7 ms·

> Nearly half of adult Canadians struggle with literacy — and that's bad for the economy Sad that this be couched in monetary terms in order to seem "relevant.

> Nearly half of adult Canadians struggle with literacy — and that's bad for the economy Sad that this be couched in monetary terms in order to seem "relevant." As with so many other things, there is a massive qualitative benefit to reading regardless of it's obvious utilitarian or financial advantages.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thundergolfer 6y ago
This persistent kind of framing in media is quite possibly a second order effect of the Neoliberal consensus. Markets become the primary tool of societal organisation, and institutions are bent and dented into an orientation toward the economic value system.
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > Markets become the primary tool of societal organisation Another way to frame that is people buying what they want and people making and selling what other people want. Sounds good to me!
  - atq2119 6y ago
    It's not that that's bad. It's that if everything is viewed only though this particular lens, a wide range of human experience is lost.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > a wide range of human experience is lost What is the most important human experience that is lost by markets?
      - helmholtz 6y ago
        85% of all animal life, receding glaciers, acidified, deadened oceans, plastic bag islands the size of Texas, depleted drinking water, dwindling natural resources, global uncontrolled rise of temperature, soil erosion, anti-microbial resistance, pandemics, factory farming animal abuse, forest fires, nuclear waste, asbestos in the lungs, lead in the veins, mercury in the nerves, global obesity... ETA: looks like you edited your comment. The original (and rather tone deaf) comment was: "I'm curious what is lost by people doing what they want to do."
        WalterBright 6y ago
        I edited it to make it easier to answer. Your examples are not examples of a properly set up market system. They are spinning off what are called "externalities", which are costs not born by either the buyer or the seller. A properly set up market would apply those costs to the producer. An example of this is CO2 emission should be taxed, not regulated.
        helmholtz 6y ago
        Ah, indeed, no true scotsman would pollute the planet, don't be daft! We are not blessed to be living in a perfect world that can be set up for an ideal market system. For the last four decades, these externalities have gotten ramped up to fever pitch. I'm interested in your take on how, in this world, we get to a point where ALL of the above consequences can be forestalled through HN's favourite hard-on: deregulation and market forces run amok.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        I have no idea how you're going to accomplish this with centralized economic planning, but there's a much better shot at it with a free market approach. Basically, taxing the externalities is the market based solution. Banning is a ham-fisted inefficient method.
        6y ago
  - hh3k0 6y ago
    Meanwhile in reality it also entails people being manipulated into wanting something and people making and selling what no one needs.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      What things are you manipulated into wanting that you don't want, and what do you buy that you don't need? Why are you doing those things?
      - hh3k0 6y ago
        Much like nearly half of adult Canadians, you seem to struggle with literacy. And are you really going to pretend that manipulative marketing isn't a thing? Wow.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Rather than insult me, perhaps answering my question would more effectively make your point?
        hh3k0 6y ago
        Oh, I didn't insult you. And you'll see that your questions were quite off the mark if you actually read my original comment. But I'll gladly make my point once more: manipulative marketing is a thing.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Your point has no value without an example.
        hh3k0 6y ago
        The anti-aging industry in its entirety, for starters. The vast majority of alternative medicine. The fashion industry is manipulative, the list goes on. Advertising is almost always manipulative -- tailored ads all the more. The ways in which consumers are manipulated are as innovative as they are plentiful: https://news.wsu.edu/2012/11/26/wsu-researchers-tie-simple-scent-to-increased-retail-sales/ https://news.wsu.edu/2012/11/26/wsu-researchers-tie-simple-s.... And you're either plain ignorant or blinded by ideology if you really needed all those examples.
