5 ms·

I've favourited this comment. Why do some accept mediocrity when it comes to the achievability of a comfortable standard of living? Perhaps it would help them t

I've favourited this comment. Why do some accept mediocrity when it comes to the achievability of a comfortable standard of living? Perhaps it would help them to frame this in the language of a SaaS company, since I know so many HNers strive for excellence in that area: Our company is failing to deliver value to many of our customers; how can we do better?

kristopolous 5y ago
I even have to push back on that. It's not about a policy position but instead a discipline. Pick some advocacy, let's go the other end, generous social services + adequate UBI. "people will just be lazy and not work" Alright sure, how many? Some industries more than others? Do we care as a society if those industries fold? And what about those people, are they idling or pursuing financially riskier dreams like say local journalism or being a religious cleric? How many? How confident are we about this? Are they in general doing a good job? Would we be ok with say more local journalists and less say fast food restaurants? Is that a good trade-off? Would this change land-use? Food availability? If we do a policy that will intentionally make these things fold, what's the possible exit strategies for things like the supplies and buildings? Is that what we want? Are there test cases, anywhere in the world that did similar things? What were their reports on it? This is the kind of discipline that was used to rebuild Japan and Europe after world war 2. It's not about a "planned" economy, but instead a "catastrophe avoiding one". If the answer was something like "apparently, historically, when some country does X, a large number of people join criminal gangs and murder people" then, if you don't want that outcome, you probably don't want to do X. China has also been doing this kind of interlocutor discipline since, that's debatable, certainly by 1990. People say they're no longer "communist". What they actually mean is the merit of a policy is no longer held up against the ideology of communism and then decided upon based on a purity test. That process is actually super popular in the US. An accusation of a policy not aligning with the dogmatism of a particular flavor of capitalism is enough to kill the policy. Everything is held up to an ideological purity test where it's marked based on adherence alone. It's actually exactly what the Soviets did with things like Lysenkoism that led to millions dying from essentially communism applied to seed planting, fertilization and harvesting. I know it sounds insane and that's because it is. Ever notice how economic policy debates seem a little crazy and detached from reality? Ever notice how policy is kinda DOA unless someone can spin a story and make it jive with a specific ideology and how they give exactly 0.000 weight to any historical analysis of what the policy does? It's a problem. It shouldn't matter but instead it's literally the only thing that does.

kristopolous 5y ago

I even have to push back on that. It's not about a policy position but instead a discipline. Pick some advocacy, let's go the other end, generous social services + adequate UBI. "people will just be lazy and not work" Alright sure, how many? Some industries more than others? Do we care as a society if those industries fold? And what about those people, are they idling or pursuing financially riskier dreams like say local journalism or being a religious cleric? How many? How confident are we about this? Are they in general doing a good job? Would we be ok with say more local journalists and less say fast food restaurants? Is that a good trade-off? Would this change land-use? Food availability? If we do a policy that will intentionally make these things fold, what's the possible exit strategies for things like the supplies and buildings? Is that what we want? Are there test cases, anywhere in the world that did similar things? What were their reports on it? This is the kind of discipline that was used to rebuild Japan and Europe after world war 2. It's not about a "planned" economy, but instead a "catastrophe avoiding one". If the answer was something like "apparently, historically, when some country does X, a large number of people join criminal gangs and murder people" then, if you don't want that outcome, you probably don't want to do X. China has also been doing this kind of interlocutor discipline since, that's debatable, certainly by 1990. People say they're no longer "communist". What they actually mean is the merit of a policy is no longer held up against the ideology of communism and then decided upon based on a purity test. That process is actually super popular in the US. An accusation of a policy not aligning with the dogmatism of a particular flavor of capitalism is enough to kill the policy. Everything is held up to an ideological purity test where it's marked based on adherence alone. It's actually exactly what the Soviets did with things like Lysenkoism that led to millions dying from essentially communism applied to seed planting, fertilization and harvesting. I know it sounds insane and that's because it is. Ever notice how economic policy debates seem a little crazy and detached from reality? Ever notice how policy is kinda DOA unless someone can spin a story and make it jive with a specific ideology and how they give exactly 0.000 weight to any historical analysis of what the policy does? It's a problem. It shouldn't matter but instead it's literally the only thing that does.