8 ms·

But isn't the problem that these abstractions exist precisely to help coordinate real things? The economy (and by extension, to a limited degree, the stock mark

But isn't the problem that these abstractions exist precisely to help coordinate real things? The economy (and by extension, to a limited degree, the stock market) directly influences a lot of real things and basic needs.

mc32 5y ago
Yes abstractions here are a distraction. People will consume whether they hunt, barter, trade or use fist money.
derbOac 5y ago
I think the problem is that there's lots of hidden costs or incorrect assumptions in much of the way society functions. We overestimate how rational people are, many costs get swept under the rug or ignored as "something for future people to deal with", certain costs are just hidden, we fail to account for corruption and fraud, and so forth and so on. It's not really that we use abstractions or models, it's that many or all of them are incorrect, and we proceed as if they're correct, even when we seem to know they're not. I don't think this is just limited to the environment. Sometimes I wonder if this is some defining feature of our age, rampant fraud or disingenuousness. Maybe it's always been this way, and maybe it doesn't matter.
- nradov 5y ago
  Abstractions and models tend to get more correct over time. Sure sometimes we get off track or even go backwards, but if you look back at all of recorded human history our abstractions and models are generally a better fit to objective reality than ever before. You have an opportunity to help improve them further, if you choose to take it.
sdenton4 5y ago
The way we use money to coordinate activity is very selective: Money only solves problems when those with problems have money. This means that the environment and the poor are generally not served by capitalism.
jwmhjwmh 5y ago
Yes. However, using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". That is, most calculation could be done using the inputs and outputs of millions of processes. Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.
- pdonis 5y ago
  > using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". No, it wouldn't. It's not a matter of the speed of the computing; it's a matter of the number of information channels available. The amount of information that would need to be processed to run a complex economy goes up exponentially with the size of the economy, but the number of information channels available only goes up linearly with the size of the economy. I think it was Hayek who first pointed this out more than a century ago. The proper tool to "run" a complex economy is decentralized computing, otherwise known as a free market. > Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts. The way to avoid cyclical booms and busts is for the government to stop messing with markets. The government should not be subsidizing some products and services and penalizing others. It should let the market work out what products and services are produced and consumed.
  - jwmhjwmh 5y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "information channels". Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation? Similarly for distribution centers. In particular, would much more information need to be transmitted in a planned economy than in a market economy? Remember that, while there are millions of products in the economy, any given center of production or distribution is unlikely to use more than a few thousand. I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy. Paul Cockshott claims to have found a planning algorithm with O(n log n) complexity, which is very manageable. The main problem with free markets is that they lead to extreme inequality and subsequent conflict. A planned economy could distribute the surplus much better. I disagree that the government should withdraw from the market economy. The government can help alleviate the failures of the market. For one thing, the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term. For example, it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation. You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis. By the way, the following are some of what have informed my opinion here: - https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economic-calculation-in-the-socialist-commonwealth/ https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economi... - http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.p...
huetius 5y ago
The problem has to do with the order of values which is evinced by our economic activity. Ideally, money should be ordered towards facilitating the exchange of real things, which are in turn ordered towards a good life, and so on to higher meaning beyond that, but that is not what is transpiring. We can see this not only in the huge tranches of the economy devoted to trivial or deceptive things, but also in routine decisions: be they irresponsible, greedy personal choices, or larger organizational habits which have devastated human communities and the environment for the sake of making a number in a spreadsheet go up. Further, this takes the form of a novel crisis in that the scale and speed at which the consequences keep coming are without precedent among societies with similar vices in the past.
__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
These abstractions were once configured for specific purposes (e.g. help Caesar expand his empire by incentivising newly conquered villages to feed the soldiers that will soon be conquering their neighbors), and the people who configured them died long ago, and we're just still following the old program. We need to figure out how to reconfigure them. For instance, instead of the gold standard, let's back our money on permanently sequestered carbon. And once that problem is solved, we'll reconfigure it for the next thing.

mc32 5y ago

Yes abstractions here are a distraction. People will consume whether they hunt, barter, trade or use fist money.

