4 ms·

> re-organized based on rewarding people that do the most to improve the planet and average quality of life Any centralized human attempt to do this has genera

> re-organized based on rewarding people that do the most to improve the planet and average quality of life Any centralized human attempt to do this has generally been a disaster, and a capitalist would argue that markets are you best shot at doing this.

donmcronald 3y ago
I would tend to agree. Oust was probably too strong of a word. It's not something you can enforce, because corruption would ruin it eventually. I'm not some luddite, and I think people should be able to get rich enough to never have to worry about money if they contribute something that increases overall global productivity by a lot more than the average person, so capitalism is probably the only realistic way to do that. Where it breaks for me is that I don't think anyone should get rewarded to the point where they're a billionaire. For example, when I estimate the human cost of a $500 million yacht, I think of it as 10k+ lifetimes of work and consider it a misuse of resources. That labor should be directed somewhere else and no one should have enough money and power to "waste" it on something as superfluous as a yacht. What I really meant is that we need changes in attitudes and education. Instead of viewing the current tech leaders as geniuses for aggregating users, limiting (or eliminating) choice, and charging for access to users, which is a cost that gets passed to those users, we need the average person to understand the damage done in terms of lost innovation, increased prices, and wasted labor. I think teaching financial literacy in schools would help a lot. People just don't understand how badly they're getting ripped off IMO.
- zx8080 3y ago
  > financial literacy Good point. But not a silver bullet: if taught badly, it only helps involving people into shady financial pyramid schemes.
babypuncher 3y ago
There's a middle ground, where we use free market effects to encourage competition and bolster progress, while not letting monopolies and other progress-stifling mechanisms take form. You can have all the benefits of a free market without also letting someone like Google have the kind of control over the internet that they do.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
crabbone 3y ago
> capitalist would argue that markets are you best shot at doing this. That's predicated on anti-monopoly laws and other kinds of fairness requirements that are imposed on the market from the outside. Markets, or capitalism, if you want, work best when there are some things in infinite supply (eg. consumers), when marketing is honest... whoops! And so on. Regulations is what's preventing (free-market) capitalism from imploding. But, of course, it's hard to make good rules, and especially durable rules (because people learn to game the system).
- aleph_minus_one 3y ago
  > when marketing is honest... whoops! Laws against fraud are there. They just have to be enforced.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    They need to have actual teeth, as well. Otherwise, you get things like Facebook just shrugging off a $5 billion fine and then going on to do more of the exact same things that lead to the fine. https://www.scmagazine.com/news/ftc-facebook-broke-terms-5b-data-privacy-settlement https://www.scmagazine.com/news/ftc-facebook-broke-terms-5b-...
  - crabbone 3y ago
    Well, that's my point: you need regulations!
jamilton 3y ago
A capitalist would argue that, but they would probably be wrong, given massive long-running "market failures" in improving the planet and average quality of life on global and local scales despite reasonably free markets. Markets being efficient doesn't imply positive outcomes/externalities. I could definitely see there being trade-offs, like non-market solutions resulting in negatives but still overall improving on those particular axes, but I find it unlikely that markets are the best possible strategy.

donmcronald 3y ago

I would tend to agree. Oust was probably too strong of a word. It's not something you can enforce, because corruption would ruin it eventually. I'm not some luddite, and I think people should be able to get rich enough to never have to worry about money if they contribute something that increases overall global productivity by a lot more than the average person, so capitalism is probably the only realistic way to do that. Where it breaks for me is that I don't think anyone should get rewarded to the point where they're a billionaire. For example, when I estimate the human cost of a $500 million yacht, I think of it as 10k+ lifetimes of work and consider it a misuse of resources. That labor should be directed somewhere else and no one should have enough money and power to "waste" it on something as superfluous as a yacht. What I really meant is that we need changes in attitudes and education. Instead of viewing the current tech leaders as geniuses for aggregating users, limiting (or eliminating) choice, and charging for access to users, which is a cost that gets passed to those users, we need the average person to understand the damage done in terms of lost innovation, increased prices, and wasted labor. I think teaching financial literacy in schools would help a lot. People just don't understand how badly they're getting ripped off IMO.

zx8080 3y ago
> financial literacy Good point. But not a silver bullet: if taught badly, it only helps involving people into shady financial pyramid schemes.

babypuncher 3y ago

There's a middle ground, where we use free market effects to encourage competition and bolster progress, while not letting monopolies and other progress-stifling mechanisms take form. You can have all the benefits of a free market without also letting someone like Google have the kind of control over the internet that they do.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

crabbone 3y ago

> capitalist would argue that markets are you best shot at doing this. That's predicated on anti-monopoly laws and other kinds of fairness requirements that are imposed on the market from the outside. Markets, or capitalism, if you want, work best when there are some things in infinite supply (eg. consumers), when marketing is honest... whoops! And so on. Regulations is what's preventing (free-market) capitalism from imploding. But, of course, it's hard to make good rules, and especially durable rules (because people learn to game the system).

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> when marketing is honest... whoops! Laws against fraud are there. They just have to be enforced.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  They need to have actual teeth, as well. Otherwise, you get things like Facebook just shrugging off a $5 billion fine and then going on to do more of the exact same things that lead to the fine. https://www.scmagazine.com/news/ftc-facebook-broke-terms-5b-data-privacy-settlement https://www.scmagazine.com/news/ftc-facebook-broke-terms-5b-...
- crabbone 3y ago
  Well, that's my point: you need regulations!

jamilton 3y ago

A capitalist would argue that, but they would probably be wrong, given massive long-running "market failures" in improving the planet and average quality of life on global and local scales despite reasonably free markets. Markets being efficient doesn't imply positive outcomes/externalities. I could definitely see there being trade-offs, like non-market solutions resulting in negatives but still overall improving on those particular axes, but I find it unlikely that markets are the best possible strategy.