3 ms·

>> There are far too many documented instances of it actually working to call it a fantasy. Markets are a tool which can work extremely well if deployed carefu

>> There are far too many documented instances of it actually working to call it a fantasy. Markets are a tool which can work extremely well if deployed carefully and within a sensible regulatory framework. Given that the world CO2 level keeps rising, we can't eat fish because of heavy metals and we all have forever microplastics in us, I think it's fair to question some of our assumptions. >> Markets aren't expected to account for externalities. Externalities are the things you're supposed to tax. Agreed - however taxing externalities doesn't seem to be working out in practice (in the US). >> You're describing regulatory capture. This is why governments are supposed to have limited powers. Wealth inequality can rise without regulatory capture. Government is not the source of all evil. Smaller govenrment would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power within the private sector. We need a balanced system, not blind devotion. >> Markets are actually pretty good at providing all of those things... The real problem here is that some people can't afford those thing So can the market provide those things or not? Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
> Given that the world CO2 level keeps rising, we can't eat fish because of heavy metals and we all have forever microplastics in us, I think it's fair to question some of our assumptions. "Idiots will dump mercury in the river if you let them" is one of the assumptions. > Agreed - however taxing externalities doesn't seem to be working out in practice (in the US). It doesn't work if you don't actually do it. But notice the important distinction between "carbon tax which is fully refunded to the population as a divided" and "tax things that aren't carbon to subsidize cronies who waste money on questionable hydrogen cars and ineffective carbon capture nonsense." > Wealth inequality can rise without regulatory capture. It's mostly regulatory capture. The primary driver of wealth inequality is corporate entity size. The billionaires are the early shareholders in megacorps. The main exception is corporations violating antitrust laws, but this is still a form of regulatory capture, i.e. capturing the government to enforce contracts in restraint of trade when the government ought not to be doing that. > So can the market provide those things or not? Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. You don't have to be uber-wealthy to afford school. Most of what pays for public schools is the taxes paid by the parents of the students. Where this doesn't work is for the poorest or orphans etc., and this was traditionally handled through charity and scholarships. Ironically things government policies have been decimating by propping up real estate costs so high people can't afford space to have private community organizations, taking the money they could have donated to charity as taxes and spending it on boondoggles and military adventurism and otherwise encouraging people to rely on national governments rather than local communities.
WalterBright 1y ago
Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created. The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being created rather than shifted around. > Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. Educational materials abound in this country, even for free. For example, I took some MIT courses that were on youtube, for free. I found my college textbook "Special Relativity" at a book sale for $.50. SAT prep books are available free at the library, and are often at thrift stores for a couple bucks. It's never been easier to get educated.
- kaishiro 1y ago
  Speaking as someone who has been both a technical interviewer and an interviewee many times over the past 30 years, I find it a bit disingenuous to compare second hand bookstores to a formal primary or secondary education when it comes to their application in an active job market.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    There's the Khan Academy, too. Apparently a lot of home schoolers rely on it, and it is used by students who need extra help. It's true that what I wrote about is not formal education, but it is education nevertheless and freely available.
- zelphirkalt 1y ago
  It is not only about learning material being available. It is also about live circumstances of people. Think about when you are doing your learning. When do you have opportunity to learn. Think about what other people might be doing at that time, that prevents them from learning. Think about the mental framework you have, that enables you to learn and that others might not have. Many times when I see some idle shop keeper wasting their time at candy crush on their phone, I think something like: "Oh my, stop wasting your time! You could read something interesting or even learn a whole new subject!" But then I remind myself from what a position I am thinking these thoughts. From what kind of knowledge and background. Could people start using their time better? Sure. But it will be damn hard for them, in contrast to probably many people here, including yourself, and we should not forget that. What's more is, that even if those people learned a lot about some subject, let's say even computer programming, there is no accreditation for them. Where can they go, to claim certificates or whatever, for their new knowledge, to get any chance of employment?
try_the_bass 1y ago
> Wealth inequality can rise without regulatory capture. Government is not the source of all evil. Smaller govenrment would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power within the private sector. We need a balanced system, not blind devotion. But there's the problem: The person you're replying to clearly thinks there's too much government. You seem to think there's not enough. If I had to pick a side of this to bet on, I would bet on it being "too much" rather than "too little" at this point, simply because in the trend has been for the US government to get larger over time, not smaller. The bigger it gets, the less likely it is that it's "not big enough". I understand that the responsibilities we've delegated to the government continue to increase in complexity, but complexity drives exponential growth, which I would also weigh against the "there's not enough government" argument. Also I'm really not convinced by the argument that "smaller government would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power". I think we agree that wealth is becoming increasingly more concentrated--but so too is the size of the government. There's simply more direct evidence that wealth concentration grows as government complexity grows, at least in the US, because that's literally what appears to be happening! I would wager that if I look into relative size of a country's government and its concentration on wealth, I'd find that they're not terribly correlated; or if they are, that the data indicates that increasingly government complexity drives increasingly wealth concentration. But I don't have a lot of confidence in that wager! But I also certainly don't buy the naive "markets fix everything" argument, either. People love to game markets, and if they're not controlled in some fashion, fraud tends to win out every time. Just look at crypto!
- vladms 1y ago
  Too generic terms become an issue at some point. "Government" and "market" are not one thing that you can easily measure to "big" or "small" or "good" or "bad". To make a technical parallel can we really say "C is good, Java is bad"? I think focus should be much more on discussing actual policies and their impact - which can become quite complex - rather than stamp everything with "more/less government/market" and then use the predefined belief that one or the other is good. I personally favor various policies, and I can't put all of them at the same time in a box with a label of "more government" or "less government".

