5 ms·

Terrific analogy, thanks. I support most any kind of national policy. Industrial, agricultural, transportation, education, etc. Sure, use markets, incentives,

Terrific analogy, thanks. I support most any kind of national policy. Industrial, agricultural, transportation, education, etc. Sure, use markets, incentives, competition. Use some combo: - private & public orgs - private & public capital & finance - top down & bottom up organizations, ranging from risk minimizing to hail mary. Basically, whatever basket of strategies works. But mostly I simply support directed, sustained investment in ourselves and our future.

wolverine876 5y ago
> But mostly I simply support directed, sustained investment in ourselves and our future. But who chooses the investment? While I'm not anti-tax, I generally think the aggregated intelligence of the free market makes the best decisions, in most cases.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- specialist 5y ago
  Try everything. Why not? Just like science, progress requires a lot of failures. Throwing good money after bad makes me grumpy. So we need feedback loops, post mortems, etc. Currently, every bit of legislation requires a fiscal note. Expected costs, projected impact, ROI, etc. We'd all benefit if society worked harder to do the obvious followup steps.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > Try everything. Why not? Because it consumes resources that are needed elsewhere, such as for healthcare, education, etc. Because it centralizes power in politicians and in large corporations. Because it's not freedom. > we need feedback loops, post mortems, etc. Agreed, but let's not expect people to suddenly start doing those things.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway316943 5y ago
  The government should also invest its capital in the projects that it believes will benefit the country. The people should have a say in the matter, they’re technically the investors after all.
- mkr-hn 5y ago
  It seems like the free market created the problem we're trying to solve here.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    What does that mean? The free market is all wrong and every alternative is correct? Much of what we have, especially in the computer industry, is due to the free market. What garage startup will succeed if money is distributed by the fiat of powerful rather than by a merit-based market (and yes, we can improve the meritocracy).
    - mkr-hn 5y ago
      I really have no idea how this follows from my comment.
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        I was guessing at what you meant, as I thought my first sentence conveyed. More clearly: I don't know what you are trying to say. :)
- cameronh90 5y ago
  The free market makes the best decisions for the global economy, but not necessarily the United States.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Why do you say that? No single approach results in the 'best' decisions, and I'm not sure what the "global economy" and the "United States' represents in this case - both are very large collections of various people and interests. The U.S. does have a very strong emphasis on freedom, you know, and has done very well with the free market and free trade - no country, in aggregate, has gotten richer following any system in the history of the world. Truly. I'm open to improvements that distribute benefits better, but what do you suggest would work better?
  - vkou 5y ago
    It makes the best immediate decisions for immediate participants in it, which does not guarantee arrival at a global, or even local maximum.
- sidlls 5y ago
  Best for whom? Based on what evidence? Every time I see "free market" honestly I roll my eyes a little. There really aren't any truly free markets in the first place; in the second, the more free, the generally less efficient for anything except moving wealth from those that have little of it to those that have much.
  - specialist 5y ago
    Agreed. Markets are open, gray, black, private, or closed. "Free market" is just very successful agitprop.
  - imtringued 5y ago
    I agree. As long as paradoxes of competition exist the free market is just that, an ideal. There are a lot of scenarios where selfish behavior is rational for the individual but only permissible for a minority but if literally everyone does the selfish behavior everyone loses more than if they had done nothing.
- imtringued 5y ago
  There is no such mechanism. When nations run out of profitable investments they prefer the safety of worthless money than the insecurity of the real world. There is no force in capitalism that forces investment. If there was we could have avoided WW2 and a lot of other wars.

wolverine876 5y ago

> But mostly I simply support directed, sustained investment in ourselves and our future. But who chooses the investment? While I'm not anti-tax, I generally think the aggregated intelligence of the free market makes the best decisions, in most cases.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
specialist 5y ago
Try everything. Why not? Just like science, progress requires a lot of failures. Throwing good money after bad makes me grumpy. So we need feedback loops, post mortems, etc. Currently, every bit of legislation requires a fiscal note. Expected costs, projected impact, ROI, etc. We'd all benefit if society worked harder to do the obvious followup steps.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > Try everything. Why not? Because it consumes resources that are needed elsewhere, such as for healthcare, education, etc. Because it centralizes power in politicians and in large corporations. Because it's not freedom. > we need feedback loops, post mortems, etc. Agreed, but let's not expect people to suddenly start doing those things.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
throwaway316943 5y ago
The government should also invest its capital in the projects that it believes will benefit the country. The people should have a say in the matter, they’re technically the investors after all.
mkr-hn 5y ago
It seems like the free market created the problem we're trying to solve here.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  What does that mean? The free market is all wrong and every alternative is correct? Much of what we have, especially in the computer industry, is due to the free market. What garage startup will succeed if money is distributed by the fiat of powerful rather than by a merit-based market (and yes, we can improve the meritocracy).
  - mkr-hn 5y ago
    I really have no idea how this follows from my comment.
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      I was guessing at what you meant, as I thought my first sentence conveyed. More clearly: I don't know what you are trying to say. :)
cameronh90 5y ago
The free market makes the best decisions for the global economy, but not necessarily the United States.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Why do you say that? No single approach results in the 'best' decisions, and I'm not sure what the "global economy" and the "United States' represents in this case - both are very large collections of various people and interests. The U.S. does have a very strong emphasis on freedom, you know, and has done very well with the free market and free trade - no country, in aggregate, has gotten richer following any system in the history of the world. Truly. I'm open to improvements that distribute benefits better, but what do you suggest would work better?
- vkou 5y ago
  It makes the best immediate decisions for immediate participants in it, which does not guarantee arrival at a global, or even local maximum.
sidlls 5y ago
Best for whom? Based on what evidence? Every time I see "free market" honestly I roll my eyes a little. There really aren't any truly free markets in the first place; in the second, the more free, the generally less efficient for anything except moving wealth from those that have little of it to those that have much.
- specialist 5y ago
  Agreed. Markets are open, gray, black, private, or closed. "Free market" is just very successful agitprop.
- imtringued 5y ago
  I agree. As long as paradoxes of competition exist the free market is just that, an ideal. There are a lot of scenarios where selfish behavior is rational for the individual but only permissible for a minority but if literally everyone does the selfish behavior everyone loses more than if they had done nothing.
imtringued 5y ago
There is no such mechanism. When nations run out of profitable investments they prefer the safety of worthless money than the insecurity of the real world. There is no force in capitalism that forces investment. If there was we could have avoided WW2 and a lot of other wars.