5 ms·

> The market isn't particularly free when people need to eat > It'd be much freer with guarantees for basic necessities You do know that would literally just

> The market isn't particularly free when people need to eat > It'd be much freer with guarantees for basic necessities You do know that would literally just make the problem worse, right? I mean, it sounds good to someone who can't work for legitimate reasons (small percentage of the population), but it also sounds good to everyone who has the capacity to earn their necessities, but would rather have it handed to them instead. It also sounds really good to politicians who seek (re)election by promising everything for free, knowing perfectly well that nothing is truly free. That kind of reasoning is what got us into this inflation mess. Also, the "free" in "free market" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.

adrianN 4y ago
I thought the current inflation is primarily driven by high energy prices and disrupted supply chains and those are primarily driven by war and the pandemic?
- curiousgeorgio 4y ago
  > I thought the current inflation is primarily driven by high energy prices and disrupted supply chains and those are primarily driven by war and the pandemic? Nope. You'd be wrong. It's the trillions of dollars unnecessarily printed by the fed. A large part of that went to business owners who didn't actually need it, but took advantage of all the "free money" (and who could blame them when the gov't practically gave it away). That money was quickly invested into real estate and equities markets, leading the way for inflation in the rest of the market, albeit with some delay. And we're not even at the worst yet.
  - adrianN 4y ago
    Hm, where I live real estate and equities are currently down, but inflation is up. Maybe it's different in the US.
- imtringued 4y ago
  You are pretty much spot on, Japan tried to massively increase the money supply and that didn't really do anything, if anything it proves that interest is a vicious cycle, once the interest rate is too high to be serviced, you must borrow more money to service the interest which is a positive feedback loop. If you refuse to pay interest you basically stop the vicious cycle.
diob 4y ago
What do you mean that reasoning got us into this inflation mess? Down below you say it's due to the fed giving free money to the 1%.
lmm 4y ago
> You do know that would literally just make the problem worse, right? Depends what you think "the problem" is. To my mind the biggest problem is the hours of human life wasted on performative make-work while most citizens in a supposedly rich country barely spend any time on things that are actually fulfilling for them. > Also, the "free" in "free market" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. On the contrary, this looks to be one of the minority of cases where the term is used correctly (which makes it a bad term, but I fear we're stuck with it).
- chii 4y ago
  > To my mind the biggest problem is the hours of human life wasted on performative make-work while most citizens in a supposedly rich country barely spend any time on things that are actually fulfilling for them. The idea that citizens of a rich nation has some natural right to live a fulfilling life just because the country happens to be rich, is hubris on the one hand, and also entitle on the other. People work to obtain the resources to live off. Some can produce _more_ (due to luck, or skill), and those are the ones who would be able to give up productive work and focus on "what's fulfilling" (aka, climb up the maslow pyramid). Some people don't get to do that climb - that's just reality of scarcity of resources today. Until the day the world becomes like star-trek, where people's basic needs a completely covered without any labour input from any humans (in which case, they spend time exploring the galaxy!), it cannot be that all people fulfill their higher needs in the maslow pyramid.
  - lmm 4y ago
    > The idea that citizens of a rich nation has some natural right to live a fulfilling life just because the country happens to be rich, is hubris on the one hand, and also entitle on the other. > People work to obtain the resources to live off. Some can produce _more_ (due to luck, or skill), and those are the ones who would be able to give up productive work and focus on "what's fulfilling" (aka, climb up the maslow pyramid). But the biggest factor that enables them to produce more is the society around them. So the idea that the surplus should go to the individual rather than the society seems pretty entitled. If we're a rich country, we should be able to allocate those riches in a way that produces the most benefit. > Some people don't get to do that climb - that's just reality of scarcity of resources today. Until the day the world becomes like star-trek, where people's basic needs a completely covered without any labour input from any humans (in which case, they spend time exploring the galaxy!), it cannot be that all people fulfill their higher needs in the maslow pyramid. But the patterns for how we'll live when resources are virtually unlimited will be set today. And by most objective metrics, we're already far past the level of having enough for everyone to live on - even the very poorest have food and shelter (and most rich countries manage to provide them with healthcare and education). Conversely an increasing fraction of increasingly many jobs is, as I said, performative make-work rather than something that actually increases societal resource output; those jobs are a dead-weight loss. We need to start being ok with people working less and retiring earlier. Otherwise our lives won't get better no matter how much more productive we get.
vvillena 4y ago
"Basic necessities" doesn't really lead to any kind of fulfilled life. It's but a safety network, a staging area to help people collect themselves and have another attempt at a better life. If living in such conditions is better than working some of the jobs that sustain large parts of society, I'd say it's about time to reevaluate some things. Are we ok with a society designed to sacrifice some percentage of its people's lives?
imtringued 4y ago
Actually, if you think about it. If people have enough food and water to survive and reproduce everything beyond that is optional and at best an opportunity cost. Not growing as fast as possible isn't what causes poverty, not having enough food or housing causes poverty.

