3 ms·

> Having the courage to try stuff out is the biggest 'tragedy of the commons' problem we face In capitalist economies, entrepreneurship (courage) historically

> Having the courage to try stuff out is the biggest 'tragedy of the commons' problem we face In capitalist economies, entrepreneurship (courage) historically is the biggest driver of job growth and innovation. It is based on competition in an open market. There is no shortage of risk taking currently, if a proxy for risk taking is the an abundance of VC money flowing into businesses with growth but no profits. I have doubts on whether businesses taking VC money qualify as entrepreneurship though. I have the impression that banks loan to VC's much more freely than to actual entrepreneurs. > if we collectively decided to try and take on our ideas , then the amount of quality of life unleashed by the successful ones would make what we today consider "striking it rich" pale in comparison This is the China collectivism approach to capitalism and there is arguably way more cronyism and oppression in the regime in comparison. The government is more directly picking winners and losers. However in western capitalist economies, the free market died in 2008 when the housing market crashed. From then on, the government is saying, "everyone is a winner" by pumping so much liquidity into the market. > We are all guilty of it. Guilty of what? Accepting the numbing effects of faux wealth? Propping up businesses of people "in on the know" to save jobs, when entrepreneurship is already a proven job creation engine? There is an unprecedented flow of monetary supply going into the global economy, and we are well overdue for an actual recession because recessions have been demonized and politicized and avoided, when they are necessary to purge the froth and inefficiency in the economy.

dgb23 5y ago
A very small percentage of people can afford to take those risks. Whether their venture has merit or not is orthogonal to that. Paraphrasing Alan Kay (I think): What if the next Einstein is born in precarious socioeconomic circumstances with little access to education and sufficient time and resources? And there are not only the young Einsteins but also plenty of smart, hard working people that are exhausted of wage labor and live paycheck to paycheck. They would gladly take things in their own hands, but they cannot risk their lives. Capitalism and the free market would be so great, if people could actually participate.
- stadium 5y ago
  > Capitalism and the free market would be so great, if people could actually participate. Agree. Public healthcare and education would go a long way into enabling everyone to participate more freely. Instead we footgun ourselves into projecting the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" mindset onto others, which just doesn't work unless everyone has boots.

dgb23 5y ago

A very small percentage of people can afford to take those risks. Whether their venture has merit or not is orthogonal to that. Paraphrasing Alan Kay (I think): What if the next Einstein is born in precarious socioeconomic circumstances with little access to education and sufficient time and resources? And there are not only the young Einsteins but also plenty of smart, hard working people that are exhausted of wage labor and live paycheck to paycheck. They would gladly take things in their own hands, but they cannot risk their lives. Capitalism and the free market would be so great, if people could actually participate.

stadium 5y ago
> Capitalism and the free market would be so great, if people could actually participate. Agree. Public healthcare and education would go a long way into enabling everyone to participate more freely. Instead we footgun ourselves into projecting the "pick yourself up by the bootstraps" mindset onto others, which just doesn't work unless everyone has boots.