5 ms·

Thinking democracy's success is tied to economic growth is a pretty dim worldview. I hope he's wrong about that.

internaut 10y ago
The logic behind it, I think game theory, is simple and does not just apply to democracy but any system of corporate or state government. It goes like this: Suppose there exist 2 parties to a conflict of interest. I want Z, but you also want Z, and this is a rival good, only one of us can have it at one time. Then it is possible for 1 party to play ball with the other party, but IFF there is a different, separate conflict of interest where the trade can be reversed. So I win A, but only if I allow you to win B. 'the next time' This logic only can work if we allow each other to be winners. Suppose our economic incentive was to 'defect' in game theory parlance, and defect always. Why would this be so? Perhaps because we're in a zero sum game instead of a positive sum game. Perhaps I must win or I will die, in which case my non-cooperation with you is non-negotiable. "I want Z, but you also want Z, and this is a rival good, only one of us can have it at one time." sama, and Thiel, believe technology solves this by turning a potential rival good into non-rival goods. Or put more simply; if everybody can have stuff they are happy. There can be exceptions to this logic, like a mother choosing her child's survival over her own in a pregnancy gone wrong. But in a world without growth, without those potential negotiations 'violence' becomes selected for. The important realization is not the trivial 'more stuff makes people happy'. It does, but the real reason why growth is a big deal is that in the long run it selects for outcomes which don't lead to deadlock leading to violence. Where I part company with Sam, is the belief that democracy is worth saving. It is worth saving representation, each entity's self interest in a system must be recognized yes, but not democracy. Ironically equal voting must lead to unequal outcomes. Right from the initial premise it does not hold up against physical reality. Like genetics, circumstance, and all of history. There are other systems in G-space that have the potential to be much better at governing. That includes systems in which people would feel much more represented than they do in our current system. Equality of votes is like a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. I mean even the NSDAP had policies on the environment and health most people agree with in the present. What does that say about our ability to select? tldr; The relationship is close to axiomatic in game theory and democracy when looked at in the cold light of day is a pretty dim worldview to start with.
- sebastos 10y ago
  Can you provide any links / reading related to some "other systems in G-space"? Sounds interesting.
  - internaut 10y ago
    Sure. For clarification: by G-space I meant 'how to govern well' or 'how to solve problems about, with, or in governance'. This is obviously an enormous topic area. It is also a dangerous and highly contentious subject matter filled with many taboos, due to its nature and importance. That said political scholars, like economists, have come to many consensus realizations. This is kind of amazing since Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are clones from a political science perspective, there exists a great diversity of thought. This means that there is not as much of a gap between somebody like Francis Fukuyama and Moldbug as is popularly imagined. If you have a sincere interest in outcomes you find unexpected allies. Here is a good start: Volume 1: The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama Volume 2: Political Order and Political Decay by Francis Fukuyama Seeing Like a State by James Scott Exit, Voice and Loyalty by Albert Hirschman The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joesph Tainter The majority of the time these authors are interested in outcomes, not in winning for whatever their home team is. Outside of academia Silicon Valley itself is having a serious discussion on this topic from our perspective: Balaji Srinivasan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A Peter Thiel : http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3EBfS9IcB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3EBfS9IcB4 Patri Friedman : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading Larry Page : https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/larry-page-wants-earth-to-have-a-mad-scientist-land/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/larry-page-wants-earth-to-... Last but not least, the notorious Moldbug: Best explained by Scott Alexander : http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-... If somebody is aware of an interesting line of thought around these issues I'll be happy to hear it. One thing is perfectly clear and that is with the advent of the Internet we see the world differently and that this will lead to different forms of governance for the first time in several hundred years. I also half seriously recommend you listen to audiobooks by Lovecraft to get into the appropriate mood for studying or reading about government. "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." I don't agree with his statement but it feels familiar after reading the books I recommended to you. This stuff has scale and is scary, the last person to seriously tinker with the subject on this level was Karl Marx. That is why Patri's ideas may eventually win the day, but I leave you to it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
im4w1l 10y ago
I would say it's true if a little reductive. Democracy has to give the best outcome overall and economic growth is a major factor in that.
barry-cotter 10y ago
Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Benjamin Friedman Lecture on said book http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/moral_consequences_of_economic_growth.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/moral_conse... Foreign Affairs review http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_ethical_economist.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_ethical...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
wturner 10y ago
"Economic growth" can exist on a computer screen completely decoupled from the "real world" and independent of a strong middle class. IMHO An economically strong middle class is needed to maintain social order. This mitigates the public from hunting and and killing the rich and keeps the public from displacing their social frustrations on to each other and creating riots. Generally its a better existence for everyone.
- mangeletti 10y ago
  Incidentally, a strong middle class also keeps the rich from killing the public.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aetherson 10y ago
  Historically speaking, I don't feel like the basic way that society fails is by "hunting and killing the rich." I mean, you can MAYBE gloss the communist revolutions of the early 20th Century that way. What else?
  - snark42 10y ago
    What if you view riches in the form of power instead of just money?
nugget 10y ago
I think he's referring broadly to the fact that startups are net job creators whereas established companies are net job destroyers. In other words, without a continual stream of new startups and entrepreneurs, there would be no job growth in the economy at all, in which case there'd likely be significant political instability.
lubonay 10y ago
If "Economic growth" leads to ever increasing inequality, I don't think society will be more democratic because of it.
- cushychicken 10y ago
  An interesting paradox!
  - internaut 10y ago
    It is solved because the inequality has to be bounded inequality. You can visualize it as the stretching of an elastic band. Too little stretching, and the band has no utility, too much and it snaps. Obviously those are both failure modes. We want the quality of stretchiness, to use a technical term :) because the requirements of what the elastic band has to put up with are changing over time.

