4 ms·

That's a pretty weird way to answer! Communism is not the only solution to the problems facing current revisions of capitalism. The solution is allowed to be di

That's a pretty weird way to answer! Communism is not the only solution to the problems facing current revisions of capitalism. The solution is allowed to be different capitalism. I saw a comment on HN that actually put it wonderfully just the other day (will try and find it) -- the crux was that the real core of government policy failing is corruption, and Capitalism is the most robust to corruption socioeconomic and political structure we've seen so far, because of things like "free market" competition, etc. Turns out if you view it with this lens, monarchies, communism and other forms of government that we've seen fail are quite easily explained at least at a basic level. I think of capitalism like a greed/ambition driven engine. It turns greed into progress of many kinds -- we just need to tweak the inputs/gears of the engine. Clearly a certain amount of greed will lead to proletariat revolt (some people might be fine with that since at some point the proletariat probably won't be able to revolt), and clearly some amount of unchecked greed/ambition is necessary for societal advancement in aggregate. [EDIT] I couldn't find what I was looking for, maybe it wasn't on HN -- this was the closest thing I found[0]... Wealth disparity under the current system has fluctuated over the last 50-100 years -- it is controllable. We know some of the knobs. I just never see anyone trying explicitly to figure out what the right setting for those knobs are, it's always obscured in one way or another. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24194806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24194806

WalterBright 4y ago
> Communism is not the only solution It turns out communism is a fine solution to nothing at all. Communist countries have never even managed to feed themselves - they either allow some capitalism in agriculture or import food from capitalist countries. > the real core of government policy failing is corruption Government policy fails even with zero corruption. It's because the incentives are all wrong. Even shooting all the corrupt people won't fix anything. > I think of capitalism like a greed/ambition driven engine You got that right. It turns out that harnessing peoples' self-interest works amazingly well.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > It turns out communism is a fine solution to nothing at all. Communist countries have never even managed to feed themselves - they either allow some capitalism in agriculture or import food from capitalist countries. Communism wasn't even suggested as a solution by me -- it was reflexively argued against by your earlier comment. You clearly don't like communism, I get it, thank you for contributing that. > Government policy fails even with zero corruption. It's because the incentives are all wrong. Even shooting all the corrupt people won't fix anything. Do you know of any government-policy-free societies that have scaled and prospered? I guess this also depends on your definition of "failure" for a society -- no idea what that is, but given how un-constructive your comments have been I'm not that excited to find out. > You got that right. It turns out that harnessing peoples' self-interest works amazingly well. No one said it didn't. Any thoughts on how to harness self-interest in a way that doesn't bifurcate society socio-economically quite so much?
  - sokoloff 4y ago
    Is bifurcating to the current extent so bad if both cohorts are made better off than under an alternative arrangement?
    - hardwaresofton 4y ago
      I think so, because there's no proof that either cohort wouldn't have been better off under an alternative arrangement. To make things a little bit more concrete -- I know the typical argument here is that the poorest are moved forward more by rapid expansion/growth/harnessing of greed, but the problem is that we do not consider the right tail trajectory of those below. Making life better at a rapid rate is great, but it seems to be at a tradeoff -- a cap is developing on the "better off" part (widening wealth disparity). If it always trended up then the problem would be easy (and people wouldn't be too worried). It's a problem because the graph seems to go up for the poorer cohort then level off yet continue growing for one cohort. The derivatives are the problem, essentially. Also I'd argue that what people are seeing is a future where quality of life for the poorer cohort actually goes off a cliff and starts to go lower. Since we have no idea if/how that will happen (robots/automation most likely), the only way to ensure trajectories for the both cohorts is for both cohorts to have similar influence/power/decision making input. [EDIT] - I should note, the current extent is not that bad. It could be much much worse, and I think that's what people should be tinkering/trying to prevent.
techno_tsar 4y ago
It's extremely optimistic to think that 'knobs' for the current system 1) exist, 2) are controllable, and 3) knowable. This is such an abstract oversimplification of empirical reality. The sentiment that capitalism is an engine that can be controlled is less of a metaphor that tracks reality, but more of a rhetorical argument to advocate for some form of liberal technocracy as the solution. I am not going to claim that it isn't (I don't know), but generalizing the complicated collisions of both human economy and culture to fit our scientific paradigm's love of mechanistic explanations is the same mistake that command-economy communists, free-market-equilibrium capitalists, and econometricizing technocrats have made. Our ideas of 'greed' and 'ambition' are at least partially socially constructed, and the idea of 'societal advancement' is a value laden can of worms. Thinking of our current system as controllable diminishes the scale of our analysis. But the correct scale of analysis is one in which greed and ambition, as you say, remain relevant. Much to the chagrin of some economists, greed and ambition cannot be quantified into neat formulae, especially given that we cannot even find agreement on what they mean or the precise point in which they diverge. That means the task is much bigger than just thinking of capitalism as an engine. Instead, we must analyze our predicament in not only mechanistic terms, but also accounting for the vagrancies of the human condition and our culture, which creates the types of people that are greedy, ambitious, and talk about 'societal advancement' as an ontological reality that's descended from the heavens in the first place. I think by the time we get to that level of philosophizing (which is absolutely necessary in understanding inequality, suffering, and well-being), we need to drop atomistic conceptions of capitalism in favour of something much more holistic, human, and fuzzy. This amount of prudence is morally obligatory. Social engineering is not a game for white-collar bureaucrats to simply play around with. These are people's lives.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > It's extremely optimistic to think that 'knobs' for the current system 1) exist, 2) are controllable, and 3) knowable. This is such an abstract oversimplification of empirical reality. The sentiment that capitalism is an engine that can be controlled is less of a metaphor that tracks reality, but more of a rhetorical argument to advocate for some form of liberal technocracy as the solution. I am not going to claim that it isn't (I don't know), but generalizing the complicated collisions of both human economy and culture to fit our scientific paradigm's love of mechanistic explanations is the same mistake that command-economy communists, free-market-equilibrium capitalists, and econometricizing technocrats have made. It's not extremely optimistic -- it's a statement of fact. We have history and alternate societies which grew in different ways to compare and contrast. The idea that the system is uncontrollable/unknowable is overly pessimistic. We can take action and change how society is structured -- we know this because we've done it, and we continue to do it. We may not know the knock-on effects, we may not know the eventualities, but we can indeed change society. In fact, it's surprisingly easy to change how 300MM autonomous people live their daily lives -- there's a system in place. Systems have knobs and systems are controllable at the very least to first-order effects, and we have knowledge because we built the system and it's inspectable to us. > Our ideas of 'greed' and 'ambition' are at least partially socially constructed, and the idea of 'societal advancement' is a value laden can of worms. Thinking of our current system as controllable diminishes the scale of our analysis. But the correct scale of analysis is one in which greed and ambition, as you say, remain relevant. Much to the chagrin of some economists, greed and ambition cannot be quantified into neat formulae, especially given that we cannot even find agreement on what they mean or the precise point in which they diverge. I agree -- unfortunately there are so only so many words that can convey the sentiment. It need not be quantified into a formula to be controlled. If you agree that it is possible to control it at all, then it's a matter of degree. The argument is not that the system is perfectly controllable and no further analysis is needed. What I was posing is that wider involvement at more powerful rungs of society is needed, precisely because the current discourse is somewhat stale. > That means the task is much bigger than just thinking of capitalism as an engine. Instead, we must analyze our predicament in not only mechanistic terms, but also accounting for the vagrancies of the human condition and our culture, which creates the types of people that are greedy, ambitious, and talk about 'societal advancement' as an ontological reality that's descended from the heavens in the first place. I think by the time we get to that level of philosophizing (which is absolutely necessary in understanding inequality, suffering, and well-being), we need to drop atomistic conceptions of capitalism in favour of something much more holistic, human, and fuzzy. This amount of prudence is morally obligatory. Social engineering is not a game for white-collar bureaucrats to simply play around with. These are people's lives. Sure, that sounds good -- the model of capitalism as an engine is not a complete solution to all that ails society.

