3 ms·

> 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 capitalis

> 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.
WalterBright 4y ago
> Communism wasn't even suggested as a solution by me Communism came up when someone asked who was working on solving wealth inequality. That is what this particular thread is about. > You clearly don't like communism Neither do the people who've lived under it. It produces a bountiful crop of misery. That's why communists had to build walls around their countries to keep the citizens from fleeing. If you know of one that produced joy, I'd like a reference, please. > Do you know of any government-policy-free societies that have scaled and prospered? Government is necessary. But there should be as little of it as practical, because governments wield power and power is dangerous. It's like gasoline. I need gas to run my car and the lawnmower. But I keep as little of it around as possible. And I don't use gasoline as a household cleaner, and I try not to inhale any of it. > No one said it didn't. Leftists do. > Any thoughts on how to harness self-interest in a way that doesn't bifurcate society socio-economically quite so much? I don't see the mere existence of wealthy people being a problem. The fact of someone creating wealth (which is how people get wealthy in a free market) is not taking something from someone else. I understand that point of view is unpopular.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > Communism came up when someone asked who was working on solving wealth inequality. That is what this particular thread is about. Yeah if it only went that far then maybe it would have been a useful answer to a problem and nothing else, but so much anti-communist propaganda has been said at this point it seems more like you have an axe to grind rather than actually contributing to dialogue. > Government is necessary. But there should be as little of it as practical, because governments wield power and power is dangerous. It's like gasoline. I need gas to run my car and the lawnmower. But I keep as little of it around as possible. And I don't use gasoline as a household cleaner, and I try not to inhale any of it. This is too broad a statement to be accurate. You can insert many things in the place of "government' in that lawn mower analogy and sound correct. This statement is also not very interesting because "as little of it as practical" is the whole debate, for anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 mins. So essentially, your stance seems to be "small government good". Excellent -- but that doesn't really relate to my point, unless your stance is "small government good, so current and future wealth disparity is fine". > I don't see the mere existence of wealthy people being a problem. The fact of someone creating wealth (which is how people get wealthy in a free market) is not taking something from someone else. > I understand that point of view is unpopular. I suggested we need more wealthy people with higher variance amongst them, so we can see more interesting/varied outcomes. How is this relevant to that discussion?

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.

WalterBright 4y ago

> Communism wasn't even suggested as a solution by me Communism came up when someone asked who was working on solving wealth inequality. That is what this particular thread is about. > You clearly don't like communism Neither do the people who've lived under it. It produces a bountiful crop of misery. That's why communists had to build walls around their countries to keep the citizens from fleeing. If you know of one that produced joy, I'd like a reference, please. > Do you know of any government-policy-free societies that have scaled and prospered? Government is necessary. But there should be as little of it as practical, because governments wield power and power is dangerous. It's like gasoline. I need gas to run my car and the lawnmower. But I keep as little of it around as possible. And I don't use gasoline as a household cleaner, and I try not to inhale any of it. > No one said it didn't. Leftists do. > Any thoughts on how to harness self-interest in a way that doesn't bifurcate society socio-economically quite so much? I don't see the mere existence of wealthy people being a problem. The fact of someone creating wealth (which is how people get wealthy in a free market) is not taking something from someone else. I understand that point of view is unpopular.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> Communism came up when someone asked who was working on solving wealth inequality. That is what this particular thread is about. Yeah if it only went that far then maybe it would have been a useful answer to a problem and nothing else, but so much anti-communist propaganda has been said at this point it seems more like you have an axe to grind rather than actually contributing to dialogue. > Government is necessary. But there should be as little of it as practical, because governments wield power and power is dangerous. It's like gasoline. I need gas to run my car and the lawnmower. But I keep as little of it around as possible. And I don't use gasoline as a household cleaner, and I try not to inhale any of it. This is too broad a statement to be accurate. You can insert many things in the place of "government' in that lawn mower analogy and sound correct. This statement is also not very interesting because "as little of it as practical" is the whole debate, for anyone who has thought about it for more than 5 mins. So essentially, your stance seems to be "small government good". Excellent -- but that doesn't really relate to my point, unless your stance is "small government good, so current and future wealth disparity is fine". > I don't see the mere existence of wealthy people being a problem. The fact of someone creating wealth (which is how people get wealthy in a free market) is not taking something from someone else. > I understand that point of view is unpopular. I suggested we need more wealthy people with higher variance amongst them, so we can see more interesting/varied outcomes. How is this relevant to that discussion?