The logic behind it, I think game theory, is simple and does not just apply to democracy but any system of corporate or state government. It goes like this: Suppose there exist 2 parties to a conflict of interest. I want Z, but you also want Z, and this is a rival good, only one of us can have it at one time. Then it is possible for 1 party to play ball with the other party, but IFF there is a different, separate conflict of interest where the trade can be reversed. So I win A, but only if I allow you to win B. 'the next time' This logic only can work if we allow each other to be winners. Suppose our economic incentive was to 'defect' in game theory parlance, and defect always. Why would this be so? Perhaps because we're in a zero sum game instead of a positive sum game. Perhaps I must win or I will die, in which case my non-cooperation with you is non-negotiable. "I want Z, but you also want Z, and this is a rival good, only one of us can have it at one time." sama, and Thiel, believe technology solves this by turning a potential rival good into non-rival goods. Or put more simply; if everybody can have stuff they are happy. There can be exceptions to this logic, like a mother choosing her child's survival over her own in a pregnancy gone wrong. But in a world without growth, without those potential negotiations 'violence' becomes selected for. The important realization is not the trivial 'more stuff makes people happy'. It does, but the real reason why growth is a big deal is that in the long run it selects for outcomes which don't lead to deadlock leading to violence. Where I part company with Sam, is the belief that democracy is worth saving. It is worth saving representation, each entity's self interest in a system must be recognized yes, but not democracy. Ironically equal voting must lead to unequal outcomes. Right from the initial premise it does not hold up against physical reality. Like genetics, circumstance, and all of history. There are other systems in G-space that have the potential to be much better at governing. That includes systems in which people would feel much more represented than they do in our current system. Equality of votes is like a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel. I mean even the NSDAP had policies on the environment and health most people agree with in the present. What does that say about our ability to select? tldr; The relationship is close to axiomatic in game theory and democracy when looked at in the cold light of day is a pretty dim worldview to start with.

