9 ms·

Social outcome is a political problem, not a scientific one. We should decide what we want society to look like, and use the scientifically/mathematically under

by beat 8y ago

Social outcome is a political problem, not a scientific one. We should decide what we want society to look like, and use the scientifically/mathematically understood systems of economics to steer us in that direction. I don't think the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics were intended to deliver the results we are seeing today. They would not have predicted the drastic disparities, or the insecurity of working people. Therefore, even on a scientific basis, they're kinda fails.

fallingfrog 8y ago
I think it's likely that they were intended to deliver the results we see today. The public-facing rhetoric supporting those policies notwithstanding.
- beat 8y ago
  I'm not that cynical. I find the whole concept of attributing malice as the primary motive of those whom I disagree with to be one of the most basic (and common) of political failures. No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.
  - fallingfrog 8y ago
    But while those policies didn’t benefit the public they did benefit the people who formulated the policies. That’s the smoking gun. When someone shoots themselves in the foot it is likely an accident. If someone shoots me in the foot and somehow winds up with my wallet in their hands, I’m inclined to think it was intentional.
    - goodpoint 8y ago
      "smoking gun" is an understatement. neo-liberalism: "a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism." The movement has been very right wing, pro-corporate and pro-billionaire since the beginning.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        What do you mean by "right wing" here? Do you just mean "capitalist"?
        fallingfrog 8y ago
        The term “right wing” comes from revolutionary era France, where in the general assembly the aristocracy sat on the right, and everyone else sat on the left. In the modern world the “aristocracy” would be the capitalist class, so yes, anything that benefits the capitalist class is right wing, in that sense.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        Why not just say "capitalist" since "right wing" can mean many other things? Why use the more ambiguous term when the more precise one will do? Is it intentional?
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      Are you trying to draw an analogy between market-friendly policies and stealing your wallet?
      - fallingfrog 8y ago
        Yes. They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons and made a boatload of money doing it. The whole small-government argument was insincere.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons How so? This is just empty rhetoric.
  - CharlesColeman 8y ago
    > No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped. I do too. I think their primary motive was selfish and short-signed motivated reasoning about the effects of their ideas. They ignored how those ideas could harm others because they were so captivated by how they could help themselves.
    - beat 8y ago
      Yeah. This is such a common fallacy. "This works for me, therefore it must work for everyone."
- johnchristopher 8y ago
  Once you adopt that line of thinking you can't trust anybody, any arguments, any theories anymore.
  - fallingfrog 8y ago
    Precisely so. Let me give you an example: in medieval times it was taken as fact that the king's authority came from God, that god wanted you to obey, and so forth. That sounds absurd today, but at the time no other point of view was available. The way to see through that belief is to ask, who does that belief benefit? It was in the material interest of the king to promulgate such a belief system regardless of whether it was true. In the same sense it's now in the material interest of the investor and political class to promulgate the belief that unfettered capitalism is the only rational economic system. But who benefits? This isn't my own original idea mind you. Marx called it "dialectical materialism". Certain scientific facts can be proven. You can measure things like the speed of light for instance. But ideology always reflects the material interest of some group or another.
    - johnchristopher 8y ago
      But if the king believed it as well, wasn't he also deceived ? My point is: it doesn't follow the results we observe were the objectives those people were expecting. It doesn't make them liars. But I do agree with you: `follow the money` is a useful compass to navigate those waters.
antidesitter 8y ago
> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 43% to less than 10% since 1980. Global literacy rates have climbed from 70% to 86% in the same period. Global child mortality has gone down from 11% to 4% in the same period. Global life expectancy has climbed from 63 to 72 in the same period. It's ironic that you claim they're failing on a "scientific" basis.
- beat 8y ago
  I both agree and disagree. I agree that the world is getting much better, very rapidly. I disagree that this is a consequence of neoliberal economic policies. Rather, it's a consequence of technological advances that have little to do with economics. Vaccination isn't a neoliberal triumph.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA [1] It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA [2] It is about tax avoidance in the USA, and increasing taxation for the very rich, and how the discussion about it is being avoided as recently happened on Fox News or at the conference in Davos, Switzerland [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... [3] https://twitter.com/rcbregman https://twitter.com/rcbregman
  - charliesharding 8y ago
    1 - Yes, numbers are high but by your own source, you can see the rate has not been increasing since 1980. 2 - Hand waving about income inequality is fine, it's an issue.. but what do you think should be done about it? Tax the rich just enough so that they don't leave and take their wealth somewhere else? How do we find that threshold? 3 - Tax avoidance is a law issue, not an economics issue. If it's legal, businesses will do it. I saw the conference in Davos. It was just a guy saying "but what about tax avoidance?". This was not brave or insightful, it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.