derbOac 5y ago

I think the problem is that there's lots of hidden costs or incorrect assumptions in much of the way society functions. We overestimate how rational people are, many costs get swept under the rug or ignored as "something for future people to deal with", certain costs are just hidden, we fail to account for corruption and fraud, and so forth and so on. It's not really that we use abstractions or models, it's that many or all of them are incorrect, and we proceed as if they're correct, even when we seem to know they're not. I don't think this is just limited to the environment. Sometimes I wonder if this is some defining feature of our age, rampant fraud or disingenuousness. Maybe it's always been this way, and maybe it doesn't matter.

nradov 5y ago
Abstractions and models tend to get more correct over time. Sure sometimes we get off track or even go backwards, but if you look back at all of recorded human history our abstractions and models are generally a better fit to objective reality than ever before. You have an opportunity to help improve them further, if you choose to take it.

sdenton4 5y ago

The way we use money to coordinate activity is very selective: Money only solves problems when those with problems have money. This means that the environment and the poor are generally not served by capitalism.

jwmhjwmh 5y ago

Yes. However, using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". That is, most calculation could be done using the inputs and outputs of millions of processes. Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts.

pdonis 5y ago
> using modern computing and communication technology, it would be possible to run a complex economy with calculations "in-kind". No, it wouldn't. It's not a matter of the speed of the computing; it's a matter of the number of information channels available. The amount of information that would need to be processed to run a complex economy goes up exponentially with the size of the economy, but the number of information channels available only goes up linearly with the size of the economy. I think it was Hayek who first pointed this out more than a century ago. The proper tool to "run" a complex economy is decentralized computing, otherwise known as a free market. > Such an economy could avoid the instability of our current economy with its cyclical booms and busts. The way to avoid cyclical booms and busts is for the government to stop messing with markets. The government should not be subsidizing some products and services and penalizing others. It should let the market work out what products and services are produced and consumed.
- jwmhjwmh 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "information channels". Wouldn't a factory mainly just need to communicate its inputs and outputs the computer or computer cluster doing the calculation? Similarly for distribution centers. In particular, would much more information need to be transmitted in a planned economy than in a market economy? Remember that, while there are millions of products in the economy, any given center of production or distribution is unlikely to use more than a few thousand. I don't think the computation cost scales exponentially. If it did, the decentralized free market computer would not be able to accurately compute the economy. Paul Cockshott claims to have found a planning algorithm with O(n log n) complexity, which is very manageable. The main problem with free markets is that they lead to extreme inequality and subsequent conflict. A planned economy could distribute the surplus much better. I disagree that the government should withdraw from the market economy. The government can help alleviate the failures of the market. For one thing, the market is generally short-sighted, while governments can think more long-term. For example, it is my understanding that the Chinese government has invested a lot in solar panel technology and implementation. You would probably agree this is a good thing, given the severity of the climate crisis. By the way, the following are some of what have informed my opinion here: - https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economic-calculation-in-the-socialist-commonwealth/ https://www.haerdin.se/blog/2021/06/29/a-critique-of-economi... - http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf http://users.wfu.edu/cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.p...

huetius 5y ago

The problem has to do with the order of values which is evinced by our economic activity. Ideally, money should be ordered towards facilitating the exchange of real things, which are in turn ordered towards a good life, and so on to higher meaning beyond that, but that is not what is transpiring. We can see this not only in the huge tranches of the economy devoted to trivial or deceptive things, but also in routine decisions: be they irresponsible, greedy personal choices, or larger organizational habits which have devastated human communities and the environment for the sake of making a number in a spreadsheet go up. Further, this takes the form of a novel crisis in that the scale and speed at which the consequences keep coming are without precedent among societies with similar vices in the past.

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago

These abstractions were once configured for specific purposes (e.g. help Caesar expand his empire by incentivising newly conquered villages to feed the soldiers that will soon be conquering their neighbors), and the people who configured them died long ago, and we're just still following the old program. We need to figure out how to reconfigure them. For instance, instead of the gold standard, let's back our money on permanently sequestered carbon. And once that problem is solved, we'll reconfigure it for the next thing.