3 ms·
That's a version of the main problem, which is lack of a proper feedback mechanism. Money provides feedback for how what we do gets valued, and lets us establis
by version_five 4y ago
That's a version of the main problem, which is lack of a proper feedback mechanism. Money provides feedback for how what we do gets valued, and lets us establish a complex dynamical system that otherwise is not controllable. There is no feedback like this in socialism, so at best you get shortages, at worst you end up violently enforcing some particular version of a system on people and a substitute for the communication channel that money provides.
- eevilspock 4y agoI think the first step is acknowledging what you imply: Free markets and capitalism are just algorithms, not arbiters of truth or morality. (This is also the working title of an essay I am working on) We can't have a rational discussion of the alternatives when so many people have bought into the notion that all forms of private property are an inalienable right and market-driven valuation of the worth of a person does represents what a person morally deserves. People also once bought into the notion of the divine right of kings. It took forever to shake that. We can't evaluate algorithms unless we come to a shared value system on what we are after, what exactly we are trying to optimize. Aggregate material wealth, regardless of how it is distributed? Broad population well-being / happiness? Individual liberty? Greater good. Darwinian competition?