  - thundergolfer 6y ago
    That's a sycophantic way of framing market-dominated thinking, yes, but as other users have pointed out, market thinking having _primacy_ in society has downsides. Large downsides, in my opinion. Markets are a tool in service of humanity, but market dominated thinking abounds and we get this tweeted with a straight face by think-tank people: > I still believe in markets. Markets do not fail us. We fail markets. 1. https://twitter.com/AmityShlaes/status/1315793783951327234 https://twitter.com/AmityShlaes/status/1315793783951327234 Edit: I thought I recognised your username, and bet that you're the most upvoted user that's replied to me on this site. If you've written about your time on this site and how you got started on it, I'd be interested to read it.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      For a topical example, take the covid vaccine distribution system. It is done by the government, and has fared poorly in the US and Europe. The excuses are variations on "the states don't know how to set up a distribution system". But we already have a distribution system for vaccines. Where did you get your last flu shot? The local drug store, a market based system. I see the government busy trying to reproduce overnight an efficient, working system that's already there sitting idle. Of course they'll fail. I phoned my local drug store and asked if I can make an appointment for a covid vaccination. They replied they have no idea when or if they'd ever get any vaccination supply. Meanwhile, the state says they have a severe lack of people who can give vaccinations. (I know where they are hiding, they're behind the counter at your local pharmacy.) The solution is simple and stupidly obvious. Distribute vaccines to the zillion pharmacies, and pay them per vaccination in arm. They're not going to waste any time vaccinating people.
      - iguy 6y ago
        There's a lot of truth in this, but one catch is that the "zillion pharmacies" aren't set up for -70C storage. Although delivering each of them a small box of vaccine to be injected that same day sounds like a problem for which we also have well-established solutions... they're just busy delivering hamburgers.
  - hkt 6y ago
    It obliterates a wide range of social settings, though. Running things in the community, often at a voluntary level that meant more investment locally, gave people a chance to meet and be involved. In the UK those spaces have been disappearing for generations.
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > It obliterates a wide range of social settings, though. What is the most important social setting that markets obliterate?
      - hkt 6y ago
        It is hard to pick one, really. But in the UK we squashed the following in the 1980s: Friendly societies (a type of customer owned insurer) Building societies (which used to be local, but are now essentially national scale banks) Various types of sports and social clubs (which often put on entertainment but also hosted lots of recreational activities) There is more, too, but these things got in the way of the financialised, neoliberal world that was under construction. What happened was policies then allowed them to change unrecognisably or just atrophy away to nothing. They all represented ways of being involved in the running of your community. Most are now irrelevant or gone.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        They're gone simply because people found little reason to keep them. They've been replaced by social things HN where you and I are having a nice discussion. (Too bad it doesn't involve hefting a pint, sigh.) That wouldn't have happened in the 80's, when I communicated with Zortech in London with a daily fax.
        hkt 6y ago
        Sure, but most people haven't seen replacements for these things. Most of the discontent I see in politics comes from turning it into a spectator sport, rather than a way of describing the process of communities choosing things through the old organs of social democracy. But yes, there are new things and they are good. The internet pretty much raised me as a teenager. RE: pints, think I'd trade a finger for a pint with some good company at the moment. Alas.
noobermin 6y ago
While that's true, that's just the headline. The article is pretty good, and touches not just on individuals but effects on democracy for example.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thundergolfer 6y ago

