5 ms·

> My point is that a lot of people have this Atlas Shrugged view of the world, where the noble entrepreneur is lashed to earth by envious, regulation loving, De

by darawk 7y ago

> My point is that a lot of people have this Atlas Shrugged view of the world, where the noble entrepreneur is lashed to earth by envious, regulation loving, Democratic bureaucrats. But if take that view, then we'll get rid of regulations that are really useful and save lives. You're already seeing this with the rollback of environmental regs. The regulations that stifle innovation are written by "captains of industry" themselves, because manipulation of government via corruption is way easier and far more predictable than R&D/innovation. The problem is bad regulation. We need to keep good regulations, and eliminate bad ones. At the end of the day, the problem is still regulation, as I said. > So my point is you're missing the point. The symptom is regulation but many regulations are very important. We need anticorruption legislation, we need to break up monopolies, and we need a wealth tax so people can't just strike gold (or cheat people who strike gold), invest in existing ossified industries, rake in cap gains/rent while contributing absolutely nothing, and corrupt our political system with their wealth (and demand that the companies they've invested in also do so in the name of shareholder profits) in order to protect it. Your policy prescriptions here are entirely orthogonal to the problem of moving society forward technologically. You may want a wealth tax because you don't like inequality, but it isn't going to do any good for the technological development of the world. To do that, you need to streamline the regulatory state.

camgunz 7y ago
> The problem is regulation No, the problem is corruption resulting in, among other pretty bad things, ladder pulling regulation. > You may want a wealth tax because you don't like inequality, but it isn't going to do any good for the technological development of the world. Study after study has shown that income and wealth inequality stifles innovation (again among some other pretty bad things). This makes sense if you think about it: the next Archimedes can't innovate because she's preoccupied with how to pay for her sister's insulin. In fact all my policy prescriptions are focused on innovation, because that's the topic of this thread. Antitrust laws are specifically set up to encourage innovation. I know you really want to focus on regulation as the big bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger bad: corruption.
- darawk 7y ago
  > Study after study has shown that income and wealth inequality stifles innovation (again among some other pretty bad things). You mean studies like this one? https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 > This makes sense if you think about it: the next Archimedes can't innovate because she's preoccupied with how to pay for her sister's insulin. Your example is poverty, not inequality. This is a trick people play all the time. They say 'inequality', and then they describe poverty. Poverty certainly reduces innovation. Poverty causes all sorts of issues that reduce intellectual and social achievement. However, inequality and poverty are not the same thing. Inequality is an inevitable consequence of innovation, in a capitalist society. But inequality does not have to mean poverty for the bottom decile. What we want is a society where those who are able to, work extremely hard to make the world better, and in return are rewarded with a luxurious high-status lifestyle. But those who are not so gifted, or those who choose not to work so hard, are still provided for adequately. IMO the focus on inequality per se is a red herring. It doesn't matter if Jeff Bezos has 100 trillion dollars, as long as his warehouse workers have a decent life. I think you might respond by saying something about how large concentrations of wealth inevitably influence politics, and inevitably corrupt everything they touch. I can't speak to the latter, but to the former, I found this enlightening: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in... > In fact all my policy prescriptions are focused on innovation, because that's the topic of this thread. Antitrust laws are specifically set up to encourage innovation. > I know you really want to focus on regulation as the big bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger bad: corruption. 'Corruption' is sufficiently non-specific to be meaningless. Saying the problem is 'corruption' prescribes nothing at all. Corruption literally just means "bad things happening to stuff", so of course, it is always to blame when things aren't going well. The question at hand is: how do you fix it? Saying "fix corruption" certainly isn't the answer. My guess is you'll respond by saying "fix inequality", but you'll forget to add exactly how that would go on to fix "corruption".
