4 ms·

I think that a lot of the problem of not building things comes from profits being the only measure of what matters. The cultural imperative to get rich above al

I think that a lot of the problem of not building things comes from profits being the only measure of what matters. The cultural imperative to get rich above all else. Some western technology companies changed at some point where a lot of them were driven by MBAs rather than engineers. They had no problem outsourcing everything to China in order to increase profits. Building things was "too costly". But the cost was only measured in profits not in lost capability etc. The original founders of these companies built things because they wanted to build them and profit was a means to sustaining that. The Chinese are doing the same. The current culture in some western companies is weak and unsustainable in the same way that just eating sugar is weak and unsustainable.

abecedarius 6y ago
But China's current dynamism kicked off when its government started to allow people to work to get rich. It seems very odd to claim we have more of that motive, indeed so much more that it makes a huge difference. It must be about the channels this motive has available to be directed into, I'd think. Does the invisible hand push you more to rent-seek or to build?
- webmaven 6y ago
  This may be overly obvious, but... Just because some of a thing is judged to be good does not necessarily imply that more of it would be better.
  - discreteevent 6y ago
    Yes that's exactly the problem. Thinking that if something is good, more of it has to be better. Its the same with regulation. Of course too much registration is bad but this fundamentalist idea that good will just emerge from pure free trade is nonsensical. It's like seeing the benefits of event sourcing and then deciding that if we use that everywhere a stable system will just emerge.
    - abecedarius 6y ago
      Above you blame America's not building on the "motive to get rich above all else", contrasting China. I'm saying only that this seems a strange and unsupported place to pin the blame, going by what actually changed in China and in America. I didn't say that more greed causes more building; I'm saying that more greed for profits, as a candidate cause for less building, is not a relevant thing that has changed in the relevant way. It seems closer to the opposite in what I know about China's history. Are you saying you think China went from too-low profit motive to the Goldilocks zone, while America went from Goldilocks to too high? Or is this really about something other than profit motive?
    - webmaven 6y ago
      Same for deregulation too, TBH.

abecedarius 6y ago

But China's current dynamism kicked off when its government started to allow people to work to get rich. It seems very odd to claim we have more of that motive, indeed so much more that it makes a huge difference. It must be about the channels this motive has available to be directed into, I'd think. Does the invisible hand push you more to rent-seek or to build?

webmaven 6y ago
This may be overly obvious, but... Just because some of a thing is judged to be good does not necessarily imply that more of it would be better.
- discreteevent 6y ago
  Yes that's exactly the problem. Thinking that if something is good, more of it has to be better. Its the same with regulation. Of course too much registration is bad but this fundamentalist idea that good will just emerge from pure free trade is nonsensical. It's like seeing the benefits of event sourcing and then deciding that if we use that everywhere a stable system will just emerge.
  - abecedarius 6y ago
    Above you blame America's not building on the "motive to get rich above all else", contrasting China. I'm saying only that this seems a strange and unsupported place to pin the blame, going by what actually changed in China and in America. I didn't say that more greed causes more building; I'm saying that more greed for profits, as a candidate cause for less building, is not a relevant thing that has changed in the relevant way. It seems closer to the opposite in what I know about China's history. Are you saying you think China went from too-low profit motive to the Goldilocks zone, while America went from Goldilocks to too high? Or is this really about something other than profit motive?
  - webmaven 6y ago
    Same for deregulation too, TBH.