5 ms·

Okay, if it’s completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control, please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is sat

by rytill 5y ago

Okay, if it’s completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control, please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it. What, it’s really difficult? Those are the constraints.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>if it's completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control... I'm not asserting that there are no constraints as in suggesting there are, say, unlimited natural resources. I'm guessing you weren't interpreting my statement so pedantically, but then I don't see how my assertion is even controversial otherwise. That is, of course I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice which would be outside of our control. >please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it That's not the standard here. It's possible that such a thing doesn't exist AND my assertion is true. Why do you think your "challenge" is dispositive?
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice that is outside of our control. How about you run an experiment? Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself, and give nothing to your wife. I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself...I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints. Ha! I take your point, but I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Even that example assumes that my wife would be deprived of resources. But, to your larger point, I'm not asserting that we can just rip up the current economic system and no one will care. I'm saying that these debates frequently take a form that suggests that there are other factors that prohibit change, beyond the fact that people will care.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Honestly, no. I'm mostly just reacting to the things you're saying under the assumption that you seem to be advocating Maoist principles.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >you seem to be advocating Maoist principles I've actually tried to avoid advocating specific principles (although I'll allow that some may have leaked through). But, FWIW, I don't think the choices are between unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown Maoism. IMO that common framing is part of the notion of immutable laws and fixed, mutually exclusive systems, etc. In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist.
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        >In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist. So we basically believe the same thing, and have just been arguing semantics. Why does this keep happening!? :P I guess what threw me off was the idea of economic systems being arbitrary and unconstrained in terms of allocation. This is basically the foundation of Maoism, and the rest follows pretty easily. (If the current method for distributing wealth is just arbitrary, we should immediately redistribute all wealth in order to maximise the common good).
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >Why does this keep happening!? :P I'm sure it's me. :) >foundation of Maoism I can see how you'd think that's the path I was going down, especially given the topic of the original article. But, that next step to full Maoism is a doozy! My original point was actually more meta: kind of an observation on the way these discussions are approached versus an argument for a specific model. But, yes, I later revealed my belief that there is a degree of inequality that is untenable and actually anti-capitalism. I believe we should address this and that we actually have in the past (e.g. labor unions), while stopping well short of anything resembling communism. So, I think these decisions are much more related to political will, the power of specific interest groups, etc. Hence, they are simply choices. However, instead of addressing them as choices, we are instead rather disingenuously led into these discussions as if we are powerless against the immutable force of nature that is the economy. This approach obviously benefits the status quo. So that's the whole of it in one place. I'm sure it's much clearer now.
- rytill 5y ago
  > how we choose to distribute those natural resources Even this is subject to the limits/constraints of human coordination. I think there is a lot of play there, to be fair. But saying it's 100% unconstrained how we coordinate our decision-making is not accurate. Memes, propaganda, democracy, dictatorships, republics, governance structures, these are all attempts to carve out coordination given the constraints. But there are constraints. Then there's the enforcing of whatever we decide on. Add more constraints.
- rytill 5y ago
  In addition, for the record... even if there were unlimited natural resources, there would still be constraints. Order on the social graph and any other ranking system would be the constraints. Even if you crack all the way down to mathematics, there are always constraints while remaining consistent. I guess this is my root problem with your statement. Anyone who ever states anything is 100% unconstrained is missing something. Maybe if you're God and are creating a reality from scratch, in some mystic worldview, I could grant that there are no constraints.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    Again, I think you're taking my words too literally. The main point is that we have a much greater degree of flexibility than typical discussions allow.

by rytill 5y ago

unclebucknasty 5y ago

>if it's completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control... I'm not asserting that there are no constraints as in suggesting there are, say, unlimited natural resources. I'm guessing you weren't interpreting my statement so pedantically, but then I don't see how my assertion is even controversial otherwise. That is, of course I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice which would be outside of our control. >please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it That's not the standard here. It's possible that such a thing doesn't exist AND my assertion is true. Why do you think your "challenge" is dispositive?

AussieWog93 5y ago
>I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice that is outside of our control. How about you run an experiment? Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself, and give nothing to your wife. I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself...I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints. Ha! I take your point, but I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Even that example assumes that my wife would be deprived of resources. But, to your larger point, I'm not asserting that we can just rip up the current economic system and no one will care. I'm saying that these debates frequently take a form that suggests that there are other factors that prohibit change, beyond the fact that people will care.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Honestly, no. I'm mostly just reacting to the things you're saying under the assumption that you seem to be advocating Maoist principles.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >you seem to be advocating Maoist principles I've actually tried to avoid advocating specific principles (although I'll allow that some may have leaked through). But, FWIW, I don't think the choices are between unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown Maoism. IMO that common framing is part of the notion of immutable laws and fixed, mutually exclusive systems, etc. In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        >In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist. So we basically believe the same thing, and have just been arguing semantics. Why does this keep happening!? :P I guess what threw me off was the idea of economic systems being arbitrary and unconstrained in terms of allocation. This is basically the foundation of Maoism, and the rest follows pretty easily. (If the current method for distributing wealth is just arbitrary, we should immediately redistribute all wealth in order to maximise the common good).
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >Why does this keep happening!? :P I'm sure it's me. :) >foundation of Maoism I can see how you'd think that's the path I was going down, especially given the topic of the original article. But, that next step to full Maoism is a doozy! My original point was actually more meta: kind of an observation on the way these discussions are approached versus an argument for a specific model. But, yes, I later revealed my belief that there is a degree of inequality that is untenable and actually anti-capitalism. I believe we should address this and that we actually have in the past (e.g. labor unions), while stopping well short of anything resembling communism. So, I think these decisions are much more related to political will, the power of specific interest groups, etc. Hence, they are simply choices. However, instead of addressing them as choices, we are instead rather disingenuously led into these discussions as if we are powerless against the immutable force of nature that is the economy. This approach obviously benefits the status quo. So that's the whole of it in one place. I'm sure it's much clearer now.
rytill 5y ago
> how we choose to distribute those natural resources Even this is subject to the limits/constraints of human coordination. I think there is a lot of play there, to be fair. But saying it's 100% unconstrained how we coordinate our decision-making is not accurate. Memes, propaganda, democracy, dictatorships, republics, governance structures, these are all attempts to carve out coordination given the constraints. But there are constraints. Then there's the enforcing of whatever we decide on. Add more constraints.
rytill 5y ago
In addition, for the record... even if there were unlimited natural resources, there would still be constraints. Order on the social graph and any other ranking system would be the constraints. Even if you crack all the way down to mathematics, there are always constraints while remaining consistent. I guess this is my root problem with your statement. Anyone who ever states anything is 100% unconstrained is missing something. Maybe if you're God and are creating a reality from scratch, in some mystic worldview, I could grant that there are no constraints.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  Again, I think you're taking my words too literally. The main point is that we have a much greater degree of flexibility than typical discussions allow.