  - camgunz 7y ago
    > You mean studies like this one? https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 No that study explores innovation as a cause of inequality. Which is still bad but not what we're talking about here. > Your example is poverty, not inequality. This is a trick people play all the time. Oh so this is your point [1]. No I'm not talking about any inequality, that's a ridiculous strawman (and seemingly wrong, judging by other sources inequality and not poverty is still bad for growth). I'm talking about bonkers levels of inequality causing incomes to stagnate while capital gains skyrocket, leaving tons of money in the investment accounts of the rich and not in the savings accounts of the 99% of the rest of us. Wealthy people by and large don't invest in innovation (look at the share of SV VC money for example), they hoard it, which undermines pretty much all of right-wing economic theory. The only policy measure that will fix this is taxation. I've done a little [2] token [3] googling [4] for [5] you. This one [6] is a pretty good high level survey if you just want an overview. > It doesn't matter if Jeff Bezos has 100 trillion dollars, as long as his warehouse workers have a decent life. Agree; I don't find wealth immoral or unethical on its own. I do find it immoral under capitalism, where by definition profit comes from exploitation (plundering the commons, upselling labor, etc.) And I don't see a better way to provide for Bezos' workers other than by taxing his immense wealth, which he got from their labor besides. > Slate Star Codex stuff There's so little money in politics because the wealthy and their corporations are already getting what they want. The false premise of this exposition is that these entities are in competition with each other. They're not, they're colluding. You'll see these numbers spike when big events happen, Deepwater Horizon, etc., and that's to keep the family whole during a troubled time--just like unions during a strike. > 'Corruption' is sufficiently non-specific to be meaningless. Saying the problem is 'corruption' prescribes nothing at all. No, when I say corruption I mean a very specific thing: bribing elected officials for special treatment. There's a whole index called the "Corruption Perception Index" to track the public's perception of corruption (which is damaging in and of itself), and there are studies [7] that measure it [8] more fully. These issues are complex and have deep roots. That's why I've been so tenacious in disagreeing with you about regulations being the cause of our troubles. If we're gonna kill this weed, we've gotta pull it up entirely. [1]: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/exploring-wealth-inequality#poverty-matters-not-inequality https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/exploring-... [2]: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf [3]: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264246010-6-en.pdf?expires=1587397503&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C881FFE9EA605C34D972CD438440CBDD https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264246010-6-en.p... [4]: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3806781?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3806781?ln=en (Chapter 3 The Impact of Inequality) [5]: https://voxeu.org/article/effects-income-inequality-economic-growth https://voxeu.org/article/effects-income-inequality-economic... [6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-rising-inequality-hurts-everyone-even-the-rich/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-r... [7]: https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/elections-and-corruption-politics-and-public-procurement-india https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/elec... [8]: https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-abstract/73/1/11/159241?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-abstract/73/1/11/15924...

