5 ms·

That's too disruptive, and there's too high a chance of unintended consequences. Instead of that what you'll see is a 'we'll kill this multi-billion dollar indu

That's too disruptive, and there's too high a chance of unintended consequences. Instead of that what you'll see is a 'we'll kill this multi-billion dollar industry over the course of the next 30 years'

mrfox321 2y ago
China does this, for better or for worse.
- alephnerd 2y ago
  Not really. Entrenched and connected types tend to exit industries before the gavel hits, and enforcement from the CCDI isn't impartial, with plenty of bribery to remain off their radar. Truly Schumpterian creative destruction is good in a vacuum, but reality isn't a vacuum.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  They are not a supportive example, their one child policy doomed their demographics and future economic growth.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    They stopped the one child policy nine years ago; they had it in the first place because demographic projections had them severely overpopulated if they didn't. During the period in which it was active, their GDP increased by a factor of about 62. Not percentage, multiple.
    - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
      They reversed the policy too late. Their rapid growth was them seizing the low hanging fruit upgrading from a country of almost entirely peasants to slightly fewer peasants, all funded by Western greed. Those gains will never happen again.
advael 2y ago
With all due respect, fuck that. We do disruptive stuff with unintended consequences for millions of people as a matter of policy all the time, and the idea that it'll disrupt some finance goons' ponzi scheme does not bother me
- halfcat 2y ago
  > some finance goons' ponzi scheme If you mean banks, there’s the problem that “let it die” often translates to “shift the obligation”, which typically gets shifted to the tax payers, either in plain sight after a bailout, or under the table by devaluing the currency (basically taxation without having to say it).
- freshtake 2y ago
  This is the problem with a ton of policy thinking. The idea that we can solve a problem of this magnitude with disruption, and somehow prevent market forces from reacting, is incredibly short sighted. It's incredibly expensive to run a university, and many people feel entitled to attend any university they can get into (not a bad thing, btw), but you can't suddenly erase the bill without drastically cutting costs, changing supply/demand, or otherwise altering the economics first. The college level education system in the US employs almost 3.8 million people. Decisions here absolutely affect their employment, tax rates, employment rates, bank loans, financial industry solvency, etc. This problem is incredibly far away from the space of YOLO tactics.
- WorkerBee28474 2y ago
  > We do disruptive stuff with unintended consequences for millions of people as a matter of policy all the time And many, many of the outcomes of that are bad

mrfox321 2y ago

China does this, for better or for worse.

alephnerd 2y ago
Not really. Entrenched and connected types tend to exit industries before the gavel hits, and enforcement from the CCDI isn't impartial, with plenty of bribery to remain off their radar. Truly Schumpterian creative destruction is good in a vacuum, but reality isn't a vacuum.
daedrdev 2y ago
They are not a supportive example, their one child policy doomed their demographics and future economic growth.
- ben_w 2y ago
  They stopped the one child policy nine years ago; they had it in the first place because demographic projections had them severely overpopulated if they didn't. During the period in which it was active, their GDP increased by a factor of about 62. Not percentage, multiple.
  - kevin_thibedeau 2y ago
    They reversed the policy too late. Their rapid growth was them seizing the low hanging fruit upgrading from a country of almost entirely peasants to slightly fewer peasants, all funded by Western greed. Those gains will never happen again.

advael 2y ago

With all due respect, fuck that. We do disruptive stuff with unintended consequences for millions of people as a matter of policy all the time, and the idea that it'll disrupt some finance goons' ponzi scheme does not bother me

halfcat 2y ago
> some finance goons' ponzi scheme If you mean banks, there’s the problem that “let it die” often translates to “shift the obligation”, which typically gets shifted to the tax payers, either in plain sight after a bailout, or under the table by devaluing the currency (basically taxation without having to say it).
freshtake 2y ago
This is the problem with a ton of policy thinking. The idea that we can solve a problem of this magnitude with disruption, and somehow prevent market forces from reacting, is incredibly short sighted. It's incredibly expensive to run a university, and many people feel entitled to attend any university they can get into (not a bad thing, btw), but you can't suddenly erase the bill without drastically cutting costs, changing supply/demand, or otherwise altering the economics first. The college level education system in the US employs almost 3.8 million people. Decisions here absolutely affect their employment, tax rates, employment rates, bank loans, financial industry solvency, etc. This problem is incredibly far away from the space of YOLO tactics.
WorkerBee28474 2y ago
> We do disruptive stuff with unintended consequences for millions of people as a matter of policy all the time And many, many of the outcomes of that are bad