Daily Archives: October 18, 2005

Kurzweilonomics 101

Tech Central Station columnist Arnold Kling sees Kurzweil’s “The Singularity is Near” as a new theory of economics.

Being an economist, Kling would tend to see many of Kurzweil’s insights in that light. And a sociologist might think the book is about sociology. Cosmologists, biologists, and computer scientists will no doubt see the book as derivative or illuminative of their work. It looks somewhat like a legal treatise to me. Everybody’s right. Most fields of study deserve some credit for moving our civilization forward. And the Technological Singularity impacts us all.

In his column Kling demonstrates that most economists are still depending on linear models to project economic growth.

Economists routinely forecast annual growth in U.S. labor productivity of roughly two percent for the next several decades.

That’s actually worse than linear thinking. We passed that level of annual growth in productivity years ago.

…since 1992, productivity growth has sped up. As this article from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out, “The performance of productivity in the U.S. economy has delivered some big surprises over the last several years. One surprise was in the latter half of the 1990s, when productivity growth surged to average an annual rate of over 3%, more than twice as fast as the rate in the previous two decades. A bigger surprise has been the further ratcheting up…productivity growth averaged around 3.8% for the 2001 through 2004 period.

Kling makes clear that if an exponential growth in productivity holds, many of the fiscal problems that worry us today can be easily paid for by the economy of tomorrow. If the average income moves from $35,000 today to $250,000 in 2025 in real spending power as predicted by the exponential model, then all fiscal problems become manageable. The national debt, social security, medicaid, etc.

Kling is cautiously optimistic:

…I am still not comfortable watching our government accumulate obligations to future entitlement recipients at the current rate. As of now, however, the data on average productivity growth over the past decade is reasonably consistent with the hypothesis that the economy is winning the Great Race.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE from Phil: The productivity numbers that Kling mentions seem particularly encouraging. I speculated about how encouraging these numbers might be last year in response to some earlier Arnold Kling TCS pieces about productivity.

But what struck me about Kling’s analysis in light of Kurzweil’s book is what it might have to say about the Solow computer paradox. In 1987, economist Robert Solow made his famous observation:

You can see the computer age everywhere but in the productivity statistics.

For years, productivity lagged while industries were being computerized. While the new technology should, in theory, have brought about marked increases in productivity, those increases were not forthcoming. No shortage of theories were offered up to account for the productivity lag, including what might be called the Tetris/Porn theory. But hindsight now shows us that the lag was a temporary one, and productivity really does seem to be growing in leaps and bounds as a result of the computer revolution.

In an e-mail exchange, I asked Kling whether these productivity numbers mean the end of the Solow computer paradox. He said that many economists agree that it does, including Brad DeLong, but that Solow himself may be maintaining a skeptical position on the matter. Time will tell. Meanwhile, Kling recommends this as a good backgrounder on what’s been happening with productivity.

I Hate to Be a Worrier

It’s just not my usual style. However, I couldn’t help but pause for a moment upon reading this (via Paul Hsieh):

Tiny black holes could soon be made on demand in particle accelerators, but shortly after their birth, they might blink out of existence. In the 14 October PRL, a team proposes a mechanism for this vanishing act: The space around these black holes could wrap upon itself and bud off, forming a new baby universe that is invisible to us. Such an event might signify the existence of extra dimensions beyond the three we are familiar with and might give clues to the properties of the extra dimensions.

Tiny black holes, baby universes, extra dimensions–these are my kind of people. Still, I can’t help but wonder…

What if the tiny black hole doesn’t fade into it’s baby universe on schedule? I mean, I realize that it’s tiny but it’s also a BLACK HOLE. Haven’t they been known to like, swallow things? Like planets? I’m just asking.

Or what if the tiny black hole drops off into its little universe on schedule, are we sure the process is through? We don’t really have much of an idea as to the dynamics of relationships between universes, now do we? Is it possible that if you send something into another universe, some kind of equilibrium insists that something else comes back? Sure, it would probably be benign and, of course, “tiny” but then again… we don’t really have any reason to assume either of those things. Something huge and nasty might come back. Something tiny and nasty might come back.

There are a lot of options.

Finally, have the scientists planning these tests read this book?

The scientists in this story try something equally inoccuous-sounding, but they accidentally trigger the destruction of the universe. Oops. Who knew?

Sure, it’s just science fiction. But very recently, any talk of tiny black holes and baby universes would have been science fiction, too.

UPDATE: Thanks to reader Cole Kitchen for getting me straight on which Greg Egan book I was thinking about.