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

> Given that the world CO2 level keeps rising, we can't eat fish because of heavy metals and we all have forever microplastics in us, I think it's fair to question some of our assumptions. "Idiots will dump mercury in the river if you let them" is one of the assumptions. > Agreed - however taxing externalities doesn't seem to be working out in practice (in the US). It doesn't work if you don't actually do it. But notice the important distinction between "carbon tax which is fully refunded to the population as a divided" and "tax things that aren't carbon to subsidize cronies who waste money on questionable hydrogen cars and ineffective carbon capture nonsense." > Wealth inequality can rise without regulatory capture. It's mostly regulatory capture. The primary driver of wealth inequality is corporate entity size. The billionaires are the early shareholders in megacorps. The main exception is corporations violating antitrust laws, but this is still a form of regulatory capture, i.e. capturing the government to enforce contracts in restraint of trade when the government ought not to be doing that. > So can the market provide those things or not? Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. You don't have to be uber-wealthy to afford school. Most of what pays for public schools is the taxes paid by the parents of the students. Where this doesn't work is for the poorest or orphans etc., and this was traditionally handled through charity and scholarships. Ironically things government policies have been decimating by propping up real estate costs so high people can't afford space to have private community organizations, taking the money they could have donated to charity as taxes and spending it on boondoggles and military adventurism and otherwise encouraging people to rely on national governments rather than local communities.

WalterBright 1y ago

Wealth in a free market is not "concentrated", it is created. The total wealth in a free market country rises, which can only be explained by wealth being created rather than shifted around. > Clearly we want everyone to have an education not just the uber wealthy. Educational materials abound in this country, even for free. For example, I took some MIT courses that were on youtube, for free. I found my college textbook "Special Relativity" at a book sale for $.50. SAT prep books are available free at the library, and are often at thrift stores for a couple bucks. It's never been easier to get educated.

kaishiro 1y ago
Speaking as someone who has been both a technical interviewer and an interviewee many times over the past 30 years, I find it a bit disingenuous to compare second hand bookstores to a formal primary or secondary education when it comes to their application in an active job market.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  There's the Khan Academy, too. Apparently a lot of home schoolers rely on it, and it is used by students who need extra help. It's true that what I wrote about is not formal education, but it is education nevertheless and freely available.
zelphirkalt 1y ago
It is not only about learning material being available. It is also about live circumstances of people. Think about when you are doing your learning. When do you have opportunity to learn. Think about what other people might be doing at that time, that prevents them from learning. Think about the mental framework you have, that enables you to learn and that others might not have. Many times when I see some idle shop keeper wasting their time at candy crush on their phone, I think something like: "Oh my, stop wasting your time! You could read something interesting or even learn a whole new subject!" But then I remind myself from what a position I am thinking these thoughts. From what kind of knowledge and background. Could people start using their time better? Sure. But it will be damn hard for them, in contrast to probably many people here, including yourself, and we should not forget that. What's more is, that even if those people learned a lot about some subject, let's say even computer programming, there is no accreditation for them. Where can they go, to claim certificates or whatever, for their new knowledge, to get any chance of employment?

try_the_bass 1y ago

> Wealth inequality can rise without regulatory capture. Government is not the source of all evil. Smaller govenrment would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power within the private sector. We need a balanced system, not blind devotion. But there's the problem: The person you're replying to clearly thinks there's too much government. You seem to think there's not enough. If I had to pick a side of this to bet on, I would bet on it being "too much" rather than "too little" at this point, simply because in the trend has been for the US government to get larger over time, not smaller. The bigger it gets, the less likely it is that it's "not big enough". I understand that the responsibilities we've delegated to the government continue to increase in complexity, but complexity drives exponential growth, which I would also weigh against the "there's not enough government" argument. Also I'm really not convinced by the argument that "smaller government would just lead to further concentration of wealth and power". I think we agree that wealth is becoming increasingly more concentrated--but so too is the size of the government. There's simply more direct evidence that wealth concentration grows as government complexity grows, at least in the US, because that's literally what appears to be happening! I would wager that if I look into relative size of a country's government and its concentration on wealth, I'd find that they're not terribly correlated; or if they are, that the data indicates that increasingly government complexity drives increasingly wealth concentration. But I don't have a lot of confidence in that wager! But I also certainly don't buy the naive "markets fix everything" argument, either. People love to game markets, and if they're not controlled in some fashion, fraud tends to win out every time. Just look at crypto!

vladms 1y ago
Too generic terms become an issue at some point. "Government" and "market" are not one thing that you can easily measure to "big" or "small" or "good" or "bad". To make a technical parallel can we really say "C is good, Java is bad"? I think focus should be much more on discussing actual policies and their impact - which can become quite complex - rather than stamp everything with "more/less government/market" and then use the predefined belief that one or the other is good. I personally favor various policies, and I can't put all of them at the same time in a box with a label of "more government" or "less government".