4 ms·

I agree that the youtube like/dislike ratio is obviously not the best metric to gauge sentiment towards the government. I think it's better to look at opinion p

I agree that the youtube like/dislike ratio is obviously not the best metric to gauge sentiment towards the government. I think it's better to look at opinion polls, which DO back up my point - for instance see https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/inflation-concerns-democrats-hope-biden-spending-bills-win-over-voters.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/inflation-concerns-democrats... or many other similar articles. I understand where you are coming from, I just wish there was a way to solve these issues other than censorship and removing functionality. Perhaps some sort of reputation score, that would weigh any vote according to your credentials and reputation to roll into some combined metascore... but that might be too close to social credit. Tough problems without obvious solutions.

ddingus 5y ago
The obvious solution is to serve the people. That's not happening and the sell job is getting increasingly harder.
- uejfiweun 5y ago
  Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
  - ddingus 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29184492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29184492 Free markets aren't really about solutions as much as they are as complete economic freedom as possible. Markets are regulated and business operates under license, and the intent is more "fair" markets than free ones.
    - colinmhayes 5y ago
      Fair markets are free markets. Markets that are distorted by failures are not free.
      - ddingus 5y ago
        I cannot agree at all. Free markets are distinctive in that the economic freedom of all participants is maximized, regulation is minimized. These markets, by definition are not fair due to inevitable outcomes where a few winners essentially rule and can exploit their favorable position in ways that prevent competition. The single most valuable idea in markets is the idea of competition. Where it is robust and meaningful, a solid case can be made for buyers getting very high value for the dollar. Having that condition be true means reducing economic freedom to a degree so competition cannot be avoided. The idea of a free market runs in conflict with it being fair, and even more importantly, a market that serves us, not us being enslaved and exploited by it. Insuring robust competition requires regulation and increasing regulation as well as reducing economic freedom mean fair markets are simply not free ones. In addition to that, the idea of governing being markets is not universally applicable. Government, and the Civic needs of the population are not the same as business, and running everything the same as business, actually does more harm than good in the areas of our society that are not appropriate for markets.

ddingus 5y ago

The obvious solution is to serve the people. That's not happening and the sell job is getting increasingly harder.

uejfiweun 5y ago
Personally I wonder if it is even possible to meet all the demands being placed on governments. The country is composed of such different groups pulling in opposite directions... something could snap at some point. The US's own intelligence apparatus is pessimistic about the ability of the government to adapt to these changes in the next 20 years. Check out the IC's Global Trends 2040 report[1] to see what I'm talking about: a particularly salient quote is as follows: "At the state level, the relationships between societies and their governments in every region are likely to face persistent strains and tensions because of a growing mismatch between what publics need and expect and what governments can and will deliver. Populations in every region are increasingly equipped with the tools, capacity, and incentive to agitate for their preferred social and political goals and to place more demands on their governments to find solutions. At the same time that populations are increasingly empowered and demanding more, governments are coming under greater pressure from new challenges and more limited resources. This widening gap portends more political volatility, erosion of democracy, and expanding roles for alternative providers of governance. Over time, these dynamics might open the door to more significant shifts in how people govern." I think the key phrase here is "expanding roles for alternative providers of governance". It seems like these people expect parts of the government to wither away and for the free market to step in with solutions. [1] https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalTrends_2040.pdf https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/GlobalT...
- ddingus 5y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29184492 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29184492 Free markets aren't really about solutions as much as they are as complete economic freedom as possible. Markets are regulated and business operates under license, and the intent is more "fair" markets than free ones.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    Fair markets are free markets. Markets that are distorted by failures are not free.
    - ddingus 5y ago
      I cannot agree at all. Free markets are distinctive in that the economic freedom of all participants is maximized, regulation is minimized. These markets, by definition are not fair due to inevitable outcomes where a few winners essentially rule and can exploit their favorable position in ways that prevent competition. The single most valuable idea in markets is the idea of competition. Where it is robust and meaningful, a solid case can be made for buyers getting very high value for the dollar. Having that condition be true means reducing economic freedom to a degree so competition cannot be avoided. The idea of a free market runs in conflict with it being fair, and even more importantly, a market that serves us, not us being enslaved and exploited by it. Insuring robust competition requires regulation and increasing regulation as well as reducing economic freedom mean fair markets are simply not free ones. In addition to that, the idea of governing being markets is not universally applicable. Government, and the Civic needs of the population are not the same as business, and running everything the same as business, actually does more harm than good in the areas of our society that are not appropriate for markets.