17 ms·

I'd encourage you to make a voluntary donation to the State of Washington Treasury's General Fund or one of about 750 account appropriations[2]. I'm sure there

I'd encourage you to make a voluntary donation to the State of Washington Treasury's General Fund or one of about 750 account appropriations[2]. I'm sure there would be some that would help support your local community. [1]https://tre.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/waStateDonationForm.pdf https://tre.wa.gov/wp-content/uploads/waStateDonationForm.pd... [2]https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/policy/75.30.htm https://www.ofm.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/legacy/pol...

Pfhreak 6y ago
I give a significant portion of my income to local community organizations to support education, housing, and social equity. However, I believe philanthropy is not a scalable solution to systemic issues. People tend to pay for causes that make them feel good, which doesn't line up with what actually needs to be solved. I strongly believe that we need to get everyone contributing to societal maintenance, rather than relying on people opting in.
- maxharris 6y ago
  What causes our systemic issues? And what role do you believe embedded growth obligations play in the institutions involved in those issues?
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Big question. Fundamentally, having capital allows one to acquire more capital, generationally. The history here is long and complex. Over hundreds of years, we've seen a striation of incomes, wealth, and capital across the country. The lower ends of that income spectrum are dealing with difficult choices about whether to cut food, heating, housing, medicine, sanitation, childcare, etc. Low level crime is a symptom of people being squeezed too hard. So, let's dive a layer deeper: what causes inequal access to healthcare, housing, education, sanitation, etc.? Part of it is cultural -- people framing the question as, "Why should I give up some of my income so someone else doesn't have raw sewage pumped into their yard?" rather than, "What's the baseline experience we should all have, no matter what, and how much do I have to give up to ensure that?" Fundamentally, I think culturally, in the US, we prioritize "mine" too much over "ours", which leads to tight fists on improving conditions and addressing economic inequality, which leads to systemic problems in housing/food/education/etc., which leads to crime, drug abuse, mental health problems, etc. As for the second question, I think you are asking whether companies are obligated to grow their profits/income and how is that tied to these issues? I want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I try to answer. Thanks for asking good questions. We might not agree on the root causes here, or what to do about it, but at least this set of questions is a reasonable dive into things.
    - maxharris 6y ago
      I am asking about this https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligation https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligation
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Let me do some reading and get back to you!
        Pfhreak 6y ago
        Ok, my brief reading suggests the thesis is that everyone wants to be at the top, but to grow the number of people at the top you must grow the number of people below that by some larger number. For example, a manager earns more, people want to be managers. Only way to get more managers is to grow and get more workers. Now you have even more people who want to be managers. It's an interesting idea, and sort of a novel (to me, at least) framing of the ideas behind a ponzi scheme or keeping up with the Joneses or the American dream (that we could all be millionaires). It also seems to be the natural order for the capitalist economy, if I understand the thesis correctly. ( Capital must beget capital, else no one would invest. As more people invest, we must grow to sustain the growth in capital.) I need to think about it a bit more, but it seems to me that the theory assumes the actor is a solipsist or predominantly interested in their own self. I'm not sure that's necessarily axiomatic in American culture. Thanks for sharing the concept, and feel free to offer suggestions or corrections where I misunderstood it.

Pfhreak 6y ago

I give a significant portion of my income to local community organizations to support education, housing, and social equity. However, I believe philanthropy is not a scalable solution to systemic issues. People tend to pay for causes that make them feel good, which doesn't line up with what actually needs to be solved. I strongly believe that we need to get everyone contributing to societal maintenance, rather than relying on people opting in.

maxharris 6y ago
What causes our systemic issues? And what role do you believe embedded growth obligations play in the institutions involved in those issues?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Big question. Fundamentally, having capital allows one to acquire more capital, generationally. The history here is long and complex. Over hundreds of years, we've seen a striation of incomes, wealth, and capital across the country. The lower ends of that income spectrum are dealing with difficult choices about whether to cut food, heating, housing, medicine, sanitation, childcare, etc. Low level crime is a symptom of people being squeezed too hard. So, let's dive a layer deeper: what causes inequal access to healthcare, housing, education, sanitation, etc.? Part of it is cultural -- people framing the question as, "Why should I give up some of my income so someone else doesn't have raw sewage pumped into their yard?" rather than, "What's the baseline experience we should all have, no matter what, and how much do I have to give up to ensure that?" Fundamentally, I think culturally, in the US, we prioritize "mine" too much over "ours", which leads to tight fists on improving conditions and addressing economic inequality, which leads to systemic problems in housing/food/education/etc., which leads to crime, drug abuse, mental health problems, etc. As for the second question, I think you are asking whether companies are obligated to grow their profits/income and how is that tied to these issues? I want to make sure I understand what you are asking before I try to answer. Thanks for asking good questions. We might not agree on the root causes here, or what to do about it, but at least this set of questions is a reasonable dive into things.
  - maxharris 6y ago
    I am asking about this https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligation https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Embedded_Growth_Obligation
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Let me do some reading and get back to you!
      - Pfhreak 6y ago
        Ok, my brief reading suggests the thesis is that everyone wants to be at the top, but to grow the number of people at the top you must grow the number of people below that by some larger number. For example, a manager earns more, people want to be managers. Only way to get more managers is to grow and get more workers. Now you have even more people who want to be managers. It's an interesting idea, and sort of a novel (to me, at least) framing of the ideas behind a ponzi scheme or keeping up with the Joneses or the American dream (that we could all be millionaires). It also seems to be the natural order for the capitalist economy, if I understand the thesis correctly. ( Capital must beget capital, else no one would invest. As more people invest, we must grow to sustain the growth in capital.) I need to think about it a bit more, but it seems to me that the theory assumes the actor is a solipsist or predominantly interested in their own self. I'm not sure that's necessarily axiomatic in American culture. Thanks for sharing the concept, and feel free to offer suggestions or corrections where I misunderstood it.