3 ms·

This creates an extremely obvious conflict of interest.

pavlov 2y ago
The conflict of interest is simply dead and forgotten in an era where the president-elect has his own cryptocoin, his own social media company, and appoints his billionaire supporters to improve efficiency in the parts of government that directly oversee those billionaires’ own businesses.
- xpe 2y ago
  Yes, political corruption is a drag/loss on everyone except the corrupt ones. Worse, it can shift a system out of its viable operating zone. Corrupt individuals in a market can destroy the market. But what is the connection to the parent comment? No matter how corrupt one part of government or a market becomes, it doesn’t excuse further corruption. If anything, more corruption makes additional corruption more likely to break the whole system.
  - BeefWellington 2y ago
    I think it's reasonably straightforward they were making the point that conflict of interests are no longer taken seriously, along with many other related things. Politics tends to be a trailer of social views, not a leader.
  - svnt 2y ago
    The connection is that the conflict of interest being discussed was only ever a social/ethical contract. That social contract is in the bin right now, so the question is moot.
    - xpe 2y ago
      Individuals who voted for Trump don’t necessarily want to throw away a social contract. Many of them do support societal norms, albeit different ones. And some don’t even think in these terms; they are more motivated by other factors. Along with many, I think their collective actions point in a direction that (a) undermines democratic rule and (b) enables Trump’s corruption, but they seem to be relatively unaware or disagree with such effects. Many of them think Trump will combat one some types of corruption (the “deep state”). Overall, I’m more inclined to think many/most Trump supporters have reasonable core values, especially at the individual and family levels, but due to their information sources and mental processing, their overall choices don’t bode well for us, together. The biggest breakdown I think has to do with epistemic values: how does one find truth. I don’t think most people, of any party, have the individual ability and discipline to make sense of a modern world in a rational, scientific manner. This isn’t something easily achieved, after all. About me: I strive to not “blame” individuals in the traditional sense, because I reject free will as a meaningful concept. (Roll back the clock and a person will the behave the same in a deterministic universe. And if the universe has intrinsic randomness, we can’t ascribe free will to that randomness.) So instead of blaming individuals, I focus on systems and their statistical effects.
      - svnt 2y ago
        I don’t think I made the assertion that anyone wants to throw away a social contract. I said it was in the bin — it has been thrown away, and not by recent Trump voters, but it started long before that, maybe when ethics became something you didn’t learn until or unless you went through a professional program. Having talked with a few religious Trump voters that I consider intelligent, they have a larger picture of the world, whereas I think a lot of Harris voters (being vaguely irreligious/atheist) are implicitly making the USA their whole world. Trump voters do not see the risk the same way, and have faith elsewhere. For many Harris voters this was an existential issue. That all said, those Trump voters I spoke with still seemed apologetic. However it came about, there clearly is a misalignment in the stated social values world, and that is why that social contract doesn’t exist anymore. Whether that is because family forces, or tribal forces, or identity forces, or something else carried the day instead, well, maybe the future historians can sort out.
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
        xpe 2y ago
        Two key points, which we probably agree on: (A) There are various flavors of social contracts. (B) Acceptance of any one social contract is a statistical thing, not a binary thing. The most basic idea of a social contract is the legitimacy of a government to exist and function. This might mean to carry out various agreed-upon roles. And/or it might mean to operate according to some defined procedures, like the rule of law. The vast majority of people either consciously accept this or live as though they do. Of course there is variation on the proper role of government: does it include national defense, maintaining order, creating fair markets, collecting taxes, protecting civil liberties, internalizing economic externalities, investing in R&D, providing a healthcare floor, fighting corruption, etc?
xpe 2y ago
We need to define conflict of interest. Question: is an investor who gives money to one organization, but is not involved in the decision-making, conflicted if they give money to another organization? Are they self-conflicted (undermining their own likelihood of success)? Are they contractually or legally conflicted? Have they breached the trust of people they invested in? Are they ethically conflicted? Answers to these questions are non-obvious. Attempts to simplify the set of relevant questions means imposing a worldview. On the ethical question, a consequentialist would say it depends on the outcomes. Like many consequentialist analyses, this is complicated. Consider this: Investing in a similar company might validate the market and make it more likely for the company and/or its people to reach viability.
Suppafly 2y ago
>This creates an extremely obvious conflict of interest. That's not necessarily bad though. People like to throw out these terms that sometimes have negative connotation as if they are inherently negative. If you think the conflict of interest is a bad thing, you need to elaborate on why you feel it's bad, not just pretend it's prima facia bad.
edm0nd 2y ago
but two horses can still win though. One can come in first and the other come in second. That's two wins.
ethagknight 2y ago
It’s not a marriage. Have you ever watched any racing of any sort? One team frequently has multiple contestants. First and third is better than just third.

