you believe that even if we take the GARGANTUAN improvement in AI that we've seen in just the last two years into consideration, not to mention other advancements in science and technology, we shouldn't expect more than a 2% yearly growth in economic productivity for the foreseeable future. I respectfully disagree. 

 

John K Clark

 

 

But we don’t disagree at all.  We use the estimated GDP from the most recent year for which we have reliable data, then go 2% above that.  If the GARGANTUAN improvement in AI causes a GARGANTUAN increase in GDP, then about a year and a half later, 2% above that federal revenue is the new budget limit.  All the economic growth we anticipate still results in a much faster than 2% growth in federal spending limits.  

 

There is no disagreement really.  My notion only differs in that we are looking backwards a year or two (since ChatGPT caused a huge increase in GDP more than two years ago) and using two-years-back GDP as our growth indicator, rather than speculating on what it WILL BE if Singularity Santa shows up with a gargantuan bag of toys for good girls and boys.  We must be prepared for what happens if he doesn’t, or if Singularity Santa goes to other houses across the Pacific Ocean and doesn’t ever get here.

 

So… same idea John, just a slight delay, less than 2 years, no problem, ja?

 

So… alls we need to do is look at the federal revenue from 2023, multiply by 1.02 and that is this year’s budget hard limit, done.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251014/073e3180/attachment.htm>