4 ms·

The government investing the money would be nice. Apparently they have a lot of money to invest, they just redistributed $2T to primarily rich people through th

The government investing the money would be nice. Apparently they have a lot of money to invest, they just redistributed $2T to primarily rich people through the TCJA. (I'm a socialist in part because of the market's inability to effect change, such as investment in OZs, which doesn't have a sufficient monetary reward but has significant societal reward. Some people call this a "market failure")

manigandham 8y ago
Yes, that's the only other option isn't it? But why is that better? Why have a massive inefficient government spend a vast sum of money when instead it can just defer some tax collection, letting these investors take the risk and optimize for success?
- tanderson92 8y ago
  I disagree that governments necessarily must be inefficient, but yes this is an area with some nuance. I could see myself being in favor of an incentivized tax structure for OZs, along with a highly redistributional tax system for income, wealth and equity, but I don’t think too many of the people who argue for the power of markets to incentivize investment of OZs are also in favor of the redistibutional part ;)
  - ericd 8y ago
    Do you have much exposure to how government operates? Where money is being thrown around by government, in general, there are laws in place to make sure that money doesn't flow into the bureaucrats pockets somehow. But to do that, they add layers and layers of checks and processes. The side effect is that they're not very fast. And then there's the issue of not having attracted the hungriest talent on average, due to not offering very good salaries, because of the whole avoiding looking corrupt thing. And then there's the whole personal motivation of private investors to profit, whereas government investors have no such motivation (if they're not corrupt). So there's just no very good motivation to do a great job. There's a whole slew of reasons they don't make very good investors relative to private investors.
    - hedvig 8y ago
      How much did the US Government throw into Juicero?
      - ericd 8y ago
        Not saying that private investors are perfect, they're obviously not, and of course there are going to be outliers. And some portions of government funding work pretty well (I think the NSF's model of getting scientist review panels is a great one).
      - manigandham 8y ago
        Inconsequential compared to how much the US Government spends in a single day, and how much of that is wasteful. We can fund a new Juciero every day and not notice.
miscreanity 8y ago
Imagine if you weren't allowed to use a calculator without a $5,000 license and six months of training. Sounds absurd? Welcome to the financial world, where outsiders are frowned upon. The market is highly regulated in large part due to the notion that "manipulation" occurs (spoiler: it does, but manipulation always fails on its own eventually and the crash is typically made worse by regulators). Restrictions are made on who can invest, when and how much to the point where it's not a surprise that average wage earners avoid doing so - most of the worthwhile options are only for millionaires or higher. No wonder so many think the markets don't work - they can scarcely be considered markets! Allow people to be educated and learn how to handle their finances rather than being protected from all danger to the point of being locked out, and you'll have informed individuals capable of handling their own affairs. Let Johnny touch the stove to see that it's hot and he'll learn right quick! Socialism just wants to save everyone from themselves without looking in the mirror and realizing how dysfunctional it is itself. Forced collectives self destruct; voluntary cooperation survives and thrives, but it takes effort and time instead of a quick fix.
- moate 8y ago
  >>Allow people to be educated and learn how to handle their finances rather than being protected from all danger to the point of being locked out, and you'll have informed individuals capable of handling their own affairs. Let Johnny touch the stove to see that it's hot and he'll learn right quick! This is some extreme oversimplification of 1-human behavior and 2- how easy is it to teach people immediate need denial for long term benefit. No matter how many times you tell people the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, it's still just a story. It's not how the human mind works (generally). On the inverse end, I could point out how every "self made man who didn't need help from nobody and just smarted his way to the top" was likely helped in countless circumstances that have nearly nothing to do with his direct actions. Humans are great at creating narratives, regardless of whether there is actual causality. Socialism wants to save everyone from a biased, unfair, inequitable system, understanding that a herd is stronger than an individual and that spreading risk across the board means fewer catastrophic events for the individual. The goal is to lower the upper limit and raise the lower limit. It's not an attempt to pander to poor foolish baby people who can't do a finances for themselves, it's saying that there's no reason for a civil society to allow some to suffer debilitating hardships at the hands of a system they were forced into through circumstance alone while others reap unjust rewards. It's not perfect, but leaving "the free market (tm)" alone and not regulating leads to slavery and child labor and private paramilitaries protecting corporate kings as the past has shown.

