4 ms·
> In general people tend to work on greed and fear. I don't think that's an accurate depiction of humans. People work either: (1) they want money, and/or (2) t
by winter_blue 11y ago
> In general people tend to work on greed and fear.
I don't think that's an accurate depiction of humans. People work either: (1) they want money, and/or (2) they want something to do during their waking hours.
Even if I had enough money that I never had to work the rest of my life, I still would definitely work, because I enjoy work, and want to do something meaningful (from my perspective) with my life. I would most likely be a pro bono computer science researcher, and might maybe join a PhD program -- if I get to pick what I research on, which might be possible since I don't need grant money, and would cost the school zilch.
But basically, my point is that what motivates me (and most people) to work is either: (1) the love of work, or (2) the need for money.
Absolutely not greed and fear, as you say.
Now with regard to communist societies, I think the biggest problem is the utter lack of freedom. Maybe I'm wrong, but I have a strong feeling that the epic failure of communist economies like the Soviet Union or pre-1990 India could be directly attributable to heavy regulation of businesses. They made it hard to start and run a business.
Now I'm sure over 90% people will never start register a company in their lives (maybe that percentage is reducing now), but making it hard for 10% that do start & run businesses could be the direct cause for the failure of these large economies. For example, India, until 1990 followed Soviet Union-inspired policies, and one of the biggest consequences of this was insane red tape know as "License Raj"[1] wherein you couldn't start a business without approval from a dozen corrupt government agencies, and even if you did succeed in starting one, you were subject to an overwhelming number of regulations that made it insanely hard for you to run your business.
Why do I think making it hard for 10% to run business is the cause of their economic failure? Because it prevented any sort of free market capitalistic competition. Everything was run by a bunch of non-business-minded bureaucrats who predictably did a bad job at it. Restricting private businesses and especially competition prevented an increase in production efficiency, and made the economy as a whole less efficient. A lot of these factors and other factors rolled in to one, led to the hour long lines for milk and butter.
More fundamentally, regulations erodes away your freedom. If you want to do something -- and starting a business or selling something is doing something -- if the government steps in and says "no you can't do that without my approval" that is an insane Mafia-protection-racket-esque interference in your personal freedom. You're just trying to make something and sell it! Nothing wrong with that! People have been doing this for millennia! Why do I need to listen to you, follow your little rules, or pay you a fee, to exercise my personal freedom?
Regulations take away freedom. And enough of it destroys economies. End of story.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Licence_Raj
- SixSigma 11y ago> Regulations take away freedom. The freedom to employ children, the freedom to lock the fire doors, the freedom to drive your truck for 36hours straight, the freedom to pollute the environment.......
- gwright 11y agoOnline debate of 'regulation' seems to rapidly, if not instantaneously, settle into this false ping-pong between "regulation is evil" and "regulation is required to save the children". If you have ever run a business, you would understand that the problem isn't the type of constraints you list here but instead is the endless number of ill-conceived, ill-defined, and just plain dumb regulations that are more often about protecting a special interest than in protecting individuals. The net effect of the monotonically increasing complexity of regulation is that the government has more and more power to control our economic activity. Is it any wonder that special interests spend enormous amounts of money to influence this process?
- SixSigma 11y agoI have run my own business so it is rather impertinent for you to take some higher "I know better than you" ground. The purpose of government and therefore regulation is to control externalities. That some regulations are bad is not the fault of the concept of regulation; it is the failure of your government structure.
- gwright 11y agoI apologize for my impertinence, it seems to have distracted you such that you missed the point that I was making that regulations are neither an absolute good nor an absolute evil (despite what you read on the Internet). Using extreme examples in either direction to argue in favor of the other extreme doesn't convince anyone of any thing. There are lots of theories of government. Controlling externalities is really a special case of protecting individual rights, which is the role of government from my point of view. I'm not sure what is or isn't in your definition of 'government structure'. I was trying to point out that to the extent that we support an expansive scope of government regulation we create a situation where it is completely rational for people and organizations to expend considerable amounts of time and money to influence that process. If instead we support a limited scope of government regulation that diminishes the pressure to influence regulations.