4 ms·

Test it in production.

by ghthor 6y ago

jpxw 6y ago
... which is a terrible idea
- slg 6y ago
  That is how a decent chuck of macroeconomics works. There are some things that exist at such a scale that you can't accurately experiment with them. You can only theorize, run models or simulations, and observe real world results after implementation.
  - thelean12 6y ago
    The problem is that anything besides regulated capitalism with some social features built in has utterly failed. And when it fails, it fails HARD. So implementing something so drastic without knowing if it'll work is extremely risky.
    - slg 6y ago
      >The problem is that anything besides regulated capitalism with some social features built in has utterly failed. And when it fails, it fails HARD. Would you say that every country on the planet is either "capitalism with some social features built in" or is currently failing hard? And if all those systems are capitalistic, what specifically pushes UBI over the edge into being something that isn't capitalism? From an implementation perspective, UBI is simply an adjustment of the income tax rate including allowing that rate to be negative. It has nothing to do with ownership, markets, or many of the other mainstays of capitalism.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > Would you say that every country on the planet is either "capitalism with some social features built in" or is currently failing hard? Yes, if by the overcomplicated first description you mean modern mixed economies (which are more accurately descended from capitalism than actual capitalism), and those groups overlap, too. > And if all those systems are capitalistic, what specifically pushes UBI over the edge into being something that isn't capitalism? Nothing, it's well-within the broad outline of the modern mixed economy. > From an implementation perspective, UBI is simply an adjustment of the income tax rate including allowing that rate to be negative. It has nothing to do with ownership, markets, or many of the other mainstays of capitalism. I think it's debatable whether downward redistributive taxation/spending does or does not conflict with mainstays of capitalism (I think it doesz in a good way), but in any case that's a feature of modern mixed economies generally, and UBI isn't really a difference in kind. Where UBI perhaps is more at odds with capitalism than traditional mixed economy welfare programs is in weakening the divide between the chronically excluded and the working class (the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat, to use the Marxist terms), which I think is arguably an important feature of capitalism that is underappreciated specifically because Marxist-inspired socialists don't usually directly address it, especially in a transitional rather than revolutionary concept, because they viee empowering the lumpenproletariat as dangerous because they view that class as prone to recruitment as paid agents, though not actual class allies, of the bourgeoisie while not being effectively organizable against the bourgeoisie.
    - nemothekid 6y ago
      Why is UBI the thing that plunges us into full blown socialism, and not the myraid of other social safety nets?
      - thelean12 6y ago
        I didn't call it socialism. It's certainly not full blown socialism. All I'm saying is that it's a massive, risky change. The current social safety nets are not as drastic as something like a $1400/mon stipend for everyone in the country (as Germany is trying). That's $5 trillion a year in the US. That over doubles spending right there. In 2019 the US federal government had $3.5 trillion in revenues and $4.4 trillion in spending. Add another $5 trillion -> $9.4 trillion in spending with $3.5 trillion in revenues. We'd have to almost triple our revenues! I know there are plans to pay for it, and it's probably possible. But you can't deny that it is drastic. It's very dangerous to implement such drastic changes to the economy. And the consequences of getting it wrong are horrific.
  - JorgeGT 6y ago
    This is the main issue of macroeconomics as a science. There is not a "control Germany" subjected to the same history that the actual one, that can be observed in parallel to ascertain if a macroeconomic policy is beneficial or not.
- kube-system 6y ago
  Unfortunately, we don't have a test environment. And the last time we tried to make one, it became a case-study in an ethics textbook.
- wenc 6y ago
  Not true. Testing in production (with rollbacks and safeguards) is actually how things are done in many endeavors in life, especially with processes that are reversible or where the cost of mistakes are bounded. Reality is a better teacher than a simulation. This it not to put down tests -- it has its place -- but in complex systems, it's impossible to have comprehensive coverage. Stochastic things show up in real life that never show up in tests. In software, you just keep building up your test suite. In complex stochastic systems, you'll have a much harder time building tests. Software people have a notion that the world should be TDD-driven, but it doesn't really work like that.

