4 ms·

We find ourselves living in a vetocracy, where very little groundbreaking work actually gets done. Critics rule the roost at this current cultural moment. So th

We find ourselves living in a vetocracy, where very little groundbreaking work actually gets done. Critics rule the roost at this current cultural moment. So there's a lot of pent-up energy that will be rewarded to anyone able to articulate a concrete positive vision for the future. Of course people are going to bow down and worship the one guy actually making progress against all odds. The only other person might be Zuck with his metaverse bet, but although he has the concrete positive vision, unlike Musk he hasn't delivered (yet). Anyone have other examples?

simmerup 4y ago
I think you're on to something. At every other point in history the wealthy were expected to use their wealth. Victorian wealthy funded folly and public libraries and other stuff. Roman aristocrats paid for entire armies. Our billionaires subscribe to greed is good capitalism and hoard their wealth though. Musk bucks this trend and therefore gets a ton of my sympathy despite his erratic nature. We need more Elon Musks not less.
maxbond 4y ago
Would you kindly present an argument as to why one should believe we are living in a vetocracy? I see people pursuing all manner of projects all the time, I don't really buy that the world has been narrowed by criticism. What I see limiting people's ability to pursue projects they're passionate about is a lack of funding and opportunity.
- dnissley 4y ago
  https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build-government-coronavirus https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build... See also: The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri which focuses a lot on the criticism issue
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I found this thoroughly unconvincing. A billionaire tells his critics they should build stuff instead of criticize him, as if their opportunities to do so are equivalent, and as of criticism and building stuff are mutually exclusive? That doesn't hold a drop of water. We didn't have enough respirators because of critics? My recollection is that we failed to invoke the Defense Production Act and impress companies into building them. This was based on the values of the Trump administration (who saw this as a violation of free market principles) and not an overabundance of criticism; as an executive order, it would have been immune to veto. The piece goes on to argue the federal government is a vetocracy, and I can agree that Congress is in a state of gridlock like 90% of the time. But that isn't because of critics, that's because of party politics and deficiencies in the structure of Congress. This is a cynical power play to sabotage one's opponents, not criticism run amok. I can agree that there's "vetocracy" in the sense of gridlock, but when you say "critics rule the roost," I remain unconvinced. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the book you recommend, I have not taken a look at that yet.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  People are, as are companies, but public works are increasingly bogged down but polarization, litigation, and bureaucracy. I think this creates a sense of unreality because campaign promises and outcomes end up feeling so disconnected from each other. 25 years ago it was more common to see public officials pop up in the news and say 'we're gonna start doing X' and then see construction crews or the equivalent at work the following Monday. It was also easier to keep track of 'progress bars' because the media landscape wasn't fragmented into 10,000 tiny snowglobes depicting a particular narrow view of the world. The internet is part of the issue, but only part. Long-term political strategizing is another part, and a third factor is 9-11 which seems to have permanently traumatized the USA. As a simple example, information displays on subway platforms in my area are still putting up announcements about how public bathrooms in the subway station are closed for security reasons. It's been 21 years since 9-11 and major cities in the US are too freaked out to figure out basic things like public bathrooms and instead live in a permanent state of mental emergency.
gumboza 4y ago
I think we need to look at the assumptions made. Has Musk and Zuck actually improved the world or merely reorganised it to gain market for their ideological purposes? Delivery or not doesn't imply improvement. Progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either.
- poszlem 4y ago
  I am quite happy to hear "progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either", as that is indeed true. What ideological purposes do you think Musk has? What is the ideology he is pushing building rockets and electric cars?
  - gcheong 4y ago
    Longtermism: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-secret-obsession-with-human-extinction-explains-everything-hes-doing https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-secret-obsession-wi...
- dnissley 4y ago
  Yes and no. Yes, progress for the sake of progress isn't strictly an improvement. On the other hand conditions are ever changing and our knowledge of the world changes our understanding of those conditions. To me these things nearly always imply that we should act in some direction to improve our lot. I don't see many people willing to put in the work. I see a lot of people willing to sit on the sideline and talk about how the people on the field are dumb or what they're doing obviously won't work, and that they are evil scheming villains who will surely change the world for the worst for their own benefit.

