3 ms·

The fact that the professor highlights Mongolia and Siberia as examples of countries with superior systems is very emblematic of this type of thinking. No Ameri

The fact that the professor highlights Mongolia and Siberia as examples of countries with superior systems is very emblematic of this type of thinking. No Americans would be happier if the USA lifestyles started resembling the lifestyles of those countries. The GINI coefficient is better in those places - but much less so than his anecdotes would have you believe.

Pyramus 5y ago
> "the professor", "this type of thinking", "superior systems", "happier" Your comment makes me believe you see "the professor" as somebody from another tribe/group and you now want to show that "they" are wrong. Why this urge to defend superiority or who is the happiest? The research doesn't ask these questions - it's game theoretical models applied to societal cooperation. The whole Bezos incident is just a narrative hook to draw you in.
- handmodel 5y ago
  It seems odd to suggest that someone is allowed to use an anecdote to prove a point but someone who disagrees with it should not critique the anecdotes. My whole critique is based on the fact that Mongolia has better wealth inequality on paper (and so his model would capture that) but that metric does not have a 1:1 ratio to what we actually care about. His paper doesn't address why maximizing on inequality alone could lead to bad outcomes - which is what I'm saying.
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    I don't understand - where does the judgement of what is better (or what "we" care about) come from? This is simply a piece of theoretical research whether cooperation strategies that we have historically observed in some parts of the world can evolve in a game theoretical model. Where do you see a comment on whether living in Mongolia today is better (or worse) than living somewhere else?
ksaxena 5y ago
There are many systems where if you measure inequality by metrics like wealth or income, you may overestimate the equality in a society. Socialist India before 1991 was such a system - most people appeared equal if you measured wealth or income but in reality there was extreme inequality. Those who had influence over the state (bureaucrats and politicians), regularly decided who got admitted in a hospital and who didn't, who got a telephone connection and who didn't, hell, a common person often couldn't even get a train ticket if he did not know a bureaucrat or a politician. This was so common that the system had a name - "sifarish". So, if anyone could measure an individual's "power" and include it along with wealth and income to measure the society's inequality, you would get an incredibly "inequal" Indian society before 1991 that has since become a lot more equal as socialism has started to wane a little bit here.
- bitwize 5y ago
  "In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'If you don't work you die.'" --Rudyard Kipling

Pyramus 5y ago

> "the professor", "this type of thinking", "superior systems", "happier" Your comment makes me believe you see "the professor" as somebody from another tribe/group and you now want to show that "they" are wrong. Why this urge to defend superiority or who is the happiest? The research doesn't ask these questions - it's game theoretical models applied to societal cooperation. The whole Bezos incident is just a narrative hook to draw you in.

handmodel 5y ago
It seems odd to suggest that someone is allowed to use an anecdote to prove a point but someone who disagrees with it should not critique the anecdotes. My whole critique is based on the fact that Mongolia has better wealth inequality on paper (and so his model would capture that) but that metric does not have a 1:1 ratio to what we actually care about. His paper doesn't address why maximizing on inequality alone could lead to bad outcomes - which is what I'm saying.
- Pyramus 5y ago
  I don't understand - where does the judgement of what is better (or what "we" care about) come from? This is simply a piece of theoretical research whether cooperation strategies that we have historically observed in some parts of the world can evolve in a game theoretical model. Where do you see a comment on whether living in Mongolia today is better (or worse) than living somewhere else?

ksaxena 5y ago

There are many systems where if you measure inequality by metrics like wealth or income, you may overestimate the equality in a society. Socialist India before 1991 was such a system - most people appeared equal if you measured wealth or income but in reality there was extreme inequality. Those who had influence over the state (bureaucrats and politicians), regularly decided who got admitted in a hospital and who didn't, who got a telephone connection and who didn't, hell, a common person often couldn't even get a train ticket if he did not know a bureaucrat or a politician. This was so common that the system had a name - "sifarish". So, if anyone could measure an individual's "power" and include it along with wealth and income to measure the society's inequality, you would get an incredibly "inequal" Indian society before 1991 that has since become a lot more equal as socialism has started to wane a little bit here.

bitwize 5y ago
"In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all, By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul; But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'If you don't work you die.'" --Rudyard Kipling