The conflict of interest is simply dead and forgotten in an era where the president-elect has his own cryptocoin, his own social media company, and appoints his billionaire supporters to improve efficiency in the parts of government that directly oversee those billionaires’ own businesses.

xpe 2y ago
Yes, political corruption is a drag/loss on everyone except the corrupt ones. Worse, it can shift a system out of its viable operating zone. Corrupt individuals in a market can destroy the market. But what is the connection to the parent comment? No matter how corrupt one part of government or a market becomes, it doesn’t excuse further corruption. If anything, more corruption makes additional corruption more likely to break the whole system.
- BeefWellington 2y ago
  I think it's reasonably straightforward they were making the point that conflict of interests are no longer taken seriously, along with many other related things. Politics tends to be a trailer of social views, not a leader.
- svnt 2y ago
  The connection is that the conflict of interest being discussed was only ever a social/ethical contract. That social contract is in the bin right now, so the question is moot.
  - xpe 2y ago
    Individuals who voted for Trump don’t necessarily want to throw away a social contract. Many of them do support societal norms, albeit different ones. And some don’t even think in these terms; they are more motivated by other factors. Along with many, I think their collective actions point in a direction that (a) undermines democratic rule and (b) enables Trump’s corruption, but they seem to be relatively unaware or disagree with such effects. Many of them think Trump will combat one some types of corruption (the “deep state”). Overall, I’m more inclined to think many/most Trump supporters have reasonable core values, especially at the individual and family levels, but due to their information sources and mental processing, their overall choices don’t bode well for us, together. The biggest breakdown I think has to do with epistemic values: how does one find truth. I don’t think most people, of any party, have the individual ability and discipline to make sense of a modern world in a rational, scientific manner. This isn’t something easily achieved, after all. About me: I strive to not “blame” individuals in the traditional sense, because I reject free will as a meaningful concept. (Roll back the clock and a person will the behave the same in a deterministic universe. And if the universe has intrinsic randomness, we can’t ascribe free will to that randomness.) So instead of blaming individuals, I focus on systems and their statistical effects.
    - svnt 2y ago
      I don’t think I made the assertion that anyone wants to throw away a social contract. I said it was in the bin — it has been thrown away, and not by recent Trump voters, but it started long before that, maybe when ethics became something you didn’t learn until or unless you went through a professional program. Having talked with a few religious Trump voters that I consider intelligent, they have a larger picture of the world, whereas I think a lot of Harris voters (being vaguely irreligious/atheist) are implicitly making the USA their whole world. Trump voters do not see the risk the same way, and have faith elsewhere. For many Harris voters this was an existential issue. That all said, those Trump voters I spoke with still seemed apologetic. However it came about, there clearly is a misalignment in the stated social values world, and that is why that social contract doesn’t exist anymore. Whether that is because family forces, or tribal forces, or identity forces, or something else carried the day instead, well, maybe the future historians can sort out.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - xpe 2y ago
        Two key points, which we probably agree on: (A) There are various flavors of social contracts. (B) Acceptance of any one social contract is a statistical thing, not a binary thing. The most basic idea of a social contract is the legitimacy of a government to exist and function. This might mean to carry out various agreed-upon roles. And/or it might mean to operate according to some defined procedures, like the rule of law. The vast majority of people either consciously accept this or live as though they do. Of course there is variation on the proper role of government: does it include national defense, maintaining order, creating fair markets, collecting taxes, protecting civil liberties, internalizing economic externalities, investing in R&D, providing a healthcare floor, fighting corruption, etc?

xpe 2y ago

We need to define conflict of interest. Question: is an investor who gives money to one organization, but is not involved in the decision-making, conflicted if they give money to another organization? Are they self-conflicted (undermining their own likelihood of success)? Are they contractually or legally conflicted? Have they breached the trust of people they invested in? Are they ethically conflicted? Answers to these questions are non-obvious. Attempts to simplify the set of relevant questions means imposing a worldview. On the ethical question, a consequentialist would say it depends on the outcomes. Like many consequentialist analyses, this is complicated. Consider this: Investing in a similar company might validate the market and make it more likely for the company and/or its people to reach viability.

Suppafly 2y ago

>This creates an extremely obvious conflict of interest. That's not necessarily bad though. People like to throw out these terms that sometimes have negative connotation as if they are inherently negative. If you think the conflict of interest is a bad thing, you need to elaborate on why you feel it's bad, not just pretend it's prima facia bad.

edm0nd 2y ago

but two horses can still win though. One can come in first and the other come in second. That's two wins.

ethagknight 2y ago

It’s not a marriage. Have you ever watched any racing of any sort? One team frequently has multiple contestants. First and third is better than just third.