4 ms·

Society is, of course, also dragged backwards by outlier success: think Lehman Brothers. And all progress, as every change, has its downsides. Without industria

by tgv 4y ago

Society is, of course, also dragged backwards by outlier success: think Lehman Brothers. And all progress, as every change, has its downsides. Without industrialization, there wouldn't have been a climate crisis. > This is why the big slow trend of people organising against inequality is so concerning. I think you mistake the goal. It isn't to prevent some engineer from making some money from an invention. There is however a very perverse reward for purely financial instruments, which make the rich richer, and conversely, the poor poorer. That's one thing that should definitely be halted and reversed. Historically: WW2 was quite the equalizer, and it didn't lead to stagnation. Currently, OTOH, inequality is much higher, and the most rewarded job is getting people addicted to dividing content with the goal of pushing more ads.

roenxi 4y ago
> WW2 was quite the equalizer, and it didn't lead to stagnation. I hope you don't want to re-trigger WWII. The survivors would probably have rather have not been equalized. > I think you mistake the goal. It isn't to prevent some engineer from making some money from an invention. I know exactly what the goal is, people are talking about it all the time. I think the goal is foolish. It will, best case scenario, have no impact. Worse case scenario, it'll make people worse off. My neighbours' relative wealth has exactly no impact on my material or psychic comfort. Pretending it is the problem plays well to human emotions and distracts people from the real issue, which is median living standards.
- tgv 4y ago
  > My neighbours' relative wealth has exactly no impact on my material or psychic comfort. It does, though. First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it. Second, the accumulated wealth of all those neighbours has a significant impact on the economy.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    > First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it. Which is a powerful argument that their instincts are leading them away from the real problem, which is median living standards. Policy motivated in the first instance by greed, jealousy and envy often has bad outcomes! Policy should be motivated by reason, principles and evidence. > has a significant impact on the economy The ideal state of the world is that there are 8 billion people, we identify the one that is best at growing rice and put them in charge of growing all the rice in the world. If there is a limit to how much rice they can grow effectively, we give them control of as much rice growing as possible and then repeat with the 2nd best rice grower. "Outsized influence" is a feature. We want unusually competent people to have unusually wide influence. You'll need a more sophisticated argument to claim that it is bad.

by tgv 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago

> WW2 was quite the equalizer, and it didn't lead to stagnation. I hope you don't want to re-trigger WWII. The survivors would probably have rather have not been equalized. > I think you mistake the goal. It isn't to prevent some engineer from making some money from an invention. I know exactly what the goal is, people are talking about it all the time. I think the goal is foolish. It will, best case scenario, have no impact. Worse case scenario, it'll make people worse off. My neighbours' relative wealth has exactly no impact on my material or psychic comfort. Pretending it is the problem plays well to human emotions and distracts people from the real issue, which is median living standards.

tgv 4y ago
> My neighbours' relative wealth has exactly no impact on my material or psychic comfort. It does, though. First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it. Second, the accumulated wealth of all those neighbours has a significant impact on the economy.
- roenxi 4y ago
  > First, people get unhappy when others have it better. Greed, jealousy, envy, you're not going to cure it. Which is a powerful argument that their instincts are leading them away from the real problem, which is median living standards. Policy motivated in the first instance by greed, jealousy and envy often has bad outcomes! Policy should be motivated by reason, principles and evidence. > has a significant impact on the economy The ideal state of the world is that there are 8 billion people, we identify the one that is best at growing rice and put them in charge of growing all the rice in the world. If there is a limit to how much rice they can grow effectively, we give them control of as much rice growing as possible and then repeat with the 2nd best rice grower. "Outsized influence" is a feature. We want unusually competent people to have unusually wide influence. You'll need a more sophisticated argument to claim that it is bad.