5 ms·

Edit for definitional clarity: My use of the term socialism here is exactly equivalent here to the term "systems that enable wealth redistribution through legis

by anm89 7y ago

Edit for definitional clarity: My use of the term socialism here is exactly equivalent here to the term "systems that enable wealth redistribution through legislation" no more, no less. Im not commenting on anything like the ownership of the means of production in society or anything like that. It seems like the whole world is chomping at the bit to enact more socialism but do you think it's homeless people and cashiers that are defining the rules of the system and legislation? Of course not, it's lawyers and politicians. So are you really naive enough to believe that they write perfectly fair legislation that doesn't favor their interests at all? Friedrich Hayek nailed this on the head almost 100 years ago. The problem with socialism isn't that its not an admirable goal, it's that even if you want it, by nature you aren't going to get the version of it that you wanted, you are going to get the version of it the a bunch of politically connected insiders design and while they may not be totally self serving, they are usually going to figure out how to be on the winning end of the game. Crass said it well: "But no one ever changed the church by pulling down a steeple And you'll never change the system by bombing number ten Systems just aren't made of bricks they're mostly made of people" The systems you get are the ones the people who design them make. Thinking otherwise is foolish. The people who should be the most scared of redistribution systems like this are the ones who want to look out for the interests of the little guys.

admiral33 7y ago
"The people who should be the most scared of redistribution systems like this are the ones who want to look out for the interests of the little guys." - Interesting, can you elaborate?
- anm89 7y ago
  It's a system of wealth redistribution. The problem is, when these systems are gamified by lawyers and people in the financial world, and they win, the wealth ends up being redistributed in the opposite direction as many people intended and the little guys lose. Looking at the 10 years following the great recession it looks like this is what happened (although those redistributions were more explicitly directed towards the top of the pyramid upfront) but look at at how inequality statistics have moved since that event. It certainly doesn't seem to have favored those who are financially disenfranchised in our society. The problem is the nature of society permanatly skews these events in the favor of the the people who have the most existing resources to figure out how to game the system. If you want a much more in depth breakdown of how that happens structurally, read Hayeks the road to serfdom as I mentioned above.
modsWrk4Appl 7y ago
>The problem with socialism isn't that its not an admirable goal, it's that even if you want it, by nature you aren't going to get the version of it that you wanted, you are going to get the version of it the a bunch of politically connected insiders design and while they may not be totally self serving, they are usually going to figure out how to be on the winning end of the game. This is how we need to educate the left. Yes we know the pretty fantasy, but the outcome is not what you fantasize. How many more examples of bankrupt economies do we need before people realize "this time (won't) be different"
a_wild_dandan 7y ago
Do any of these statements apply in particular to socialism? Seems to me you could find/replace "socialism" here with any political system and make the same argument.
- anm89 7y ago
  A more hands off political system is less manipulatable. The more complicated systems that are created, the more there is to gamify. I'm advocating for more limited government. A simple clear rule set is much harder to gamify. This is an equalizer, not the reverse in my opinion.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    You're not advocating for more limited government. Your intended government enforces private ownership of the means of production, with police, courts, and a military when necessary. You're only advocating for a different representation of class interests in the state, i.e. it would do most of what capital is interested in, but little or none of what labor is interested in. Not that a more interventionist state is pro-labor - it's just somewhat less unbalanced.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      You're telling him what his position is?!? Unless you can demonstrate your opinion of his position from his comments, you're putting words in his mouth, which is very much a jerk move. To me, it also looks like you're putting words in his mouth that are very much not his position...
    - anm89 7y ago
      I mean, I very literally am advocating for a more limited government. I'm advocating for them to stop doing something they are currently doing. Any definitional gymnastics here are yours
  - a_wild_dandan 7y ago
    1. It's not clear to me that system complexity always correlates with manipulability. One may easily construct circumstances where the inverse is true -- dead simple political systems which are neatly gamified or exploited, and sophisticated systems that are fairly robust. To me, what counts is how well the system is designed, not necessarily its complexity level. But suppose it's true that a more involved government always implies more manipulation. 2. Are we better off by optimizing for minimal political manipulation over anything else? For hyperbolic examples: in complete anarchy, we'd have zero system manipulation, and yet I would unhappily die in The Purge. Likewise, in some Roaring '20s capitalistic caricature, I might have my small business destroyed by a monopoly, or die a child laboring away in unsafe conditions. Optimizing for being manipulatable seems far less palatable than living in modern day Denmark or something.
KarlKemp 7y ago
You’re intentionally mislabeling “not using a crisis to hand out billions in tax breaks to rich people” as “socialism” to extend people’s historic aversion to socialism to this situation. Do that often enough and you’ll find people quite willing to give this “socialism” thing a chance.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  First, personal attacks are out of bounds on HN, and your "intentionally" comes pretty close. Second, I think you're being unfair to anm89 in another way as well. His post I could just as easily take as saying that this is an illustration of how it goes when you try to reform the system (such as, say, introduce socialism). Now, you could argue that socialism isn't relevant at all to the article. And you'd be right. Why socialism as opposed to labor reform, or UBI, or tax reform, or whatever? But the reason to pick socialism out of that list is the current relevance. Bernie Sanders was explicitly socialist, and he came rather close to the Democratic nomination.
- anm89 7y ago
  I'm certainly not advocating tax breaks for anyone here. In fact I'm advocating getting rid of the framework that is used to implement those tax breaks. You're reading into my words to say things that simply aren't there.
refurb 7y ago
Seems unfair this well thought out comment is getting downvoted so heavily. At any rate, this has always been my issue as well. People decry the capitalist system and when you ask why, they point to humans behaving badly. Well, no matter what economic system we have, we'll have that problem. There is no lack of corruption and self-dealing in non-capitalist systems.
ikt 7y ago
> Of course not, it's lawyers and politicians. So are you really naive enough to believe that they write perfectly fair legislation that doesn't favor their interests at all? But not all politicians and lawyers are serving the financial elites, whenever there's a stereotype or claim made I would like to see how this compares to Nordic countries. In addition almost every major first would country has a socialist healthcare system, just not the US.

