14 ms·

>Slowing down the state and empowering community is always bad for equity, because the community is where inegalitarian traditions live. The community in which

>Slowing down the state and empowering community is always bad for equity, because the community is where inegalitarian traditions live. The community in which the author lives must exist in an alternate universe where the state is efficient and egalitarian. In the community where I live (NYC) the Mayor's incompetent wife has been appointed to run a billion-dollar agency. Central planning is neither useful nor efficient when the planners are stupid and corrupt.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
pdonis 6y ago
> Central planning is neither useful nor efficient when the planners are stupid and corrupt. To make use of David Friedman's observation about a similar remark, unfortunately this sentence remains true if you take out the last seven words. Which makes the author's faith in central planning even more problematic.
- danielheath 6y ago
  If capital requirements are reasonable, the market will figure it out. However, that’s far less true for capital-intensive problems; there’s few enough actors for them to collude. For that reason, central planning works out passably for predictable problems with high capital requirements like sewerage, roads and electrical grids.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > there’s few enough actors for them to collude And those who collude become the central planners. So central planning doesn't fix this problem: it worsens it, because now the colluders have government power on their side.
    - afarrell 6y ago
      Regulation makes the central planning explicit so that an anticorruption layer can (hopefully) be designed.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        Then the anticorruption layer is vulnerable to corruption.
- StanislavPetrov 6y ago
  >To make use of David Friedman's observation about a similar remark, unfortunately this sentence remains true if you take out the last seven words. I don't disagree with that statement, but reasonable people can debate and disagree in a hypothetical fantasy world where central planners are thoughtful and competent. This is why I find it more useful to address the situation in the actual world we live in, where stupid, incompetent and corrupt people like Chirlane McCray (wife of NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio) are appointed to spend billions in taxpayer dollars to do the "planning". Unfortunately with this issue, as with every other, most people are more interested in ideology than reality.
- andbberger 6y ago
  Man, Paxos for transit agencies is going to be a game changer.
jaspax 6y ago
That sentence also stuck out to me as betraying a terrible point of view on the part of the author. Yes, inegalitarian traditions live in the community. Do you know what else lives in the community? Friendships and marriages and the park where you played as a kid and the bar where you hang out after work and the parking light behind the high school where you had your first kiss. These things are naturally inequitable, because not everyone had them, and they aren't of equal quality everywhere. But it takes a special kind of perversity to say that we should empower the state to destroy this kind of value simply because not everyone gets to have some.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

pdonis 6y ago

> Central planning is neither useful nor efficient when the planners are stupid and corrupt. To make use of David Friedman's observation about a similar remark, unfortunately this sentence remains true if you take out the last seven words. Which makes the author's faith in central planning even more problematic.

danielheath 6y ago
If capital requirements are reasonable, the market will figure it out. However, that’s far less true for capital-intensive problems; there’s few enough actors for them to collude. For that reason, central planning works out passably for predictable problems with high capital requirements like sewerage, roads and electrical grids.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > there’s few enough actors for them to collude And those who collude become the central planners. So central planning doesn't fix this problem: it worsens it, because now the colluders have government power on their side.
  - afarrell 6y ago
    Regulation makes the central planning explicit so that an anticorruption layer can (hopefully) be designed.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Then the anticorruption layer is vulnerable to corruption.
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
>To make use of David Friedman's observation about a similar remark, unfortunately this sentence remains true if you take out the last seven words. I don't disagree with that statement, but reasonable people can debate and disagree in a hypothetical fantasy world where central planners are thoughtful and competent. This is why I find it more useful to address the situation in the actual world we live in, where stupid, incompetent and corrupt people like Chirlane McCray (wife of NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio) are appointed to spend billions in taxpayer dollars to do the "planning". Unfortunately with this issue, as with every other, most people are more interested in ideology than reality.
andbberger 6y ago
Man, Paxos for transit agencies is going to be a game changer.

jaspax 6y ago

That sentence also stuck out to me as betraying a terrible point of view on the part of the author. Yes, inegalitarian traditions live in the community. Do you know what else lives in the community? Friendships and marriages and the park where you played as a kid and the bar where you hang out after work and the parking light behind the high school where you had your first kiss. These things are naturally inequitable, because not everyone had them, and they aren't of equal quality everywhere. But it takes a special kind of perversity to say that we should empower the state to destroy this kind of value simply because not everyone gets to have some.