WalterBright 4y ago

> Communism is not the only solution It turns out communism is a fine solution to nothing at all. Communist countries have never even managed to feed themselves - they either allow some capitalism in agriculture or import food from capitalist countries. > the real core of government policy failing is corruption Government policy fails even with zero corruption. It's because the incentives are all wrong. Even shooting all the corrupt people won't fix anything. > I think of capitalism like a greed/ambition driven engine You got that right. It turns out that harnessing peoples' self-interest works amazingly well.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> It turns out communism is a fine solution to nothing at all. Communist countries have never even managed to feed themselves - they either allow some capitalism in agriculture or import food from capitalist countries. Communism wasn't even suggested as a solution by me -- it was reflexively argued against by your earlier comment. You clearly don't like communism, I get it, thank you for contributing that. > Government policy fails even with zero corruption. It's because the incentives are all wrong. Even shooting all the corrupt people won't fix anything. Do you know of any government-policy-free societies that have scaled and prospered? I guess this also depends on your definition of "failure" for a society -- no idea what that is, but given how un-constructive your comments have been I'm not that excited to find out. > You got that right. It turns out that harnessing peoples' self-interest works amazingly well. No one said it didn't. Any thoughts on how to harness self-interest in a way that doesn't bifurcate society socio-economically quite so much?
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Is bifurcating to the current extent so bad if both cohorts are made better off than under an alternative arrangement?
  - hardwaresofton 4y ago
    I think so, because there's no proof that either cohort wouldn't have been better off under an alternative arrangement. To make things a little bit more concrete -- I know the typical argument here is that the poorest are moved forward more by rapid expansion/growth/harnessing of greed, but the problem is that we do not consider the right tail trajectory of those below. Making life better at a rapid rate is great, but it seems to be at a tradeoff -- a cap is developing on the "better off" part (widening wealth disparity). If it always trended up then the problem would be easy (and people wouldn't be too worried). It's a problem because the graph seems to go up for the poorer cohort then level off yet continue growing for one cohort. The derivatives are the problem, essentially. Also I'd argue that what people are seeing is a future where quality of life for the poorer cohort actually goes off a cliff and starts to go lower. Since we have no idea if/how that will happen (robots/automation most likely), the only way to ensure trajectories for the both cohorts is for both cohorts to have similar influence/power/decision making input. [EDIT] - I should note, the current extent is not that bad. It could be much much worse, and I think that's what people should be tinkering/trying to prevent.