manigandham 8y ago

Yes, that's the only other option isn't it? But why is that better? Why have a massive inefficient government spend a vast sum of money when instead it can just defer some tax collection, letting these investors take the risk and optimize for success?

tanderson92 8y ago
I disagree that governments necessarily must be inefficient, but yes this is an area with some nuance. I could see myself being in favor of an incentivized tax structure for OZs, along with a highly redistributional tax system for income, wealth and equity, but I don’t think too many of the people who argue for the power of markets to incentivize investment of OZs are also in favor of the redistibutional part ;)
- ericd 8y ago
  Do you have much exposure to how government operates? Where money is being thrown around by government, in general, there are laws in place to make sure that money doesn't flow into the bureaucrats pockets somehow. But to do that, they add layers and layers of checks and processes. The side effect is that they're not very fast. And then there's the issue of not having attracted the hungriest talent on average, due to not offering very good salaries, because of the whole avoiding looking corrupt thing. And then there's the whole personal motivation of private investors to profit, whereas government investors have no such motivation (if they're not corrupt). So there's just no very good motivation to do a great job. There's a whole slew of reasons they don't make very good investors relative to private investors.
  - hedvig 8y ago
    How much did the US Government throw into Juicero?
    - ericd 8y ago
      Not saying that private investors are perfect, they're obviously not, and of course there are going to be outliers. And some portions of government funding work pretty well (I think the NSF's model of getting scientist review panels is a great one).
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Inconsequential compared to how much the US Government spends in a single day, and how much of that is wasteful. We can fund a new Juciero every day and not notice.

miscreanity 8y ago

Imagine if you weren't allowed to use a calculator without a $5,000 license and six months of training. Sounds absurd? Welcome to the financial world, where outsiders are frowned upon. The market is highly regulated in large part due to the notion that "manipulation" occurs (spoiler: it does, but manipulation always fails on its own eventually and the crash is typically made worse by regulators). Restrictions are made on who can invest, when and how much to the point where it's not a surprise that average wage earners avoid doing so - most of the worthwhile options are only for millionaires or higher. No wonder so many think the markets don't work - they can scarcely be considered markets! Allow people to be educated and learn how to handle their finances rather than being protected from all danger to the point of being locked out, and you'll have informed individuals capable of handling their own affairs. Let Johnny touch the stove to see that it's hot and he'll learn right quick! Socialism just wants to save everyone from themselves without looking in the mirror and realizing how dysfunctional it is itself. Forced collectives self destruct; voluntary cooperation survives and thrives, but it takes effort and time instead of a quick fix.

moate 8y ago
>>Allow people to be educated and learn how to handle their finances rather than being protected from all danger to the point of being locked out, and you'll have informed individuals capable of handling their own affairs. Let Johnny touch the stove to see that it's hot and he'll learn right quick! This is some extreme oversimplification of 1-human behavior and 2- how easy is it to teach people immediate need denial for long term benefit. No matter how many times you tell people the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, it's still just a story. It's not how the human mind works (generally). On the inverse end, I could point out how every "self made man who didn't need help from nobody and just smarted his way to the top" was likely helped in countless circumstances that have nearly nothing to do with his direct actions. Humans are great at creating narratives, regardless of whether there is actual causality. Socialism wants to save everyone from a biased, unfair, inequitable system, understanding that a herd is stronger than an individual and that spreading risk across the board means fewer catastrophic events for the individual. The goal is to lower the upper limit and raise the lower limit. It's not an attempt to pander to poor foolish baby people who can't do a finances for themselves, it's saying that there's no reason for a civil society to allow some to suffer debilitating hardships at the hands of a system they were forced into through circumstance alone while others reap unjust rewards. It's not perfect, but leaving "the free market (tm)" alone and not regulating leads to slavery and child labor and private paramilitaries protecting corporate kings as the past has shown.