4 ms·

> You would need to introduce an equilibrium encouraging money system and prevent the extraction of land rents. Those things are never going to happen, because

by moring 3y ago

> You would need to introduce an equilibrium encouraging money system and prevent the extraction of land rents. Those things are never going to happen, because they are too obvious of a solution. If these two action items are "never going to happen", as you say, then they are not (part of) a solution. Like the author of the article, you have just started mapping the problem. > If you wanted the same answer in short: Demurrage currencies and land value taxes. Too simple to be believable. If things are as simple as you claim, why don't you describe a plan to overcome the obstacles and actually implement the two changes you described?

Draiken 3y ago
This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this <insert large problem here> therefore it's too complex to solve. It's all about incentives. Our society is incentivized to make a few people rich, not to solve these sorts of problems. If we wanted to solve them, we would. But that's not profitable, so it's not "worth" it. Humans never had the technological capabilities we have today, which could solve most, if not all, of these problems. But because of our current economic system we rather spend trillions on advertising instead of reducing human suffering. It's sad to realize that, unlike any other time in history, we as a society choose to not solve these issues.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this <insert large problem here> therefore it's too complex to solve. Au contraire: not only can he do that, he is (currently) unlikely to be able to do otherwise. Culture is an extremely powerful force, one that is typically very difficult to detect (culture frowns upon self-criticism, forces the subject to be changed, moderators/experts to step in and enforce the Overton Window to restore order, etc).
- moring 3y ago
  > This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this <insert large problem here> therefore it's too complex to solve. I wasn't arguing that the problem is too complex to solve, and in fact I don't see any evidence that it is. Instead, I am arguing that the replies in this thread who claim that the problem is "simple", "not rocket science" etc. underestimate the problem's complexity, and challenged them to present a solution if they think it is simple.

by moring 3y ago

Draiken 3y ago

This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this <insert large problem here> therefore it's too complex to solve. It's all about incentives. Our society is incentivized to make a few people rich, not to solve these sorts of problems. If we wanted to solve them, we would. But that's not profitable, so it's not "worth" it. Humans never had the technological capabilities we have today, which could solve most, if not all, of these problems. But because of our current economic system we rather spend trillions on advertising instead of reducing human suffering. It's sad to realize that, unlike any other time in history, we as a society choose to not solve these issues.

mistermann 3y ago
> This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this <insert large problem here> therefore it's too complex to solve. Au contraire: not only can he do that, he is (currently) unlikely to be able to do otherwise. Culture is an extremely powerful force, one that is typically very difficult to detect (culture frowns upon self-criticism, forces the subject to be changed, moderators/experts to step in and enforce the Overton Window to restore order, etc).
moring 3y ago
> This is such a lazy argument. You can't write out in this moment how to solve this <insert large problem here> therefore it's too complex to solve. I wasn't arguing that the problem is too complex to solve, and in fact I don't see any evidence that it is. Instead, I am arguing that the replies in this thread who claim that the problem is "simple", "not rocket science" etc. underestimate the problem's complexity, and challenged them to present a solution if they think it is simple.