4 ms·

I think I understand your position. > it is far more efficient to put that money into creating things of value From my perspective, having enough food, medici

I think I understand your position. > it is far more efficient to put that money into creating things of value From my perspective, having enough food, medicine and stability to withstand a pandemic without putting the entire society on the brink of collapse is the most valuable investment we can make, while balancing that with providing human dignity and freedom to pursue simple pleasures for all people worldwide. Once we've provided human dignity and simple pleasures to every human being and ensured that it stays that way even in the case of a pandemic or other calamity, then we can start building luxury yachts for billionaires and trading in the stock market strictly for the purposes of profit. That's my understanding of value and maybe I'm naive, but I think most people would see this as a worthy goal for us to share planet-wide. I think having a society that shares this belief, would itself produce an incredible amount of good will, motivation and purpose for many that currently feel alienated and disenfranchised. Do you have a different view of value and what you'd like to see humanity achieve? I'd genuinely like to know.

tempestn 6y ago
FWIW I don't think you should be attracting so many downvotes, because while your point of view is apparently unpopular, you do seem to be arguing it in good faith. (Although for what it's worth, bringing yachts and day trading into it seems a bit of a strawman given the conversation was originally about main street businesses.) I think my answer to another comment of yours above basically outlines what I mean by creating value. The example of the successful restaurant choosing between building up cash and opening a second location. Basically if a business has sufficient profits that they're able to store up a significant cash buffer, it's because they're making something that people are willing to pay for. (Or they're particularly good at regulatory capture or rent seeking or something, sure, but for the most part there is a correlation between earning money and providing something of worth.) Businesses that make popular products and provide popular services—things that people like and are willing to pay for—make more money than those that don't. And these things that people want and are willing to pay for, by definition, have value. So rather than sitting on cash, when possible we would like these businesses to do more of what they're doing. As another example, say you start a tractor company. You really understand what makes a good tractor, and your tractors are widely considered to be the best available. The only problem is, you only have one small factory, and can only produce a small number of them. You turn a profit on each one, and you want to be responsible, so you're saving most of that profit in case of a natural disaster or other calamitous event. It takes around 10 years to save up enough that you could keep all your staff on, your equipment in good shape, and your rent paid for a year, but you manage it. Unfortunately in the meantime, most of the farmers in the worth need to make do with shittier tractors, because instead of growing your business you're trying to build up a bunch of cash. Wouldn't it be better if you reinvested as much as possible into the business—borrowing even—to scale up your production as quickly as possible? That way more people get to benefit from your awesome tractors and everyone is better off. If a pandemic happens, the government helps you get through, so once it's over you can go back to making and selling these machines that are making farms more productive. And all the added production from that reinvestment is of course also creating jobs, paying more in taxes, and earning you more income as well. Now sure, your direct competitors won't love your selling a better tractor, but if we scale the example out to the whole economy, the more successful companies are making and doing successful things, the more actual wealth is created for society. And of course, not all companies make useful things, and the things people spend money on aren't always objectively valuable either. But in aggregate it's pretty clear that value is created. Just look at the quality of life people enjoy now compared to say a century ago. There are serious problems (like climate change) that we need to tackle—I'm not at all arguing for unregulated capitalism as a panacea. But I think it's objectively true that if all companies strove to each build large nest-eggs to weather events like this one, far less wealth (meaning tangible stuff of value) would be created than is otherwise the case.
odshoifsdhfs 6y ago
First of all, I agree with you, but I just don't think it will be feasible ever. I am called a curmudgeon because I don't believe my government should spend a single cent in arts or any non essential thing while there is a single person without food. Until that point, I am really against over spending. I also think the main problem of society now a days, not even the rich, is the materialism everyone has. People feel bad for not having the last iPhone or even the last Zara t-shirt, and buying it gives them a dopamine hit, but long term, they enter the hedonistic treadmill. But the problem is, not everyone thinks like this. Recently talked with an investor saying I would not take investment as I don't believe in the 'startup' path. It goes against my own goals. I was told I was wrong, I was told I was stupid and ignorant. I asked if he would be ok making money with WeWork and Theranos, and he had no problem saying that we would like it, and his words after I asked and how about the ones losing the money at the end, the reply was literally 'Fuck Them! I already have my exit' While there are people like this (and from small 5 euro situations to billions) no society will achieve that balance as the people attracted to the money/power will find ways to corrupt/control the others. I am currently battling leaving my job where I am in the top 2-3% of earners in my country and just finding a small house in a fishing village where I can surf and fish all day, grow my own vegetables, and do odd jobs here and there. I am tired of money and materialism and consumption. (Caveat, I know I can have this stand because I have the money/skills to not super worry for the future, I understand someone making 20k a year isn't in the same boat, but they can still make better decisions like not buying the new Xbox and iPhone with 15% interest as I have seen many do around here)
WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago
There's plenty of risk we take as a society. For example, there was a recent article on coronal mass ejections causing issues with the US power grid, bringing the US power grid down for 3-4 months (which is how long it takes to build replacement parts) but two issues came up: the whole world would have the same situation, and it costs about $400M to buy the parts. Do you think we should invest in this, or just lower taxes so more economic activity can occur?
- tempestn 6y ago
  We should absolutely be investing in that, similar threats like supervolcano eruptions, and, obviously, climate change. Until recently you might put a global pandemic on that list too, actually! Unfortunately both the capitalist and democratic systems are poorly suited to tackling such long-term threats. Climate change is the most immediate and certain of these (outside of pandemic), and even there the response has been pretty poor. But at least there is a response, unlike for these other disasters that will hit someday; we just don't know when.

