4 ms·

>It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else Society has chosen to give the market relatively free rei

>It is not the society, but market/economics of today that value intelligence more than anything else Society has chosen to give the market relatively free reign. Society could also choose to redistribute profits and incentivise companies to act in the interests of society in general, rather than their just their shareholders. You might disagree with that, you might even have a profound moral objection to that, but on a societal level it is very much a choice.

ryanmonroe 8y ago
The suggestion that we should redistribute wealth is very different from the author's suggestion that we should provide a disincentive for automation, and make sure we don't tend to hire the best (where best includes intelligence) person available for a given job.
dv_dt 8y ago
Yup, if we truly valued intelligence then we should recognize the inequality of the American economic system is systematically wasting a lot of human potential simply because it so unevenly gives people the basic resources of clean food, water, shelter, education, medical care.
ardit33 8y ago
Yes, I disagree. I lived under communism (in Albania). The society at time (communist/socialist regime), decided that in order to make it up in the society and the ranks of state controlled companies you have had to come from a 'poor or simple' family, and if you were part of the previous bourgeoise, or not communist enough, (i.e. most smart people), you were relegated to crappy jobs, or often interned into education camps. In resulted in a lot of communist zealots, but dummies, going to top positions. They did what they could, and it resulted in total economic collapse few decades later. It resulted in food rations, where a family of 4 could only buy a dozen of eggs a week, one pound of meat, and could barely buy bread/milk and other necessities. Some folks here have really never faced the dire consequences of communism and how it created a poor society across the board. When I was 11, I had to stay in bread lines so our family could eat. It looked like this: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-people-desparate-for-food-besiege-a-bread-shop-in-news-photo/56764766 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-peopl...
- andrei_says_ 8y ago
  Could we agree that the level of commitment to society’s well-being can be a slider and not a switch between two extremes? Also, from what I know, “socialist” societies in the eastern block were closer to socialism-flavored dictatorships resulting from power grabs and nepotism on epic scale.
  - godzillabrennus 8y ago
    That’s the old argument of “they didn’t try socialism right” that many make when they want to give government more power over the lives of their fellow citizens. I feel torn. Obviously no one with morals wants to see others left behind in a capitalistic society. On the other hand welfare states seem like pyramid schemes and the further left you go with giving more power to government the worse the lives of citizens get. I found Penn Jillette’s talk on YouTube about why he found libertarianism eye opening. https://youtu.be/OG3Kyk3Xc5A https://youtu.be/OG3Kyk3Xc5A Still, our entire economic system seems ready to collapse. Many of our best business leaders are starting to agree that we may need to tax corporations that use robots and provide a reverse income tax to give people money to live.
    - andrei_says_ 8y ago
      That’s the old “let me frame your argument as something else and easily dismiss it” trick. This frame has nothing to do with what I had in mind. Please let go of it completely and re-read my comment.
  - some_account 8y ago
    The Nordic countries have managed to combine socialism and capitalism in a very nice way i think. But now it's on its way to less gloryful days due to massive immigration and the problems it's causing.
- mythrwy 8y ago
  Don't worry. The same type of scheme is currently happening in large corporations and governments all across the west. The prerequisite being social skills and/or ability to BS and politic. Sadly, as you pointed out, reality is never fooled for long and the consequences of bad leadership eventually catch up.
cabalamat 8y ago
> Society has chosen to give the market relatively free reign. It's really not much to do with how humans organise society; it's about technology. At the current level of technology we have, smart humans are more productive than less smart humans. The only way to reverse that would be to get rid of a lot of modern technology, which no country can do unless it wants to become backward. > Society could also choose to redistribute profits and incentivise companies to act in the interests of society in general If the company still wants to produce good and cost-effective products it'll still have to hire smart people. There's no way round that.
Karishma1234 8y ago
Other choice is to simply shoot dead the thickos. Just bomb the poor areas or force the poor and less smart people to undergo contraceptive surgeries. Yes, those are the choices even though most might abhor it. And to add to that bears shit in woods. Note: The point in the sarcasm is that societies have made all those kinds of those choices and have failed miserably and better choices have survived. Markets work because they give maximum possible respect and freedom to individuals without being judgemental. Markets promote peace, brotherhood, co-operation, prosperity and stability. Most other systems meet violent end.

