There are other important outcomes of an economy, like better healthcare, education, housing, and well-being. But it seems like those real, tangible outcomes have become decoupled from “the line goes up” economy.
I think the original reply was itself a strawman of the point the article was trying to make. Manufacturing isn’t the only important thing about an economy but it’s an important one.
I don't think my point was straw-manning the article. The article directly conflates economic output with manufacturing output, by using manufacturing signals (like power consumption!) as a corollary for some hidden, Real Economy.
That's crackpottery. I was succinct in my criticism, but there is plenty of room for elaboration.
If the essay instead took those economic indicators and delved into why manufacturing output should matter more than other output in determining the Real Economy, then hey, we've got an essay to discuss. But just eliding that and saying "manufacturing is real because atoms are real, everything else is b.s." -- that's not really an argument, that's just laying your biases extremely bare. Which I pointed out.
That said, geohot is close to some real points, I just don't think he has the background to articulate it rigorously. And for the record, I do think the US economy is entirely too financialized.
But again, that's a different -- likely better -- essay.
I think the original reply was itself a strawman of the point the article was trying to make. Manufacturing isn’t the only important thing about an economy but it’s an important one.