4 ms·

Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Bad economics of

Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Bad economics of all stripes tends to assume some form betrayal theory as the only issue.

freeflight 9y ago
> Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Agreed > Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Disagreed, capitalism ignores the finite nature of resources, while treating some of them, which are actually infinite, as finite (time). Also, I'd argue that nothing about the resource allocation, the way capitalism does it, is in any way optimal, at least in regards to our actual finite resources. Most of it boils down to hoarding "money", which isn't a finite resource (can be printed at will) nor is it an actually useful resource on its own (can't do much with it except burn it if it's paper). It's supposed to be a tool, but at this point, it feels like the tool has been declared the goal: Just hoard more of the money and you've "won" the game like it's the ultimate solution to all problems. This dynamic also influences the allocation of resources to most "profitable" of individual entities, it's a dynamic that rewards hostile competition over friendly cooperation. Which is a dangerous reward system considering we are all stuck on the same piece of rock, drifting through infinity, sharing the very same finite resources. Wasting so much energy, and resources on how to "screw each other" over for those finite resources, and increasingly bigger "profits", seems quite wasteful and ultimately a very petty way to go about our existence. I'm not saying I know the ultimate fool-proof solution, I just want to point out the flaws with what we've currently got going and imho these flaws are massive and will come bite us in the back-end sooner or later [0]. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- nerfhammer 9y ago
  I think you're confusing or at least clumsily terming a number of different concepts here and the confidence with which such miscomprehension is expressed is a great example of the kind of value created by juxtaposing a difficult problem with highly dubious pontification.

freeflight 9y ago

> Optimal allocation of finite time and resources on a society scale is a hard problem. Agreed > Supposed alternatives to capitalism tend to ignore that. Disagreed, capitalism ignores the finite nature of resources, while treating some of them, which are actually infinite, as finite (time). Also, I'd argue that nothing about the resource allocation, the way capitalism does it, is in any way optimal, at least in regards to our actual finite resources. Most of it boils down to hoarding "money", which isn't a finite resource (can be printed at will) nor is it an actually useful resource on its own (can't do much with it except burn it if it's paper). It's supposed to be a tool, but at this point, it feels like the tool has been declared the goal: Just hoard more of the money and you've "won" the game like it's the ultimate solution to all problems. This dynamic also influences the allocation of resources to most "profitable" of individual entities, it's a dynamic that rewards hostile competition over friendly cooperation. Which is a dangerous reward system considering we are all stuck on the same piece of rock, drifting through infinity, sharing the very same finite resources. Wasting so much energy, and resources on how to "screw each other" over for those finite resources, and increasingly bigger "profits", seems quite wasteful and ultimately a very petty way to go about our existence. I'm not saying I know the ultimate fool-proof solution, I just want to point out the flaws with what we've currently got going and imho these flaws are massive and will come bite us in the back-end sooner or later [0]. [0] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

nerfhammer 9y ago
I think you're confusing or at least clumsily terming a number of different concepts here and the confidence with which such miscomprehension is expressed is a great example of the kind of value created by juxtaposing a difficult problem with highly dubious pontification.