5 ms·

Good. I'm to the point of telling my friends I'm about 50% likely to vote for Trump. Let it burn. And I don't mean this rhetorically. I wouldn't put too muc

Good. I'm to the point of telling my friends I'm about 50% likely to vote for Trump. Let it burn. And I don't mean this rhetorically. I wouldn't put too much stock in polls, this time around. P.S. In terms of being an effective, ethical leader, I think Trump is a terrible choice. But, I think the extant system needs to go. As I said, let it burn.

AnimalMuppet 10y ago
Um, do you have any idea what "let it burn" is going to look like, in terms of human suffering? And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. So I cannot agree with you. Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.
- burnitdown 10y ago
  Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? The system is broken. The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    > Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? I think I do, yes. If you think it's within the same order of magnitude as "let it burn", I suspect you have a very limited imagination. > The system is broken. To paraphrase The Princess Bride: There's a big difference between "mostly broken" and "all broken". I don't think it's "all broken". > The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot. But the fast descent into madness may not be necessary either. And if not, then going there voluntarily is incredibly unwise.
    - burnitdown 10y ago
      Very large groups of people are already on the other side. They are ready and have been for a while. If you can't feel the squeeze, you consider yourself extremely lucky.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- antisthenes 10y ago
  > And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. Consider a simple thought experiment in punitive game theory. Consider person A (non-wealthy) and B (wealthy). If person A wants to punish person B and has the opportunity to do so at cost X to themselves, while inflicting cost 10X on person B, it makes sense for them to do so. It is essentially a bargaining advantage - in fact, this sort of punitive bargaining technique is really the only leverage the less wealthy have against the capitalist class. This whole principle lay behind the formation of unions, because while the punitive bargaining power of one person is meaningless, when a good portion of your work force refuses to work, you are suffering real losses and are forced to negotiate. This is the logic behind letting the system burn and I think Brexit actually confirmed this theory much better than back-of-the-envelope game theory ever could. In just a few days, the British elite lost how much of its wealth, compared to the bottom half of the population? > Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response. This is completely subjective and a matter of perspective. It also depends on how long-term your view is. The optimal strategy here is not as clear as it may seem.
  - BallinBige 10y ago
    TIL about punitive game theory
    - antisthenes 10y ago
      I'm sorry, that was a qualitative term that I made up on the spot. The situation more accurately falls somewhere between game theory and public choice theory, but there's no official term for it afaik.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    Also, consider that the system burning may actually benefit the ~50% or so who vote to burn it. Who wins when "the global economy" improves? Largely the already wealthy. Who wins when the stock market goes up? At least in the USA, about 50% of us do not [1]. If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1% raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than everyone else) 1: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-percent-americans-have-no-money-in-stocks/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...

AnimalMuppet 10y ago

Um, do you have any idea what "let it burn" is going to look like, in terms of human suffering? And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. So I cannot agree with you. Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response.

burnitdown 10y ago
Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? The system is broken. The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  > Um, do you have any idea of what "continue to do what we have been doing" is going to look like in terms of human suffering? I think I do, yes. If you think it's within the same order of magnitude as "let it burn", I suspect you have a very limited imagination. > The system is broken. To paraphrase The Princess Bride: There's a big difference between "mostly broken" and "all broken". I don't think it's "all broken". > The long decent into madness is completely unnecessary. The quicker it dies, the quicker we can pivot. But the fast descent into madness may not be necessary either. And if not, then going there voluntarily is incredibly unwise.
  - burnitdown 10y ago
    Very large groups of people are already on the other side. They are ready and have been for a while. If you can't feel the squeeze, you consider yourself extremely lucky.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
antisthenes 10y ago
> And those on the short end of the stick currently are likely to get more than their fair share of that suffering. Consider a simple thought experiment in punitive game theory. Consider person A (non-wealthy) and B (wealthy). If person A wants to punish person B and has the opportunity to do so at cost X to themselves, while inflicting cost 10X on person B, it makes sense for them to do so. It is essentially a bargaining advantage - in fact, this sort of punitive bargaining technique is really the only leverage the less wealthy have against the capitalist class. This whole principle lay behind the formation of unions, because while the punitive bargaining power of one person is meaningless, when a good portion of your work force refuses to work, you are suffering real losses and are forced to negotiate. This is the logic behind letting the system burn and I think Brexit actually confirmed this theory much better than back-of-the-envelope game theory ever could. In just a few days, the British elite lost how much of its wealth, compared to the bottom half of the population? > Bad as things are, they'd have to be a lot worse for "let it burn" to be an appropriate response. This is completely subjective and a matter of perspective. It also depends on how long-term your view is. The optimal strategy here is not as clear as it may seem.
- BallinBige 10y ago
  TIL about punitive game theory
  - antisthenes 10y ago
    I'm sorry, that was a qualitative term that I made up on the spot. The situation more accurately falls somewhere between game theory and public choice theory, but there's no official term for it afaik.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Also, consider that the system burning may actually benefit the ~50% or so who vote to burn it. Who wins when "the global economy" improves? Largely the already wealthy. Who wins when the stock market goes up? At least in the USA, about 50% of us do not [1]. If everyone in the bottom 50% loses 1% of their wealth while everyone in the top 50% loses 10% of their wealth, those initially at the bottom, while now still likely at the bottom, are now (when considered relatively) doing significantly better than they were before. They would rationally vote for such a deal. If you don't believe that, look at the reverse: when you get a 1% raise and your neighbor gets a 10% raise, you end up worse off. (Look at Bay Area housing prices when one group of people quickly becomes wealthier than everyone else) 1: http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-percent-americans-have-no-money-in-stocks/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/10/investing/investing-52-perce...