4 ms·

I have a theory that echoes the surprising premise of the well known HN-famous article "The optimum amount of fraud is not zero" that states "The optimum amount

I have a theory that echoes the surprising premise of the well known HN-famous article "The optimum amount of fraud is not zero" that states "The optimum amount of poverty, to governments, is not zero." It seems to me that if governments deliver too well for their citizens, if the citizens because too wealthy, if they are too well off, then they will begin to demand even more. This would cause problems for governments, problems that also include the citizens having power and sight to realize the abundant shortcomings of their governments, and the means to do away with them for something that works "better". So my theory is that the stable system of "liberal democracies" seeks an equilibrium position of "not too much abundance" in order to preserve itself. Just a theory, I'm not a historian and don't know any historical smoking-guns for this - besides the experience that governments seem to not deliver excellence, even when they could, and instead focus on policies that are often surprisingly ineffective. I don't discount incompetence, but I like to have at least one alternate theory. Moreover, incompetence is not "constructive" in that it doesn't let you actually design a solution or understand the problem. It provides no real insight. It is, therefore, the kind of explanation that governments intent of continuing to deliver under-adundance would probably want you to believe in place of what my theory proposes is the truth. I'm sure some political-economists could comment on this - as long as they are sufficiently lacking in woke to retain their critical skills.

Gareth321 2y ago
It's not a crazy theory but I wouldn't ascribe consciousness to it. It's probably more of an accident. It echoes the fact that 0% unemployment is also bad, because then no one would be available to take jobs, and all jobs would have to poach, massively increasing costs and crippling the economy. Of course no politician would ever run on a platform of, "make more people unemployed!" We are seeing some of the consequences of abundance now with the FIRE movement. Many people in the U.S. are able to retire early. That's great for them, but a society with too few people working quickly runs in to labour issues. My pet theory on this revolves around the G. Michael Hopf quote: "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times". When society is too comfortable and the average person experiences too few challenges, they become weak. Physically but particularly mentally. They lose touch with those truly in need. They even begin to secretly despise them. They adopt bourgeoise values and policies which are quite detrimental to society but feel good to declare. Toxic empathy is associated with this. People end up voting for bad policies which lead to worse times. Human societies appear to like to repeat this cycle.
- keepamovin 2y ago
  Thank you! So, basically a feedback cycle of good times leading to bad policy via bourgeois corruption prevents society ever experiencing higher abundance - which, in some forms, is anyway detrimental by increasing labor costs?
dennis_jeeves2 2y ago
>Just a theory, As far as I'm concerned it's (almost) fact. Like the other person who respond to your post, there is also an accidental aspect to it.
robertlagrant 2y ago
> I have a theory that echoes the surprising premise of the well known HN-famous article "The optimum amount of fraud is not zero" that states "The optimum amount of poverty, to governments, is not zero." > It seems to me that if governments deliver too well for their citizens, if the citizens because too wealthy, if they are too well off, then they will begin to demand even more. The more fundamental question is: what is poverty? 100 years ago the answer would be very different to today. The definition of poverty itself is what keeps poverty alive, as it continues to increase to keep up with new products and services that are available.

Gareth321 2y ago

It's not a crazy theory but I wouldn't ascribe consciousness to it. It's probably more of an accident. It echoes the fact that 0% unemployment is also bad, because then no one would be available to take jobs, and all jobs would have to poach, massively increasing costs and crippling the economy. Of course no politician would ever run on a platform of, "make more people unemployed!" We are seeing some of the consequences of abundance now with the FIRE movement. Many people in the U.S. are able to retire early. That's great for them, but a society with too few people working quickly runs in to labour issues. My pet theory on this revolves around the G. Michael Hopf quote: "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times". When society is too comfortable and the average person experiences too few challenges, they become weak. Physically but particularly mentally. They lose touch with those truly in need. They even begin to secretly despise them. They adopt bourgeoise values and policies which are quite detrimental to society but feel good to declare. Toxic empathy is associated with this. People end up voting for bad policies which lead to worse times. Human societies appear to like to repeat this cycle.

keepamovin 2y ago
Thank you! So, basically a feedback cycle of good times leading to bad policy via bourgeois corruption prevents society ever experiencing higher abundance - which, in some forms, is anyway detrimental by increasing labor costs?

dennis_jeeves2 2y ago

>Just a theory, As far as I'm concerned it's (almost) fact. Like the other person who respond to your post, there is also an accidental aspect to it.

robertlagrant 2y ago

> I have a theory that echoes the surprising premise of the well known HN-famous article "The optimum amount of fraud is not zero" that states "The optimum amount of poverty, to governments, is not zero." > It seems to me that if governments deliver too well for their citizens, if the citizens because too wealthy, if they are too well off, then they will begin to demand even more. The more fundamental question is: what is poverty? 100 years ago the answer would be very different to today. The definition of poverty itself is what keeps poverty alive, as it continues to increase to keep up with new products and services that are available.