sebastos 10y ago
Can you provide any links / reading related to some "other systems in G-space"? Sounds interesting.
- internaut 10y ago
  Sure. For clarification: by G-space I meant 'how to govern well' or 'how to solve problems about, with, or in governance'. This is obviously an enormous topic area. It is also a dangerous and highly contentious subject matter filled with many taboos, due to its nature and importance. That said political scholars, like economists, have come to many consensus realizations. This is kind of amazing since Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are clones from a political science perspective, there exists a great diversity of thought. This means that there is not as much of a gap between somebody like Francis Fukuyama and Moldbug as is popularly imagined. If you have a sincere interest in outcomes you find unexpected allies. Here is a good start: Volume 1: The Origins of Political Order by Francis Fukuyama Volume 2: Political Order and Political Decay by Francis Fukuyama Seeing Like a State by James Scott Exit, Voice and Loyalty by Albert Hirschman The Problem of Political Authority by Michael Huemer The Collapse of Complex Societies by Joesph Tainter The majority of the time these authors are interested in outcomes, not in winning for whatever their home team is. Outside of academia Silicon Valley itself is having a serious discussion on this topic from our perspective: Balaji Srinivasan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOubCHLXT6A Peter Thiel : http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian http://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3EBfS9IcB4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3EBfS9IcB4 Patri Friedman : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasteading Larry Page : https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/larry-page-wants-earth-to-have-a-mad-scientist-land/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/15/larry-page-wants-earth-to-... Last but not least, the notorious Moldbug: Best explained by Scott Alexander : http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-in-an-enormous-planet-sized-nutshell/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-... If somebody is aware of an interesting line of thought around these issues I'll be happy to hear it. One thing is perfectly clear and that is with the advent of the Internet we see the world differently and that this will lead to different forms of governance for the first time in several hundred years. I also half seriously recommend you listen to audiobooks by Lovecraft to get into the appropriate mood for studying or reading about government. "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age." I don't agree with his statement but it feels familiar after reading the books I recommended to you. This stuff has scale and is scary, the last person to seriously tinker with the subject on this level was Karl Marx. That is why Patri's ideas may eventually win the day, but I leave you to it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

im4w1l 10y ago

I would say it's true if a little reductive. Democracy has to give the best outcome overall and economic growth is a major factor in that.

barry-cotter 10y ago

Moral Consequences of Economic Growth, Benjamin Friedman Lecture on said book http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/moral_consequences_of_economic_growth.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/moral_conse... Foreign Affairs review http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_ethical_economist.pdf http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_ethical...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

wturner 10y ago

"Economic growth" can exist on a computer screen completely decoupled from the "real world" and independent of a strong middle class. IMHO An economically strong middle class is needed to maintain social order. This mitigates the public from hunting and and killing the rich and keeps the public from displacing their social frustrations on to each other and creating riots. Generally its a better existence for everyone.

mangeletti 10y ago
Incidentally, a strong middle class also keeps the rich from killing the public.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aetherson 10y ago
Historically speaking, I don't feel like the basic way that society fails is by "hunting and killing the rich." I mean, you can MAYBE gloss the communist revolutions of the early 20th Century that way. What else?
- snark42 10y ago
  What if you view riches in the form of power instead of just money?

nugget 10y ago

I think he's referring broadly to the fact that startups are net job creators whereas established companies are net job destroyers. In other words, without a continual stream of new startups and entrepreneurs, there would be no job growth in the economy at all, in which case there'd likely be significant political instability.

lubonay 10y ago

If "Economic growth" leads to ever increasing inequality, I don't think society will be more democratic because of it.

cushychicken 10y ago
An interesting paradox!
- internaut 10y ago
  It is solved because the inequality has to be bounded inequality. You can visualize it as the stretching of an elastic band. Too little stretching, and the band has no utility, too much and it snaps. Obviously those are both failure modes. We want the quality of stretchiness, to use a technical term :) because the requirements of what the elastic band has to put up with are changing over time.