by darawk 7y ago

camgunz 7y ago

> The problem is regulation No, the problem is corruption resulting in, among other pretty bad things, ladder pulling regulation. > You may want a wealth tax because you don't like inequality, but it isn't going to do any good for the technological development of the world. Study after study has shown that income and wealth inequality stifles innovation (again among some other pretty bad things). This makes sense if you think about it: the next Archimedes can't innovate because she's preoccupied with how to pay for her sister's insulin. In fact all my policy prescriptions are focused on innovation, because that's the topic of this thread. Antitrust laws are specifically set up to encourage innovation. I know you really want to focus on regulation as the big bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger bad: corruption.

darawk 7y ago
> Study after study has shown that income and wealth inequality stifles innovation (again among some other pretty bad things). You mean studies like this one? https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 > This makes sense if you think about it: the next Archimedes can't innovate because she's preoccupied with how to pay for her sister's insulin. Your example is poverty, not inequality. This is a trick people play all the time. They say 'inequality', and then they describe poverty. Poverty certainly reduces innovation. Poverty causes all sorts of issues that reduce intellectual and social achievement. However, inequality and poverty are not the same thing. Inequality is an inevitable consequence of innovation, in a capitalist society. But inequality does not have to mean poverty for the bottom decile. What we want is a society where those who are able to, work extremely hard to make the world better, and in return are rewarded with a luxurious high-status lifestyle. But those who are not so gifted, or those who choose not to work so hard, are still provided for adequately. IMO the focus on inequality per se is a red herring. It doesn't matter if Jeff Bezos has 100 trillion dollars, as long as his warehouse workers have a decent life. I think you might respond by saying something about how large concentrations of wealth inevitably influence politics, and inevitably corrupt everything they touch. I can't speak to the latter, but to the former, I found this enlightening: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in... > In fact all my policy prescriptions are focused on innovation, because that's the topic of this thread. Antitrust laws are specifically set up to encourage innovation. > I know you really want to focus on regulation as the big bad, but it's just a symptom of a much larger bad: corruption. 'Corruption' is sufficiently non-specific to be meaningless. Saying the problem is 'corruption' prescribes nothing at all. Corruption literally just means "bad things happening to stuff", so of course, it is always to blame when things aren't going well. The question at hand is: how do you fix it? Saying "fix corruption" certainly isn't the answer. My guess is you'll respond by saying "fix inequality", but you'll forget to add exactly how that would go on to fix "corruption".
- camgunz 7y ago
  > You mean studies like this one? https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 https://academic.oup.com/restud/article/86/1/1/5026613 No that study explores innovation as a cause of inequality. Which is still bad but not what we're talking about here. > Your example is poverty, not inequality. This is a trick people play all the time. Oh so this is your point [1]. No I'm not talking about any inequality, that's a ridiculous strawman (and seemingly wrong, judging by other sources inequality and not poverty is still bad for growth). I'm talking about bonkers levels of inequality causing incomes to stagnate while capital gains skyrocket, leaving tons of money in the investment accounts of the rich and not in the savings accounts of the 99% of the rest of us. Wealthy people by and large don't invest in innovation (look at the share of SV VC money for example), they hoard it, which undermines pretty much all of right-wing economic theory. The only policy measure that will fix this is taxation. I've done a little [2] token [3] googling [4] for [5] you. This one [6] is a pretty good high level survey if you just want an overview. > It doesn't matter if Jeff Bezos has 100 trillion dollars, as long as his warehouse workers have a decent life. Agree; I don't find wealth immoral or unethical on its own. I do find it immoral under capitalism, where by definition profit comes from exploitation (plundering the commons, upselling labor, etc.) And I don't see a better way to provide for Bezos' workers other than by taxing his immense wealth, which he got from their labor besides. > Slate Star Codex stuff There's so little money in politics because the wealthy and their corporations are already getting what they want. The false premise of this exposition is that these entities are in competition with each other. They're not, they're colluding. You'll see these numbers spike when big events happen, Deepwater Horizon, etc., and that's to keep the family whole during a troubled time--just like unions during a strike. > 'Corruption' is sufficiently non-specific to be meaningless. Saying the problem is 'corruption' prescribes nothing at all. No, when I say corruption I mean a very specific thing: bribing elected officials for special treatment. There's a whole index called the "Corruption Perception Index" to track the public's perception of corruption (which is damaging in and of itself), and there are studies [7] that measure it [8] more fully. These issues are complex and have deep roots. That's why I've been so tenacious in disagreeing with you about regulations being the cause of our troubles. If we're gonna kill this weed, we've gotta pull it up entirely. [1]: https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/exploring-wealth-inequality#poverty-matters-not-inequality https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/exploring-... [2]: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf [3]: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264246010-6-en.pdf?expires=1587397503&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=C881FFE9EA605C34D972CD438440CBDD https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264246010-6-en.p... [4]: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3806781?ln=en https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/3806781?ln=en (Chapter 3 The Impact of Inequality) [5]: https://voxeu.org/article/effects-income-inequality-economic-growth https://voxeu.org/article/effects-income-inequality-economic... [6]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-rising-inequality-hurts-everyone-even-the-rich/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/06/how-r... [7]: https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/elections-and-corruption-politics-and-public-procurement-india https://voxdev.org/topic/institutions-political-economy/elec... [8]: https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-abstract/73/1/11/159241?redirectedFrom=fulltext https://academic.oup.com/ajae/article-abstract/73/1/11/15924...