by anm89 7y ago

admiral33 7y ago

"The people who should be the most scared of redistribution systems like this are the ones who want to look out for the interests of the little guys." - Interesting, can you elaborate?

anm89 7y ago
It's a system of wealth redistribution. The problem is, when these systems are gamified by lawyers and people in the financial world, and they win, the wealth ends up being redistributed in the opposite direction as many people intended and the little guys lose. Looking at the 10 years following the great recession it looks like this is what happened (although those redistributions were more explicitly directed towards the top of the pyramid upfront) but look at at how inequality statistics have moved since that event. It certainly doesn't seem to have favored those who are financially disenfranchised in our society. The problem is the nature of society permanatly skews these events in the favor of the the people who have the most existing resources to figure out how to game the system. If you want a much more in depth breakdown of how that happens structurally, read Hayeks the road to serfdom as I mentioned above.

modsWrk4Appl 7y ago

>The problem with socialism isn't that its not an admirable goal, it's that even if you want it, by nature you aren't going to get the version of it that you wanted, you are going to get the version of it the a bunch of politically connected insiders design and while they may not be totally self serving, they are usually going to figure out how to be on the winning end of the game. This is how we need to educate the left. Yes we know the pretty fantasy, but the outcome is not what you fantasize. How many more examples of bankrupt economies do we need before people realize "this time (won't) be different"

a_wild_dandan 7y ago

Do any of these statements apply in particular to socialism? Seems to me you could find/replace "socialism" here with any political system and make the same argument.

anm89 7y ago
A more hands off political system is less manipulatable. The more complicated systems that are created, the more there is to gamify. I'm advocating for more limited government. A simple clear rule set is much harder to gamify. This is an equalizer, not the reverse in my opinion.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  You're not advocating for more limited government. Your intended government enforces private ownership of the means of production, with police, courts, and a military when necessary. You're only advocating for a different representation of class interests in the state, i.e. it would do most of what capital is interested in, but little or none of what labor is interested in. Not that a more interventionist state is pro-labor - it's just somewhat less unbalanced.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    You're telling him what his position is?!? Unless you can demonstrate your opinion of his position from his comments, you're putting words in his mouth, which is very much a jerk move. To me, it also looks like you're putting words in his mouth that are very much not his position...
  - anm89 7y ago
    I mean, I very literally am advocating for a more limited government. I'm advocating for them to stop doing something they are currently doing. Any definitional gymnastics here are yours
- a_wild_dandan 7y ago
  1. It's not clear to me that system complexity always correlates with manipulability. One may easily construct circumstances where the inverse is true -- dead simple political systems which are neatly gamified or exploited, and sophisticated systems that are fairly robust. To me, what counts is how well the system is designed, not necessarily its complexity level. But suppose it's true that a more involved government always implies more manipulation. 2. Are we better off by optimizing for minimal political manipulation over anything else? For hyperbolic examples: in complete anarchy, we'd have zero system manipulation, and yet I would unhappily die in The Purge. Likewise, in some Roaring '20s capitalistic caricature, I might have my small business destroyed by a monopoly, or die a child laboring away in unsafe conditions. Optimizing for being manipulatable seems far less palatable than living in modern day Denmark or something.

KarlKemp 7y ago

You’re intentionally mislabeling “not using a crisis to hand out billions in tax breaks to rich people” as “socialism” to extend people’s historic aversion to socialism to this situation. Do that often enough and you’ll find people quite willing to give this “socialism” thing a chance.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
First, personal attacks are out of bounds on HN, and your "intentionally" comes pretty close. Second, I think you're being unfair to anm89 in another way as well. His post I could just as easily take as saying that this is an illustration of how it goes when you try to reform the system (such as, say, introduce socialism). Now, you could argue that socialism isn't relevant at all to the article. And you'd be right. Why socialism as opposed to labor reform, or UBI, or tax reform, or whatever? But the reason to pick socialism out of that list is the current relevance. Bernie Sanders was explicitly socialist, and he came rather close to the Democratic nomination.
anm89 7y ago
I'm certainly not advocating tax breaks for anyone here. In fact I'm advocating getting rid of the framework that is used to implement those tax breaks. You're reading into my words to say things that simply aren't there.

refurb 7y ago

Seems unfair this well thought out comment is getting downvoted so heavily. At any rate, this has always been my issue as well. People decry the capitalist system and when you ask why, they point to humans behaving badly. Well, no matter what economic system we have, we'll have that problem. There is no lack of corruption and self-dealing in non-capitalist systems.

ikt 7y ago

> Of course not, it's lawyers and politicians. So are you really naive enough to believe that they write perfectly fair legislation that doesn't favor their interests at all? But not all politicians and lawyers are serving the financial elites, whenever there's a stereotype or claim made I would like to see how this compares to Nordic countries. In addition almost every major first would country has a socialist healthcare system, just not the US.