3 ms·
In lots of ways, the "learning" there would just be "capitalism". It's inherently short-sighted unless forced to do otherwise by legislation. Cutting small co
by Groxx 3y ago
In lots of ways, the "learning" there would just be "capitalism".
It's inherently short-sighted unless forced to do otherwise by legislation. Cutting small corners pays off A LOT until the hammer falls, so there's a massive advantage to doing it / you need to do it if competition is doing it, or you eventually shut down as they take all your business.
It's inherently a race to the bottom. Sometimes that's a net gain, sometimes it isn't.
- boringg 3y agoBut all those communist airlines had no problems at all - exceptional build quality and operational efficiency! /S
- mc32 3y agoYep, Chernobyl being a prime example. Or Komarov's failed re-entry after complaining about the design faults of the vehicle long before launch. Then there was the more uhhm run of the mill backyard blast furnace campaign which contributed to misallocation of workforce which then led to mass starvation.
- boringg 3y agoThere are many many more examples. I find it so tiresome to see young people just use capitalism as a catch all for the failure of something. It's such a lazy and uninformed argument. I'm not carte blanche defending capitalism - its a mixed bag but it sure outpaces the competing systems put forward to date. It does need some stronger safeguards against industry self regulation - that has a bad track record.
- mc32 3y agoI think we're on the same page. Economic systems need failsafes so that they don't suffer from positive feedback loops. What anti-capitalist sympathizers, in my view, don't realize is that this is due to people being in the loop. These economic systems are merely vehicles, some better than others, but the conductors are people, be they communists or capitalists. At least with capitalisms there is a delayed regulator (negative feedback) in communism it's up to the system to decide if it needs to modify itself.
- mc32 3y agoAll major economic systems of all major national economies over the last century have perverse incentives. It’s not a capitalist thing. Other systems had incentives such as, get it running by such and such date or have yourself and relatives sent to inhospitable place. So people rushed flawed designs into production. That said, upper management at Boeing needs a shake-up. People need to get fired. They need to do what Intel is trying and that is to get more engineers in charge, or at least grant them veto power on designs.
- acdha 3y ago> All major economic systems of all major national economies over the last century have perverse incentives. It’s not a capitalist thing. It should be a lesson against dogmatic pursuit of absolutes: capitalism comes in a wide range of flavors, and the worst is if it’s completely unrestrained. Communism produced worse and worse results the further it got from any sort of public accountability, etc. The two problems that I see is that the concept of nuance is somewhat at odds with having a simple concept to teach kids at school, and there’s always a group which is more motivated to game the system than the average person who really just wants to hang out with their friends, raise a family, etc. rather than play political games. Boeing didn’t start it by any means but they’ve benefited enormously from decades of reduced oversight and elevated pay driven by a sort of cartoon libertarianism where letting people get enormously rich will motivate them to build great things unfettered by “red tape”.
- mschuster91 3y ago> All major economic systems of all major national economies over the last century have perverse incentives. It’s not a capitalist thing. They have, but post-Thatcher neoliberal capitalism has taken the existing perverse incentives and made them exponentially worse. We're on a course heading straight to feudalism, just with fancy titles with legal rights replaced by economic might.