4 ms·
I think one of the problems is there are ludicrous amounts of money to be made changing the world, enough to make whatever's happening for 99% of most hype-fuel
by asimpletune 3y ago
I think one of the problems is there are ludicrous amounts of money to be made changing the world, enough to make whatever's happening for 99% of most hype-fueld ventures today look like drops in an ocean. So if what I'm saying is to be believed then why doesn't the market optimize for it? Like, if there's so much money to make why doesn't it happen?
I think the answer is in two parts. One, there is a political environment that is very much interested in preserving itself regardless of whatever so-called benefits could come from actually changing the world, and two the market isn't really some kind of god like oracle that always does the "right" thing.
I'll give you an example to better explain what I mean to say.
The Roman Empire had a lot of good things going for it. They had many of the necessary ingredients for an Industrial Revolution to take place more than a thousand years earlier. So why didn't it? Clearly there was a lot of money to be made in hindsight, but in their political environment it was never going to happen.
Rome, as impressive as it was, had a small political class of movers and shakers who owned most of the wealth, and to those people if given more money they'd just buy more farmland. That's it. Literally, to them, the Roman political elite, the only way to invest money was buy farms.
I think in today's day and age we're in a similar conundrum. Obviously it's more nuanced and sophisticated than where the Romans were at, but most of the people who have power today can't understand or imagine the benefit of improving the world. The market isn't magically selecting for those things because they are a large part of the market.
- pygy_ 3y agoThe market favors the market. Capital begets capital. Humans are at best an afterthought.
- golergka 3y agoHumans are the ones who own and deploy capital. It's ordinary people's savings and pensions. But people like to invent boogymen so that they don't have to take responsibility for their action, so they blame wall street and conveniently forget that its their own money that wall street is managing.
- asimpletune 3y agoWhy does there have to be anyone held responsible at all? Couldn’t it be possible that given the present day’s circumstances everybody just does the best they can, and, nonetheless, it leads to regrettable results? My example of Rome earlier want meant to point to their political elite as a Boogeyman. I meant it more like despite their best efforts an Industrial Revolution was virtually impossible in that environment. Funny enough having slaves and oligarchy was exactly the kind of thing that held Rome back. I mean only to imply that in todays day and age, we have our version of that same situation, and similarly there is untold prosperity forever waiting to happen until the status quo changes.
- cmmeur01 3y agoOrdinary people don’t have savings and pensions, at least not in the US.
- golergka 3y agoAlmost 50% of Americans directly or indirectly benefit from the stock market. You don't think they're ordinary?
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago> Humans are the ones who own and deploy capital. This is a silly argument, Hitler was human too. > It's ordinary people's savings and pensions Exactly, so my pention is being used to reward unrpoductive businesses that just do damage to society.
- asimpletune 3y agoPs I just want to be clear that I don’t use the word “political” in its normal, toxic and conspiratorial way. I just meant to say the present combination of policies and their incentives for the various stakeholders.