5 ms·

> still refuse to recognize that the problems are systematic I think you're reading into other's worldviews too much. Most people likely agree it's systemic. M

> still refuse to recognize that the problems are systematic I think you're reading into other's worldviews too much. Most people likely agree it's systemic. Many would not be convinced by the proposed solutions, because they do not think they would improve the situation. Moreover, large numbers of people do not think the situation can be improved, that this is just the natural state of the world (for which they have thousands of years of evidence to point to).

dbingham 5y ago
They don't have thousands of years of evidence. The modern economic system has only existed about 200 years. It's precursor was around a couple hundred years before that. Prior to that, the economic system looked very different. And there was a wide range of economic systems prior to that.
- iammisc 5y ago
  I wrote: > that this is just the natural state of the world (for which they have thousands of years of evidence to point to). You write: > And there was a wide range of economic systems prior to that. That is my point. every single one of those 'wide range of economic systems' (including the ones directly intended to produce equality) produced inequality.
  - dbingham 5y ago
    That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you seemed to imply is that some form of the current system has existed forever. But lets work with your new point. Saying "all the economic systems we've tried produced inequality" with the implication being there's no point in attempting to devise new ones is rather like saying "all materials we've devised produced some amount of friction". Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment. Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does.
    - iammisc 5y ago
      > That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you wrong seemed to imply some form of the current system has existed forever. My meaning was very plain. I said many people would be unconvinced that anything could be done to achieve equality. I then stated they could point to thousands of years of human life (which, as you correctly stated, contained many economic systems). If you put both points together, you'd see that I was saying essentially that 'no human system tried has achieved equality', so many people would believe that there are few changes we can make to ours to achieve this goal. I'm going to expound on this idea more. Please consider everything I say before jumping to conclusions this time. > Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment. Correct. But there's more than one knob. Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. By all objective metrics, ours produces little destitution, and while it produces inequality, it is a different form of inequality than many other systems. For example, marxism and communism in the forms tried produce more equality, but utter destitution for large swaths of the population (it's a race to the bottom). Our system of free markets, even in its heavily corrupt form, produces inequality, certainly, but little destitution, by all objective metrics. Moreover, of the inequality we create, it is a shifting inequality. Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation. If some inequality that ends up being redistributed is the price we pay for less destitution, then I don't see why equality ought to be prized. > Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does. Okay, and as I said, simply optimizing for 'equality' and 'environment degradation' would not lead to a good economic system. There are other goals you're completely ignoring. WE can create a system that's perfectly equal and great for the environment, but leaves everyone destitute. For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends

dbingham 5y ago

They don't have thousands of years of evidence. The modern economic system has only existed about 200 years. It's precursor was around a couple hundred years before that. Prior to that, the economic system looked very different. And there was a wide range of economic systems prior to that.

iammisc 5y ago
I wrote: > that this is just the natural state of the world (for which they have thousands of years of evidence to point to). You write: > And there was a wide range of economic systems prior to that. That is my point. every single one of those 'wide range of economic systems' (including the ones directly intended to produce equality) produced inequality.
- dbingham 5y ago
  That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you seemed to imply is that some form of the current system has existed forever. But lets work with your new point. Saying "all the economic systems we've tried produced inequality" with the implication being there's no point in attempting to devise new ones is rather like saying "all materials we've devised produced some amount of friction". Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment. Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    > That didn't seem like the point you were making, what you wrong seemed to imply some form of the current system has existed forever. My meaning was very plain. I said many people would be unconvinced that anything could be done to achieve equality. I then stated they could point to thousands of years of human life (which, as you correctly stated, contained many economic systems). If you put both points together, you'd see that I was saying essentially that 'no human system tried has achieved equality', so many people would believe that there are few changes we can make to ours to achieve this goal. I'm going to expound on this idea more. Please consider everything I say before jumping to conclusions this time. > Sure. But some produce a hell of a lot more than others. And it's still worth searching for new materials that produce less friction so that they can be used in applications where friction is a detriment. Correct. But there's more than one knob. Some systems produce little inequality, but lots of destitution. Others produce lots of inequality but little destitution. By all objective metrics, ours produces little destitution, and while it produces inequality, it is a different form of inequality than many other systems. For example, marxism and communism in the forms tried produce more equality, but utter destitution for large swaths of the population (it's a race to the bottom). Our system of free markets, even in its heavily corrupt form, produces inequality, certainly, but little destitution, by all objective metrics. Moreover, of the inequality we create, it is a shifting inequality. Studies show that family fortunes in the United States do not form dynasties as they do in other economic systems (like monarchist mercantilism, for example). Most family wealth dissipates by the third or fourth generation. If some inequality that ends up being redistributed is the price we pay for less destitution, then I don't see why equality ought to be prized. > Some economic systems produce a lot more inequality and environmental degredation than others. Our current system has produced a lot more than most. And a lot of the proposals on the table would almost certainly produce less than our current system does. Okay, and as I said, simply optimizing for 'equality' and 'environment degradation' would not lead to a good economic system. There are other goals you're completely ignoring. WE can create a system that's perfectly equal and great for the environment, but leaves everyone destitute. For me, there's a hierarchy of needs here. First, destitution must end, then we can talk about equality. But ultimately, if the world is extremely unequal, but no one is destitute, then that economic system is good. And we're very close to that by continuing with current trends