adrianN 4y ago

I thought the current inflation is primarily driven by high energy prices and disrupted supply chains and those are primarily driven by war and the pandemic?

curiousgeorgio 4y ago
> I thought the current inflation is primarily driven by high energy prices and disrupted supply chains and those are primarily driven by war and the pandemic? Nope. You'd be wrong. It's the trillions of dollars unnecessarily printed by the fed. A large part of that went to business owners who didn't actually need it, but took advantage of all the "free money" (and who could blame them when the gov't practically gave it away). That money was quickly invested into real estate and equities markets, leading the way for inflation in the rest of the market, albeit with some delay. And we're not even at the worst yet.
- adrianN 4y ago
  Hm, where I live real estate and equities are currently down, but inflation is up. Maybe it's different in the US.
imtringued 4y ago
You are pretty much spot on, Japan tried to massively increase the money supply and that didn't really do anything, if anything it proves that interest is a vicious cycle, once the interest rate is too high to be serviced, you must borrow more money to service the interest which is a positive feedback loop. If you refuse to pay interest you basically stop the vicious cycle.

diob 4y ago

What do you mean that reasoning got us into this inflation mess? Down below you say it's due to the fed giving free money to the 1%.

lmm 4y ago

> You do know that would literally just make the problem worse, right? Depends what you think "the problem" is. To my mind the biggest problem is the hours of human life wasted on performative make-work while most citizens in a supposedly rich country barely spend any time on things that are actually fulfilling for them. > Also, the "free" in "free market" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. On the contrary, this looks to be one of the minority of cases where the term is used correctly (which makes it a bad term, but I fear we're stuck with it).

chii 4y ago
> To my mind the biggest problem is the hours of human life wasted on performative make-work while most citizens in a supposedly rich country barely spend any time on things that are actually fulfilling for them. The idea that citizens of a rich nation has some natural right to live a fulfilling life just because the country happens to be rich, is hubris on the one hand, and also entitle on the other. People work to obtain the resources to live off. Some can produce _more_ (due to luck, or skill), and those are the ones who would be able to give up productive work and focus on "what's fulfilling" (aka, climb up the maslow pyramid). Some people don't get to do that climb - that's just reality of scarcity of resources today. Until the day the world becomes like star-trek, where people's basic needs a completely covered without any labour input from any humans (in which case, they spend time exploring the galaxy!), it cannot be that all people fulfill their higher needs in the maslow pyramid.
- lmm 4y ago
  > The idea that citizens of a rich nation has some natural right to live a fulfilling life just because the country happens to be rich, is hubris on the one hand, and also entitle on the other. > People work to obtain the resources to live off. Some can produce _more_ (due to luck, or skill), and those are the ones who would be able to give up productive work and focus on "what's fulfilling" (aka, climb up the maslow pyramid). But the biggest factor that enables them to produce more is the society around them. So the idea that the surplus should go to the individual rather than the society seems pretty entitled. If we're a rich country, we should be able to allocate those riches in a way that produces the most benefit. > Some people don't get to do that climb - that's just reality of scarcity of resources today. Until the day the world becomes like star-trek, where people's basic needs a completely covered without any labour input from any humans (in which case, they spend time exploring the galaxy!), it cannot be that all people fulfill their higher needs in the maslow pyramid. But the patterns for how we'll live when resources are virtually unlimited will be set today. And by most objective metrics, we're already far past the level of having enough for everyone to live on - even the very poorest have food and shelter (and most rich countries manage to provide them with healthcare and education). Conversely an increasing fraction of increasingly many jobs is, as I said, performative make-work rather than something that actually increases societal resource output; those jobs are a dead-weight loss. We need to start being ok with people working less and retiring earlier. Otherwise our lives won't get better no matter how much more productive we get.

vvillena 4y ago

"Basic necessities" doesn't really lead to any kind of fulfilled life. It's but a safety network, a staging area to help people collect themselves and have another attempt at a better life. If living in such conditions is better than working some of the jobs that sustain large parts of society, I'd say it's about time to reevaluate some things. Are we ok with a society designed to sacrifice some percentage of its people's lives?

imtringued 4y ago

Actually, if you think about it. If people have enough food and water to survive and reproduce everything beyond that is optional and at best an opportunity cost. Not growing as fast as possible isn't what causes poverty, not having enough food or housing causes poverty.