techno_tsar 4y ago

It's extremely optimistic to think that 'knobs' for the current system 1) exist, 2) are controllable, and 3) knowable. This is such an abstract oversimplification of empirical reality. The sentiment that capitalism is an engine that can be controlled is less of a metaphor that tracks reality, but more of a rhetorical argument to advocate for some form of liberal technocracy as the solution. I am not going to claim that it isn't (I don't know), but generalizing the complicated collisions of both human economy and culture to fit our scientific paradigm's love of mechanistic explanations is the same mistake that command-economy communists, free-market-equilibrium capitalists, and econometricizing technocrats have made. Our ideas of 'greed' and 'ambition' are at least partially socially constructed, and the idea of 'societal advancement' is a value laden can of worms. Thinking of our current system as controllable diminishes the scale of our analysis. But the correct scale of analysis is one in which greed and ambition, as you say, remain relevant. Much to the chagrin of some economists, greed and ambition cannot be quantified into neat formulae, especially given that we cannot even find agreement on what they mean or the precise point in which they diverge. That means the task is much bigger than just thinking of capitalism as an engine. Instead, we must analyze our predicament in not only mechanistic terms, but also accounting for the vagrancies of the human condition and our culture, which creates the types of people that are greedy, ambitious, and talk about 'societal advancement' as an ontological reality that's descended from the heavens in the first place. I think by the time we get to that level of philosophizing (which is absolutely necessary in understanding inequality, suffering, and well-being), we need to drop atomistic conceptions of capitalism in favour of something much more holistic, human, and fuzzy. This amount of prudence is morally obligatory. Social engineering is not a game for white-collar bureaucrats to simply play around with. These are people's lives.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> It's extremely optimistic to think that 'knobs' for the current system 1) exist, 2) are controllable, and 3) knowable. This is such an abstract oversimplification of empirical reality. The sentiment that capitalism is an engine that can be controlled is less of a metaphor that tracks reality, but more of a rhetorical argument to advocate for some form of liberal technocracy as the solution. I am not going to claim that it isn't (I don't know), but generalizing the complicated collisions of both human economy and culture to fit our scientific paradigm's love of mechanistic explanations is the same mistake that command-economy communists, free-market-equilibrium capitalists, and econometricizing technocrats have made. It's not extremely optimistic -- it's a statement of fact. We have history and alternate societies which grew in different ways to compare and contrast. The idea that the system is uncontrollable/unknowable is overly pessimistic. We can take action and change how society is structured -- we know this because we've done it, and we continue to do it. We may not know the knock-on effects, we may not know the eventualities, but we can indeed change society. In fact, it's surprisingly easy to change how 300MM autonomous people live their daily lives -- there's a system in place. Systems have knobs and systems are controllable at the very least to first-order effects, and we have knowledge because we built the system and it's inspectable to us. > Our ideas of 'greed' and 'ambition' are at least partially socially constructed, and the idea of 'societal advancement' is a value laden can of worms. Thinking of our current system as controllable diminishes the scale of our analysis. But the correct scale of analysis is one in which greed and ambition, as you say, remain relevant. Much to the chagrin of some economists, greed and ambition cannot be quantified into neat formulae, especially given that we cannot even find agreement on what they mean or the precise point in which they diverge. I agree -- unfortunately there are so only so many words that can convey the sentiment. It need not be quantified into a formula to be controlled. If you agree that it is possible to control it at all, then it's a matter of degree. The argument is not that the system is perfectly controllable and no further analysis is needed. What I was posing is that wider involvement at more powerful rungs of society is needed, precisely because the current discourse is somewhat stale. > That means the task is much bigger than just thinking of capitalism as an engine. Instead, we must analyze our predicament in not only mechanistic terms, but also accounting for the vagrancies of the human condition and our culture, which creates the types of people that are greedy, ambitious, and talk about 'societal advancement' as an ontological reality that's descended from the heavens in the first place. I think by the time we get to that level of philosophizing (which is absolutely necessary in understanding inequality, suffering, and well-being), we need to drop atomistic conceptions of capitalism in favour of something much more holistic, human, and fuzzy. This amount of prudence is morally obligatory. Social engineering is not a game for white-collar bureaucrats to simply play around with. These are people's lives. Sure, that sounds good -- the model of capitalism as an engine is not a complete solution to all that ails society.