simmerup 4y ago

I think you're on to something. At every other point in history the wealthy were expected to use their wealth. Victorian wealthy funded folly and public libraries and other stuff. Roman aristocrats paid for entire armies. Our billionaires subscribe to greed is good capitalism and hoard their wealth though. Musk bucks this trend and therefore gets a ton of my sympathy despite his erratic nature. We need more Elon Musks not less.

maxbond 4y ago

Would you kindly present an argument as to why one should believe we are living in a vetocracy? I see people pursuing all manner of projects all the time, I don't really buy that the world has been narrowed by criticism. What I see limiting people's ability to pursue projects they're passionate about is a lack of funding and opportunity.

dnissley 4y ago
https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build-government-coronavirus https://www.vox.com/2020/4/22/21228469/marc-andreessen-build... See also: The Revolt of the Public by Martin Gurri which focuses a lot on the criticism issue
- maxbond 4y ago
  I found this thoroughly unconvincing. A billionaire tells his critics they should build stuff instead of criticize him, as if their opportunities to do so are equivalent, and as of criticism and building stuff are mutually exclusive? That doesn't hold a drop of water. We didn't have enough respirators because of critics? My recollection is that we failed to invoke the Defense Production Act and impress companies into building them. This was based on the values of the Trump administration (who saw this as a violation of free market principles) and not an overabundance of criticism; as an executive order, it would have been immune to veto. The piece goes on to argue the federal government is a vetocracy, and I can agree that Congress is in a state of gridlock like 90% of the time. But that isn't because of critics, that's because of party politics and deficiencies in the structure of Congress. This is a cynical power play to sabotage one's opponents, not criticism run amok. I can agree that there's "vetocracy" in the sense of gridlock, but when you say "critics rule the roost," I remain unconvinced. Perhaps the answer is to be found in the book you recommend, I have not taken a look at that yet.
anigbrowl 4y ago
People are, as are companies, but public works are increasingly bogged down but polarization, litigation, and bureaucracy. I think this creates a sense of unreality because campaign promises and outcomes end up feeling so disconnected from each other. 25 years ago it was more common to see public officials pop up in the news and say 'we're gonna start doing X' and then see construction crews or the equivalent at work the following Monday. It was also easier to keep track of 'progress bars' because the media landscape wasn't fragmented into 10,000 tiny snowglobes depicting a particular narrow view of the world. The internet is part of the issue, but only part. Long-term political strategizing is another part, and a third factor is 9-11 which seems to have permanently traumatized the USA. As a simple example, information displays on subway platforms in my area are still putting up announcements about how public bathrooms in the subway station are closed for security reasons. It's been 21 years since 9-11 and major cities in the US are too freaked out to figure out basic things like public bathrooms and instead live in a permanent state of mental emergency.

gumboza 4y ago

I think we need to look at the assumptions made. Has Musk and Zuck actually improved the world or merely reorganised it to gain market for their ideological purposes? Delivery or not doesn't imply improvement. Progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either.

poszlem 4y ago
I am quite happy to hear "progress for the sake of progress is not necessarily an improvement either", as that is indeed true. What ideological purposes do you think Musk has? What is the ideology he is pushing building rockets and electric cars?
- gcheong 4y ago
  Longtermism: https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-secret-obsession-with-human-extinction-explains-everything-hes-doing https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-secret-obsession-wi...
dnissley 4y ago
Yes and no. Yes, progress for the sake of progress isn't strictly an improvement. On the other hand conditions are ever changing and our knowledge of the world changes our understanding of those conditions. To me these things nearly always imply that we should act in some direction to improve our lot. I don't see many people willing to put in the work. I see a lot of people willing to sit on the sideline and talk about how the people on the field are dumb or what they're doing obviously won't work, and that they are evil scheming villains who will surely change the world for the worst for their own benefit.