3 ms·

I think that perhaps a helpful way to think about it is that we've shifted from an economy of reals to the sort of gold-based economy of MMORPGs where the value

I think that perhaps a helpful way to think about it is that we've shifted from an economy of reals to the sort of gold-based economy of MMORPGs where the value of the currency, the number of units of currency, and the policies for how the units can be exchanged are actively and continuously modified by policymakers exempt from democratic oversight. For the broader end-user population, myths and stories about how things work trade widely and actual information, though perhaps public, is "too technical" and not shared as widely. In such a planned economy, is there a reason to think that the bubble is able to burst? The myth of a bursting bubble may be helpful to mitigate moral hazard, of course.

ozzythecat 5y ago
>… are actively and continuously modified by policymakers exempt from democratic oversight Are we certain this is a bad thing? Looking over the last couple decades of American politics, the politicians typically optimize for short term outcomes, and not necessarily optimal outcomes for their constituents but whatever it is that will best accommodate their own careers. One could argue that you absolutely need specialists/technocrats running the Fed, if you’re going to have a Fed at all. One data point - a key takeaway from Michael Lewis’s book The Premonition was a damning assessment of the CDC and the top leadership in California’s public health. And while Lewis isn’t a Trump fan, he didn’t spare Democrats. As COVID spreading across America, California’s politically appointed top public health expert literally did nothing and squashed any attempt by her team from devising any policy. She downplayed the seriousness of the virus, and as Lewis calls out, she had no significant background in infectious disease or specific qualifications for the job other than being given that role by the California governor because of goals around non white women in leadership positions. Meanwhile, the CDC provided zero leadership, simply because the head is appointed by the President, and was afraid of upsetting Trump. You could argue that instead of political appointees, you want constituents to directly vote for these roles. Given the typical Americans apathy or general lack of knowledge around some of these complex topics, I’m not convinced that’s a great idea.

ozzythecat 5y ago

>… are actively and continuously modified by policymakers exempt from democratic oversight Are we certain this is a bad thing? Looking over the last couple decades of American politics, the politicians typically optimize for short term outcomes, and not necessarily optimal outcomes for their constituents but whatever it is that will best accommodate their own careers. One could argue that you absolutely need specialists/technocrats running the Fed, if you’re going to have a Fed at all. One data point - a key takeaway from Michael Lewis’s book The Premonition was a damning assessment of the CDC and the top leadership in California’s public health. And while Lewis isn’t a Trump fan, he didn’t spare Democrats. As COVID spreading across America, California’s politically appointed top public health expert literally did nothing and squashed any attempt by her team from devising any policy. She downplayed the seriousness of the virus, and as Lewis calls out, she had no significant background in infectious disease or specific qualifications for the job other than being given that role by the California governor because of goals around non white women in leadership positions. Meanwhile, the CDC provided zero leadership, simply because the head is appointed by the President, and was afraid of upsetting Trump. You could argue that instead of political appointees, you want constituents to directly vote for these roles. Given the typical Americans apathy or general lack of knowledge around some of these complex topics, I’m not convinced that’s a great idea.