5 ms·

> requires a base assumption that American capitalism always produces an optimal state, which is just obviously wrong. Optimal for who? Your definition of "opt

> requires a base assumption that American capitalism always produces an optimal state, which is just obviously wrong. Optimal for who? Your definition of "optimal state" is one-sided: optimal for the consumer, which forgets about the producer. Your streaming example is great. In the beginning there was Netflix, and it was good (for consumers). But content producers were leaving a lot of money on the table. So now we have N number of streaming services, and N companies are making money with it. We consumers of course would _prefer it_ if we only had to pay one service, but I don't see Disney+ going out of business; clearly we are annoyed yet willing to pay. Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system.

burkaman 4y ago
> capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. Right, and I don't think anybody on Earth considers "most money possible flowing through the system" to be a synonym for "the best system". My loose definition for "optimal state" in this conversation is something like "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs". That is not always the best definition, but when talking about streaming services or taxi models I think it's a good one.
- Domenic_S 4y ago
  Ok, but you didn’t say “best” system, you said optimal state. Optimal for who has to be answered. "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs" seems bad to me. Taking all your money and splitting it between me and my friends would make a larger number of people happy than you keeping it; the government dropping free money in everyone’s bank account would make most people happy; it doesn’t mean that’s the best thing to do in a societal sense
TeMPOraL 4y ago
> Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. This is just the parable of the broken window, using more technical terms. Maximizing money flowing through the entite system is not something anyone wants or needs.
- Domenic_S 4y ago
  No, there’s no destruction in this case - actually there’s more creation - so it’s not a broken window-type thing. When money movement slows down, the economy slows down. Take a look at your 401k returns this year and tell me nobody wants a good economy…

burkaman 4y ago

> capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. Right, and I don't think anybody on Earth considers "most money possible flowing through the system" to be a synonym for "the best system". My loose definition for "optimal state" in this conversation is something like "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs". That is not always the best definition, but when talking about streaming services or taxi models I think it's a good one.

Domenic_S 4y ago
Ok, but you didn’t say “best” system, you said optimal state. Optimal for who has to be answered. "as many people as possible are happy with the state of affairs" seems bad to me. Taking all your money and splitting it between me and my friends would make a larger number of people happy than you keeping it; the government dropping free money in everyone’s bank account would make most people happy; it doesn’t mean that’s the best thing to do in a societal sense

TeMPOraL 4y ago

> Viola, capitalism has optimized for the most money possible flowing through the system. This is just the parable of the broken window, using more technical terms. Maximizing money flowing through the entite system is not something anyone wants or needs.

Domenic_S 4y ago
No, there’s no destruction in this case - actually there’s more creation - so it’s not a broken window-type thing. When money movement slows down, the economy slows down. Take a look at your 401k returns this year and tell me nobody wants a good economy…