by beat 8y ago

fallingfrog 8y ago

I think it's likely that they were intended to deliver the results we see today. The public-facing rhetoric supporting those policies notwithstanding.

beat 8y ago
I'm not that cynical. I find the whole concept of attributing malice as the primary motive of those whom I disagree with to be one of the most basic (and common) of political failures. No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  But while those policies didn’t benefit the public they did benefit the people who formulated the policies. That’s the smoking gun. When someone shoots themselves in the foot it is likely an accident. If someone shoots me in the foot and somehow winds up with my wallet in their hands, I’m inclined to think it was intentional.
  - goodpoint 8y ago
    "smoking gun" is an understatement. neo-liberalism: "a modified form of liberalism tending to favour free-market capitalism." The movement has been very right wing, pro-corporate and pro-billionaire since the beginning.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      What do you mean by "right wing" here? Do you just mean "capitalist"?
      - fallingfrog 8y ago
        The term “right wing” comes from revolutionary era France, where in the general assembly the aristocracy sat on the right, and everyone else sat on the left. In the modern world the “aristocracy” would be the capitalist class, so yes, anything that benefits the capitalist class is right wing, in that sense.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        Why not just say "capitalist" since "right wing" can mean many other things? Why use the more ambiguous term when the more precise one will do? Is it intentional?
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Are you trying to draw an analogy between market-friendly policies and stealing your wallet?
    - fallingfrog 8y ago
      Yes. They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons and made a boatload of money doing it. The whole small-government argument was insincere.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > They scuppered the middle class, pillaged the commons How so? This is just empty rhetoric.
- CharlesColeman 8y ago
  > No, I think they actually believed what they were saying. They believed the rising tide lifts all boats, and none of them would get swamped. I do too. I think their primary motive was selfish and short-signed motivated reasoning about the effects of their ideas. They ignored how those ideas could harm others because they were so captivated by how they could help themselves.
  - beat 8y ago
    Yeah. This is such a common fallacy. "This works for me, therefore it must work for everyone."
johnchristopher 8y ago
Once you adopt that line of thinking you can't trust anybody, any arguments, any theories anymore.
- fallingfrog 8y ago
  Precisely so. Let me give you an example: in medieval times it was taken as fact that the king's authority came from God, that god wanted you to obey, and so forth. That sounds absurd today, but at the time no other point of view was available. The way to see through that belief is to ask, who does that belief benefit? It was in the material interest of the king to promulgate such a belief system regardless of whether it was true. In the same sense it's now in the material interest of the investor and political class to promulgate the belief that unfettered capitalism is the only rational economic system. But who benefits? This isn't my own original idea mind you. Marx called it "dialectical materialism". Certain scientific facts can be proven. You can measure things like the speed of light for instance. But ideology always reflects the material interest of some group or another.
  - johnchristopher 8y ago
    But if the king believed it as well, wasn't he also deceived ? My point is: it doesn't follow the results we observe were the objectives those people were expecting. It doesn't make them liars. But I do agree with you: `follow the money` is a useful compass to navigate those waters.

antidesitter 8y ago

> the market-driven ideals of 1980s economics... they're kinda fails On what basis? The share of people living in extreme poverty globally has gone down from 43% to less than 10% since 1980. Global literacy rates have climbed from 70% to 86% in the same period. Global child mortality has gone down from 11% to 4% in the same period. Global life expectancy has climbed from 63 to 72 in the same period. It's ironic that you claim they're failing on a "scientific" basis.

beat 8y ago
I both agree and disagree. I agree that the world is getting much better, very rapidly. I disagree that this is a consequence of neoliberal economic policies. Rather, it's a consequence of technological advances that have little to do with economics. Vaccination isn't a neoliberal triumph.
Fnoord 8y ago
It is about the 1,5 million homeless children in the USA [1] It is about the income inequality which has increased since the '70s in the USA [2] It is about tax avoidance in the USA, and increasing taxation for the very rich, and how the discussion about it is being avoided as recently happened on Fox News or at the conference in Davos, Switzerland [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_Unite... [3] https://twitter.com/rcbregman https://twitter.com/rcbregman
- charliesharding 8y ago
  1 - Yes, numbers are high but by your own source, you can see the rate has not been increasing since 1980. 2 - Hand waving about income inequality is fine, it's an issue.. but what do you think should be done about it? Tax the rich just enough so that they don't leave and take their wealth somewhere else? How do we find that threshold? 3 - Tax avoidance is a law issue, not an economics issue. If it's legal, businesses will do it. I saw the conference in Davos. It was just a guy saying "but what about tax avoidance?". This was not brave or insightful, it was just more hand waving and blaming the ones who have been pillars of industry, creating jobs, products, and economic prosperity.