This persistent kind of framing in media is quite possibly a second order effect of the Neoliberal consensus. Markets become the primary tool of societal organisation, and institutions are bent and dented into an orientation toward the economic value system.

WalterBright 6y ago
> Markets become the primary tool of societal organisation Another way to frame that is people buying what they want and people making and selling what other people want. Sounds good to me!
- atq2119 6y ago
  It's not that that's bad. It's that if everything is viewed only though this particular lens, a wide range of human experience is lost.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > a wide range of human experience is lost What is the most important human experience that is lost by markets?
    - helmholtz 6y ago
      85% of all animal life, receding glaciers, acidified, deadened oceans, plastic bag islands the size of Texas, depleted drinking water, dwindling natural resources, global uncontrolled rise of temperature, soil erosion, anti-microbial resistance, pandemics, factory farming animal abuse, forest fires, nuclear waste, asbestos in the lungs, lead in the veins, mercury in the nerves, global obesity... ETA: looks like you edited your comment. The original (and rather tone deaf) comment was: "I'm curious what is lost by people doing what they want to do."
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        I edited it to make it easier to answer. Your examples are not examples of a properly set up market system. They are spinning off what are called "externalities", which are costs not born by either the buyer or the seller. A properly set up market would apply those costs to the producer. An example of this is CO2 emission should be taxed, not regulated.
        helmholtz 6y ago
        Ah, indeed, no true scotsman would pollute the planet, don't be daft! We are not blessed to be living in a perfect world that can be set up for an ideal market system. For the last four decades, these externalities have gotten ramped up to fever pitch. I'm interested in your take on how, in this world, we get to a point where ALL of the above consequences can be forestalled through HN's favourite hard-on: deregulation and market forces run amok.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        I have no idea how you're going to accomplish this with centralized economic planning, but there's a much better shot at it with a free market approach. Basically, taxing the externalities is the market based solution. Banning is a ham-fisted inefficient method.
        6y ago
- hh3k0 6y ago
  Meanwhile in reality it also entails people being manipulated into wanting something and people making and selling what no one needs.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    What things are you manipulated into wanting that you don't want, and what do you buy that you don't need? Why are you doing those things?
    - hh3k0 6y ago
      Much like nearly half of adult Canadians, you seem to struggle with literacy. And are you really going to pretend that manipulative marketing isn't a thing? Wow.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        Rather than insult me, perhaps answering my question would more effectively make your point?
        hh3k0 6y ago
        Oh, I didn't insult you. And you'll see that your questions were quite off the mark if you actually read my original comment. But I'll gladly make my point once more: manipulative marketing is a thing.
        WalterBright 6y ago
        Your point has no value without an example.
        hh3k0 6y ago
        The anti-aging industry in its entirety, for starters. The vast majority of alternative medicine. The fashion industry is manipulative, the list goes on. Advertising is almost always manipulative -- tailored ads all the more. The ways in which consumers are manipulated are as innovative as they are plentiful: https://news.wsu.edu/2012/11/26/wsu-researchers-tie-simple-scent-to-increased-retail-sales/ https://news.wsu.edu/2012/11/26/wsu-researchers-tie-simple-s.... And you're either plain ignorant or blinded by ideology if you really needed all those examples.
- thundergolfer 6y ago
  That's a sycophantic way of framing market-dominated thinking, yes, but as other users have pointed out, market thinking having _primacy_ in society has downsides. Large downsides, in my opinion. Markets are a tool in service of humanity, but market dominated thinking abounds and we get this tweeted with a straight face by think-tank people: > I still believe in markets. Markets do not fail us. We fail markets. 1. https://twitter.com/AmityShlaes/status/1315793783951327234 https://twitter.com/AmityShlaes/status/1315793783951327234 Edit: I thought I recognised your username, and bet that you're the most upvoted user that's replied to me on this site. If you've written about your time on this site and how you got started on it, I'd be interested to read it.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    For a topical example, take the covid vaccine distribution system. It is done by the government, and has fared poorly in the US and Europe. The excuses are variations on "the states don't know how to set up a distribution system". But we already have a distribution system for vaccines. Where did you get your last flu shot? The local drug store, a market based system. I see the government busy trying to reproduce overnight an efficient, working system that's already there sitting idle. Of course they'll fail. I phoned my local drug store and asked if I can make an appointment for a covid vaccination. They replied they have no idea when or if they'd ever get any vaccination supply. Meanwhile, the state says they have a severe lack of people who can give vaccinations. (I know where they are hiding, they're behind the counter at your local pharmacy.) The solution is simple and stupidly obvious. Distribute vaccines to the zillion pharmacies, and pay them per vaccination in arm. They're not going to waste any time vaccinating people.
    - iguy 6y ago
      There's a lot of truth in this, but one catch is that the "zillion pharmacies" aren't set up for -70C storage. Although delivering each of them a small box of vaccine to be injected that same day sounds like a problem for which we also have well-established solutions... they're just busy delivering hamburgers.
- hkt 6y ago
  It obliterates a wide range of social settings, though. Running things in the community, often at a voluntary level that meant more investment locally, gave people a chance to meet and be involved. In the UK those spaces have been disappearing for generations.
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > It obliterates a wide range of social settings, though. What is the most important social setting that markets obliterate?
    - hkt 6y ago
      It is hard to pick one, really. But in the UK we squashed the following in the 1980s: Friendly societies (a type of customer owned insurer) Building societies (which used to be local, but are now essentially national scale banks) Various types of sports and social clubs (which often put on entertainment but also hosted lots of recreational activities) There is more, too, but these things got in the way of the financialised, neoliberal world that was under construction. What happened was policies then allowed them to change unrecognisably or just atrophy away to nothing. They all represented ways of being involved in the running of your community. Most are now irrelevant or gone.
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        They're gone simply because people found little reason to keep them. They've been replaced by social things HN where you and I are having a nice discussion. (Too bad it doesn't involve hefting a pint, sigh.) That wouldn't have happened in the 80's, when I communicated with Zortech in London with a daily fax.
        hkt 6y ago
        Sure, but most people haven't seen replacements for these things. Most of the discontent I see in politics comes from turning it into a spectator sport, rather than a way of describing the process of communities choosing things through the old organs of social democracy. But yes, there are new things and they are good. The internet pretty much raised me as a teenager. RE: pints, think I'd trade a finger for a pint with some good company at the moment. Alas.

noobermin 6y ago

While that's true, that's just the headline. The article is pretty good, and touches not just on individuals but effects on democracy for example.