ryanmonroe 8y ago

The suggestion that we should redistribute wealth is very different from the author's suggestion that we should provide a disincentive for automation, and make sure we don't tend to hire the best (where best includes intelligence) person available for a given job.

dv_dt 8y ago

Yup, if we truly valued intelligence then we should recognize the inequality of the American economic system is systematically wasting a lot of human potential simply because it so unevenly gives people the basic resources of clean food, water, shelter, education, medical care.

ardit33 8y ago

Yes, I disagree. I lived under communism (in Albania). The society at time (communist/socialist regime), decided that in order to make it up in the society and the ranks of state controlled companies you have had to come from a 'poor or simple' family, and if you were part of the previous bourgeoise, or not communist enough, (i.e. most smart people), you were relegated to crappy jobs, or often interned into education camps. In resulted in a lot of communist zealots, but dummies, going to top positions. They did what they could, and it resulted in total economic collapse few decades later. It resulted in food rations, where a family of 4 could only buy a dozen of eggs a week, one pound of meat, and could barely buy bread/milk and other necessities. Some folks here have really never faced the dire consequences of communism and how it created a poor society across the board. When I was 11, I had to stay in bread lines so our family could eat. It looked like this: https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-people-desparate-for-food-besiege-a-bread-shop-in-news-photo/56764766 https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/hungry-peopl...

andrei_says_ 8y ago
Could we agree that the level of commitment to society’s well-being can be a slider and not a switch between two extremes? Also, from what I know, “socialist” societies in the eastern block were closer to socialism-flavored dictatorships resulting from power grabs and nepotism on epic scale.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  That’s the old argument of “they didn’t try socialism right” that many make when they want to give government more power over the lives of their fellow citizens. I feel torn. Obviously no one with morals wants to see others left behind in a capitalistic society. On the other hand welfare states seem like pyramid schemes and the further left you go with giving more power to government the worse the lives of citizens get. I found Penn Jillette’s talk on YouTube about why he found libertarianism eye opening. https://youtu.be/OG3Kyk3Xc5A https://youtu.be/OG3Kyk3Xc5A Still, our entire economic system seems ready to collapse. Many of our best business leaders are starting to agree that we may need to tax corporations that use robots and provide a reverse income tax to give people money to live.
  - andrei_says_ 8y ago
    That’s the old “let me frame your argument as something else and easily dismiss it” trick. This frame has nothing to do with what I had in mind. Please let go of it completely and re-read my comment.
- some_account 8y ago
  The Nordic countries have managed to combine socialism and capitalism in a very nice way i think. But now it's on its way to less gloryful days due to massive immigration and the problems it's causing.
mythrwy 8y ago
Don't worry. The same type of scheme is currently happening in large corporations and governments all across the west. The prerequisite being social skills and/or ability to BS and politic. Sadly, as you pointed out, reality is never fooled for long and the consequences of bad leadership eventually catch up.

cabalamat 8y ago

> Society has chosen to give the market relatively free reign. It's really not much to do with how humans organise society; it's about technology. At the current level of technology we have, smart humans are more productive than less smart humans. The only way to reverse that would be to get rid of a lot of modern technology, which no country can do unless it wants to become backward. > Society could also choose to redistribute profits and incentivise companies to act in the interests of society in general If the company still wants to produce good and cost-effective products it'll still have to hire smart people. There's no way round that.

Karishma1234 8y ago

Other choice is to simply shoot dead the thickos. Just bomb the poor areas or force the poor and less smart people to undergo contraceptive surgeries. Yes, those are the choices even though most might abhor it. And to add to that bears shit in woods. Note: The point in the sarcasm is that societies have made all those kinds of those choices and have failed miserably and better choices have survived. Markets work because they give maximum possible respect and freedom to individuals without being judgemental. Markets promote peace, brotherhood, co-operation, prosperity and stability. Most other systems meet violent end.