4 ms·

Yes, but I think that is not the whole story. The shift in value in the economy from things to bytes has massively amplified that tendency. Information producti

Yes, but I think that is not the whole story. The shift in value in the economy from things to bytes has massively amplified that tendency. Information production scales infinitely since information is free to copy. The work of one single genius that deals in information, and arguably sport and entertainment now do deal in information in that sense, as does politics, can be consumed by billions. So there are simply not enough jobs for anyone else. That is in contrast with say medieval societies. Even if you were the best farmer in the world, you output would be consumed by only a few people, leaving plenty of room for lesser farmers to make a living.

0d9eooo 6y ago
But it also fuzzes value. So what you end up with rather than "value" is network effects, people who are good at advertising, and random chaotic trends that blow like the wind. That is, it's not just enough to be the best, it's required to create the appearance of the best, or to capture whatever the whims of the network are. People are also not always very good judges of long-term value. For the longest time the response I'd get whenever I expressed some sentiment of supporting small business, all things being equal, was something along the lines of "well you should support whoever can deliver the good at the lowest price." Although that's true to some extent, in the long term it leads to personal costs as local services are gone, and there's less and less competition. Short-term benefits, long term costs and so forth. In general, I think there's far too little focus on maintaining healthy competition. The pendulum in public discussions often swings from public to private services and employment, which is a good conversation to have, but there's almost never a serious, critical discussion about increasing competition and what those barriers are. US society is full of things that stifle competition and they don't get 1/10 the attention they deserve. It seems as if when it's brought up, you're forced into these ultra-libertarian or anti-capitalist stereotypes. The other day I was looking for a cycle restoration shop. There's a great one and they should be thriving right now. But their business was destroyed in riots. Not the business owner's fault. You could make an argument that it's just one more downstream effect of a racist cop killing someone over a counterfeit bill, a very significant one. This effect has played out many many times across the country now I'm sure. But who will foot the bill? The Mpls police dept? It seems we used to have this intuitive understanding of "bad things happen to good people" and "the community should pitch in collectively to support these things" but it's fading away. The darwinian model is flawed, unless you're focuses solely on the net benefits to those who benefit, which is circular in its reasoning.

0d9eooo 6y ago

But it also fuzzes value. So what you end up with rather than "value" is network effects, people who are good at advertising, and random chaotic trends that blow like the wind. That is, it's not just enough to be the best, it's required to create the appearance of the best, or to capture whatever the whims of the network are. People are also not always very good judges of long-term value. For the longest time the response I'd get whenever I expressed some sentiment of supporting small business, all things being equal, was something along the lines of "well you should support whoever can deliver the good at the lowest price." Although that's true to some extent, in the long term it leads to personal costs as local services are gone, and there's less and less competition. Short-term benefits, long term costs and so forth. In general, I think there's far too little focus on maintaining healthy competition. The pendulum in public discussions often swings from public to private services and employment, which is a good conversation to have, but there's almost never a serious, critical discussion about increasing competition and what those barriers are. US society is full of things that stifle competition and they don't get 1/10 the attention they deserve. It seems as if when it's brought up, you're forced into these ultra-libertarian or anti-capitalist stereotypes. The other day I was looking for a cycle restoration shop. There's a great one and they should be thriving right now. But their business was destroyed in riots. Not the business owner's fault. You could make an argument that it's just one more downstream effect of a racist cop killing someone over a counterfeit bill, a very significant one. This effect has played out many many times across the country now I'm sure. But who will foot the bill? The Mpls police dept? It seems we used to have this intuitive understanding of "bad things happen to good people" and "the community should pitch in collectively to support these things" but it's fading away. The darwinian model is flawed, unless you're focuses solely on the net benefits to those who benefit, which is circular in its reasoning.