3 ms·

> There's no such thing as a "well functioning free market". It's an utopia. It's relative. You seem to be confusing "well" with "perfect". Depending on your

> There's no such thing as a "well functioning free market". It's an utopia. It's relative. You seem to be confusing "well" with "perfect". Depending on your point of view, no economic system is well functioning, because there will always be ebbs and flows where people clash with the system and it works better or worse at time. I'm not sure if our version of a free market in the U.S. is closer to well functioning or not, but I don't see a problem with pointing out how it can be better, and I'm not sure why you would respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect", especially when you haven't presented a better alternative. > What we have today is how a free market works. The invisible hand always tipping the scales. They would simply find a better way to get the outcome they want, avoiding the issue altogether (something at the federal level, make an example out of a researcher or institution, etc). The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. In a free market economy, the answer is almost always more information because it allows individuals to act correctly, either through individual actions, or as a group through pressure on the government to regulate. So yes, what we have today is how a free market operates (although I would argue not very efficiently, due to lots of blocks on information that exist), and this information we're discussing in this post coming out and people being able to respond to it is the first step in being able to act on it to curtail it in the future. > The word utopia is used a lot when anything other than capitalism is being talked about, but the free market, which is an integral part of it, definitely takes the win. We have so many "free economies" around demonstrating how much of an utopia this concept is. The only person here who said that is you, so I'm not sure what you're on about. I certainly don't think it's some utopia, just a system built on emergent behavior that like any other, needs special bounds and constant attention to both keep it functioning as well as possible as well as keep it from going completely off the rails.

Draiken 3y ago
> respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect" That was not my intention. I simply had to point this out because your comment implied that a well functioning free market could somehow solve the issue. My take is that it can't, because there's no such thing. Whether or not we should bother with improving it, is a matter for another debate. My take is that we've tried it for long enough, and small improvements simply don't work anymore. Millions of people need/want something and a small handful of powerful rich folks can deny that with no real recourse. > The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. I mostly agree! But that's, once again, an utopia. Key information is still kept from the public eyes and the trend is to get more restricted to the rich and powerful as time goes on. As an example, a few key players like Google and Meta have information on virtually every single citizen in the world, while the public has absolutely no control over it or oversight on how that's used. I don't fully agree because of another problem that we can see almost every day: even with information, the system is unable to make any meaningful change. We have backroom deals exposed, corruption, quid-pro-quo everywhere, and yet the majority of the responsible people/companies remain free to keep doing those. At best we get a few scapegoats or slaps on the wrist. Information alone is useless if you either have nobody that can act on it (think unregulated markets, industries, etc), or the ones that are able to, can't or won't because of the existing power structures, like the example in the article. > The only person here who said that is you I was obviously alluding to the ever-present "communism/socialism is an utopia" argument. I never implied you said that specifically. It's just such a common argument that I assumed could be raised since I mentioned the word and I expanded on it.
- kbenson 3y ago
  > Whether or not we should bother with improving it, is a matter for another debate. My take is that we've tried it for long enough, and small improvements simply don't work anymore. Millions of people need/want something and a small handful of powerful rich folks can deny that with no real recourse. I'm not sure that's true, or if that's just a prevailing emotion. Being true and feeling that way aren't the same thing. Presumably, if it's true, we can point towards examples of it, and try to quantify it. If the answer is "no, we can't quantify it because the same people that cause it prevent us from knowing about it", well, that's an untestable assertion and very close to conspiracy theory territory, so I would push back on that, as I think anyone should. So hopefully there are some examples we can discuss. > I mostly agree! But that's, once again, an utopia. Key information is still kept from the public eyes and the trend is to get more restricted to the rich and powerful as time goes on. Except we're seeing the counter case right here, right now? Here we have what appears to be a case of Meta with their thumb on the scale, and then with their thumb on the scale again when they're investigated. Either soemthing comes about from this, or from similar stuff later on, or I'd be tempted to say most people just don't care. To be clear, just because you and I care doesn't mean the average person does, and if the average person doesn't and that means nothing happens, that's not a failure of the system, that's it working as expected, as our minority opinion shouldn't necessarily override theirs, no matter how much we think we're right. > As an example, a few key players like Google and Meta have information on virtually every single citizen in the world, while the public has absolutely no control over it or oversight on how that's used. No, the public has absolute control, through petitioning for legislature and holding their representatives to account for acting, or not. Failure to exercise power is not the same as lack of power, even if it appears the same. > even with information, the system is unable to make any meaningful change. There are many changes that happen all the time, but the system is also slow, which in some ways is a feature and some ways a problem. Being slow to change means that rapidly changing events can take a while to be dealt with, but it also means that usually there's limited damage that a change in a detrimental direction can do before it's recognized and dealt with, because the changes often come in small steps. > At best we get a few scapegoats or slaps on the wrist. Information alone is useless if you either have nobody that can act on it (think unregulated markets, industries, etc), or the ones that are able to, can't or won't because of the existing power structures, like the example in the article. This article is the response to this problem. Harvard is ultimately responsible to the students that want to go there, the donors that donate, and the state and federal governments in which it resides and operates. Whether this results in a small loss in confidence in Harvard being able to carry out research objectively by those that pay attention, a large loss in confidence for the general public the public that Harvard can carry out research objectively and that affecting other research they do, or the federal government calling people in to investigate, we'll have to see. The latter seems unlikely, but I'm looking forward to there maybe being some increased scrutiny and coverage. It seems it's being covered by major outlets now, so congress getting interested isn't out of the question, given they've been fairly interested in this fairly recently. > I was obviously alluding to the ever-present "communism/socialism is an utopia" argument. I wouldn't claim a free market to be a utopia, and I wouldn't think someone espousing communism or socialism would in a discussion where they are expected to support their assertions, so I don't think it's particularly useful to introduce it to the conversation here. Without someone actually calling for it, it's just a straw man argument, whether against a person or a position, and whether against me or against the traditional counter to what I presented, I don't think it serves a useful purpose. I was confused enough by it's introduction that I honestly wasn't sure what the point was.