tempestn 6y ago

FWIW I don't think you should be attracting so many downvotes, because while your point of view is apparently unpopular, you do seem to be arguing it in good faith. (Although for what it's worth, bringing yachts and day trading into it seems a bit of a strawman given the conversation was originally about main street businesses.) I think my answer to another comment of yours above basically outlines what I mean by creating value. The example of the successful restaurant choosing between building up cash and opening a second location. Basically if a business has sufficient profits that they're able to store up a significant cash buffer, it's because they're making something that people are willing to pay for. (Or they're particularly good at regulatory capture or rent seeking or something, sure, but for the most part there is a correlation between earning money and providing something of worth.) Businesses that make popular products and provide popular services—things that people like and are willing to pay for—make more money than those that don't. And these things that people want and are willing to pay for, by definition, have value. So rather than sitting on cash, when possible we would like these businesses to do more of what they're doing. As another example, say you start a tractor company. You really understand what makes a good tractor, and your tractors are widely considered to be the best available. The only problem is, you only have one small factory, and can only produce a small number of them. You turn a profit on each one, and you want to be responsible, so you're saving most of that profit in case of a natural disaster or other calamitous event. It takes around 10 years to save up enough that you could keep all your staff on, your equipment in good shape, and your rent paid for a year, but you manage it. Unfortunately in the meantime, most of the farmers in the worth need to make do with shittier tractors, because instead of growing your business you're trying to build up a bunch of cash. Wouldn't it be better if you reinvested as much as possible into the business—borrowing even—to scale up your production as quickly as possible? That way more people get to benefit from your awesome tractors and everyone is better off. If a pandemic happens, the government helps you get through, so once it's over you can go back to making and selling these machines that are making farms more productive. And all the added production from that reinvestment is of course also creating jobs, paying more in taxes, and earning you more income as well. Now sure, your direct competitors won't love your selling a better tractor, but if we scale the example out to the whole economy, the more successful companies are making and doing successful things, the more actual wealth is created for society. And of course, not all companies make useful things, and the things people spend money on aren't always objectively valuable either. But in aggregate it's pretty clear that value is created. Just look at the quality of life people enjoy now compared to say a century ago. There are serious problems (like climate change) that we need to tackle—I'm not at all arguing for unregulated capitalism as a panacea. But I think it's objectively true that if all companies strove to each build large nest-eggs to weather events like this one, far less wealth (meaning tangible stuff of value) would be created than is otherwise the case.

odshoifsdhfs 6y ago

First of all, I agree with you, but I just don't think it will be feasible ever. I am called a curmudgeon because I don't believe my government should spend a single cent in arts or any non essential thing while there is a single person without food. Until that point, I am really against over spending. I also think the main problem of society now a days, not even the rich, is the materialism everyone has. People feel bad for not having the last iPhone or even the last Zara t-shirt, and buying it gives them a dopamine hit, but long term, they enter the hedonistic treadmill. But the problem is, not everyone thinks like this. Recently talked with an investor saying I would not take investment as I don't believe in the 'startup' path. It goes against my own goals. I was told I was wrong, I was told I was stupid and ignorant. I asked if he would be ok making money with WeWork and Theranos, and he had no problem saying that we would like it, and his words after I asked and how about the ones losing the money at the end, the reply was literally 'Fuck Them! I already have my exit' While there are people like this (and from small 5 euro situations to billions) no society will achieve that balance as the people attracted to the money/power will find ways to corrupt/control the others. I am currently battling leaving my job where I am in the top 2-3% of earners in my country and just finding a small house in a fishing village where I can surf and fish all day, grow my own vegetables, and do odd jobs here and there. I am tired of money and materialism and consumption. (Caveat, I know I can have this stand because I have the money/skills to not super worry for the future, I understand someone making 20k a year isn't in the same boat, but they can still make better decisions like not buying the new Xbox and iPhone with 15% interest as I have seen many do around here)

WrtCdEvrydy 6y ago

There's plenty of risk we take as a society. For example, there was a recent article on coronal mass ejections causing issues with the US power grid, bringing the US power grid down for 3-4 months (which is how long it takes to build replacement parts) but two issues came up: the whole world would have the same situation, and it costs about $400M to buy the parts. Do you think we should invest in this, or just lower taxes so more economic activity can occur?

tempestn 6y ago
We should absolutely be investing in that, similar threats like supervolcano eruptions, and, obviously, climate change. Until recently you might put a global pandemic on that list too, actually! Unfortunately both the capitalist and democratic systems are poorly suited to tackling such long-term threats. Climate change is the most immediate and certain of these (outside of pandemic), and even there the response has been pretty poor. But at least there is a response, unlike for these other disasters that will hit someday; we just don't know when.