Test it in production.

by ghthor 6y ago

Test it in production.

jpxw 6y ago

... which is a terrible idea

slg 6y ago
That is how a decent chuck of macroeconomics works. There are some things that exist at such a scale that you can't accurately experiment with them. You can only theorize, run models or simulations, and observe real world results after implementation.
- thelean12 6y ago
  The problem is that anything besides regulated capitalism with some social features built in has utterly failed. And when it fails, it fails HARD. So implementing something so drastic without knowing if it'll work is extremely risky.
  - slg 6y ago
    >The problem is that anything besides regulated capitalism with some social features built in has utterly failed. And when it fails, it fails HARD. Would you say that every country on the planet is either "capitalism with some social features built in" or is currently failing hard? And if all those systems are capitalistic, what specifically pushes UBI over the edge into being something that isn't capitalism? From an implementation perspective, UBI is simply an adjustment of the income tax rate including allowing that rate to be negative. It has nothing to do with ownership, markets, or many of the other mainstays of capitalism.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > Would you say that every country on the planet is either "capitalism with some social features built in" or is currently failing hard? Yes, if by the overcomplicated first description you mean modern mixed economies (which are more accurately descended from capitalism than actual capitalism), and those groups overlap, too. > And if all those systems are capitalistic, what specifically pushes UBI over the edge into being something that isn't capitalism? Nothing, it's well-within the broad outline of the modern mixed economy. > From an implementation perspective, UBI is simply an adjustment of the income tax rate including allowing that rate to be negative. It has nothing to do with ownership, markets, or many of the other mainstays of capitalism. I think it's debatable whether downward redistributive taxation/spending does or does not conflict with mainstays of capitalism (I think it doesz in a good way), but in any case that's a feature of modern mixed economies generally, and UBI isn't really a difference in kind. Where UBI perhaps is more at odds with capitalism than traditional mixed economy welfare programs is in weakening the divide between the chronically excluded and the working class (the lumpenproletariat and the proletariat, to use the Marxist terms), which I think is arguably an important feature of capitalism that is underappreciated specifically because Marxist-inspired socialists don't usually directly address it, especially in a transitional rather than revolutionary concept, because they viee empowering the lumpenproletariat as dangerous because they view that class as prone to recruitment as paid agents, though not actual class allies, of the bourgeoisie while not being effectively organizable against the bourgeoisie.
  - nemothekid 6y ago
    Why is UBI the thing that plunges us into full blown socialism, and not the myraid of other social safety nets?
    - thelean12 6y ago
      I didn't call it socialism. It's certainly not full blown socialism. All I'm saying is that it's a massive, risky change. The current social safety nets are not as drastic as something like a $1400/mon stipend for everyone in the country (as Germany is trying). That's $5 trillion a year in the US. That over doubles spending right there. In 2019 the US federal government had $3.5 trillion in revenues and $4.4 trillion in spending. Add another $5 trillion -> $9.4 trillion in spending with $3.5 trillion in revenues. We'd have to almost triple our revenues! I know there are plans to pay for it, and it's probably possible. But you can't deny that it is drastic. It's very dangerous to implement such drastic changes to the economy. And the consequences of getting it wrong are horrific.
- JorgeGT 6y ago
  This is the main issue of macroeconomics as a science. There is not a "control Germany" subjected to the same history that the actual one, that can be observed in parallel to ascertain if a macroeconomic policy is beneficial or not.
kube-system 6y ago
Unfortunately, we don't have a test environment. And the last time we tried to make one, it became a case-study in an ethics textbook.
wenc 6y ago
Not true. Testing in production (with rollbacks and safeguards) is actually how things are done in many endeavors in life, especially with processes that are reversible or where the cost of mistakes are bounded. Reality is a better teacher than a simulation. This it not to put down tests -- it has its place -- but in complex systems, it's impossible to have comprehensive coverage. Stochastic things show up in real life that never show up in tests. In software, you just keep building up your test suite. In complex stochastic systems, you'll have a much harder time building tests. Software people have a notion that the world should be TDD-driven, but it doesn't really work like that.