Draiken 3y ago

> respond with something I interpret as "don't bother, it can't be perfect" That was not my intention. I simply had to point this out because your comment implied that a well functioning free market could somehow solve the issue. My take is that it can't, because there's no such thing. Whether or not we should bother with improving it, is a matter for another debate. My take is that we've tried it for long enough, and small improvements simply don't work anymore. Millions of people need/want something and a small handful of powerful rich folks can deny that with no real recourse. > The counter to the invisible hand working against society instead of in tandem or for it is freely available information. I mostly agree! But that's, once again, an utopia. Key information is still kept from the public eyes and the trend is to get more restricted to the rich and powerful as time goes on. As an example, a few key players like Google and Meta have information on virtually every single citizen in the world, while the public has absolutely no control over it or oversight on how that's used. I don't fully agree because of another problem that we can see almost every day: even with information, the system is unable to make any meaningful change. We have backroom deals exposed, corruption, quid-pro-quo everywhere, and yet the majority of the responsible people/companies remain free to keep doing those. At best we get a few scapegoats or slaps on the wrist. Information alone is useless if you either have nobody that can act on it (think unregulated markets, industries, etc), or the ones that are able to, can't or won't because of the existing power structures, like the example in the article. > The only person here who said that is you I was obviously alluding to the ever-present "communism/socialism is an utopia" argument. I never implied you said that specifically. It's just such a common argument that I assumed could be raised since I mentioned the word and I expanded on it.

kbenson 3y ago
> Whether or not we should bother with improving it, is a matter for another debate. My take is that we've tried it for long enough, and small improvements simply don't work anymore. Millions of people need/want something and a small handful of powerful rich folks can deny that with no real recourse. I'm not sure that's true, or if that's just a prevailing emotion. Being true and feeling that way aren't the same thing. Presumably, if it's true, we can point towards examples of it, and try to quantify it. If the answer is "no, we can't quantify it because the same people that cause it prevent us from knowing about it", well, that's an untestable assertion and very close to conspiracy theory territory, so I would push back on that, as I think anyone should. So hopefully there are some examples we can discuss. > I mostly agree! But that's, once again, an utopia. Key information is still kept from the public eyes and the trend is to get more restricted to the rich and powerful as time goes on. Except we're seeing the counter case right here, right now? Here we have what appears to be a case of Meta with their thumb on the scale, and then with their thumb on the scale again when they're investigated. Either soemthing comes about from this, or from similar stuff later on, or I'd be tempted to say most people just don't care. To be clear, just because you and I care doesn't mean the average person does, and if the average person doesn't and that means nothing happens, that's not a failure of the system, that's it working as expected, as our minority opinion shouldn't necessarily override theirs, no matter how much we think we're right. > As an example, a few key players like Google and Meta have information on virtually every single citizen in the world, while the public has absolutely no control over it or oversight on how that's used. No, the public has absolute control, through petitioning for legislature and holding their representatives to account for acting, or not. Failure to exercise power is not the same as lack of power, even if it appears the same. > even with information, the system is unable to make any meaningful change. There are many changes that happen all the time, but the system is also slow, which in some ways is a feature and some ways a problem. Being slow to change means that rapidly changing events can take a while to be dealt with, but it also means that usually there's limited damage that a change in a detrimental direction can do before it's recognized and dealt with, because the changes often come in small steps. > At best we get a few scapegoats or slaps on the wrist. Information alone is useless if you either have nobody that can act on it (think unregulated markets, industries, etc), or the ones that are able to, can't or won't because of the existing power structures, like the example in the article. This article is the response to this problem. Harvard is ultimately responsible to the students that want to go there, the donors that donate, and the state and federal governments in which it resides and operates. Whether this results in a small loss in confidence in Harvard being able to carry out research objectively by those that pay attention, a large loss in confidence for the general public the public that Harvard can carry out research objectively and that affecting other research they do, or the federal government calling people in to investigate, we'll have to see. The latter seems unlikely, but I'm looking forward to there maybe being some increased scrutiny and coverage. It seems it's being covered by major outlets now, so congress getting interested isn't out of the question, given they've been fairly interested in this fairly recently. > I was obviously alluding to the ever-present "communism/socialism is an utopia" argument. I wouldn't claim a free market to be a utopia, and I wouldn't think someone espousing communism or socialism would in a discussion where they are expected to support their assertions, so I don't think it's particularly useful to introduce it to the conversation here. Without someone actually calling for it, it's just a straw man argument, whether against a person or a position, and whether against me or against the traditional counter to what I presented, I don't think it serves a useful purpose. I was confused enough by it's introduction that I honestly wasn't sure what the point was.