4 ms·

I have to wonder how much of that article is LLM generated. I'm pretty sure the exact same info could have been conveyed in 1/4 the number of words. I found it

by johnea 1y ago

I have to wonder how much of that article is LLM generated. I'm pretty sure the exact same info could have been conveyed in 1/4 the number of words. I found it impossible to read the whole thing, word for word, and was seriously skimming by the end. Very low information density. It really seems aimed at people who order McDonalds via DoorDash, neither company from which I would ever buy anything. Who actually wants to eat that sh1t? And like all "the market is magical" puff pieces, it bases it's conclusions on dream state theory with no accommodation of actual human involvement. One example is the complete avoidance of anything inferring wealth's "third option". When responding to "the network treats any censorship as damage, and reroutes", entrenched capital always has the third option: when a threat to profit can't be overcome by first ignoring it, and second by actively trying to crush it, it can always be defeated with the third option, by simply acquiring it. FacePlant bought InstaGram, Goggle bought youtube, M$ bought github and linkedin. The ultimate veto power of the third option is evident all around us. And like the vacuous market theory that claims "market competition solves all problems", major capital entities hate competition, and take any step necessary to eliminate it. Since most startups fail, the first option is simply to wait for the problem to go away. When that doesn't work, active opposition often solves the problem. But when all else fails, buy it. As a development engineer over decades, I often cited the theory vs reality maxim: The main difference between theory and reality, is that in theory they're the same, but in reality they're not. This applies doubly to economic theory...

jack_h 1y ago
> And like the vacuous market theory that claims "market competition solves all problems" I'm not aware of any market theory that makes such a claim. Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" as referenced at the beginning of this essay certainly doesn't claim this. What Hayek claims is that a centralized economic approach can't allocate resources more efficiently than a decentralized market because the information required for central planners is too vast, changes too quickly, and is too dispersed across individuals. This is not the same as saying that a free market is perfect or solves all problems, it's just the most practicable system we know of currently. The main point the article seems to be making is that there's a new form of control operating through decentralized algorithms that subtly but pervasively shape tastes and behaviors. These algorithms, rather than traditional institutions, are becoming the mechanisms of social order. Future political battlegrounds may be fought over these methods of control. I could be wrong about the main takeaway as it was a long article, but I didn't read it as being a "market is magical puff piece".
- johnea 1y ago
  > allocate resources more efficiently More efficiently for whom? "Efficient" in what way? The extent to which a thing is "efficient" or "optimal" is entirely based on a desired outcome being comparing to actual outcomes. All magical market theory is completely silent on the desired outcome or who would be the beneficiary... The hyperbolic paraphrasing "market competition solves all problems", is for the purpose of pointing out that making a few of the richest people much richer, while impoverishing the rest of the world's population, may be "most efficient", but it's not really helping make the world a better place to live, even for the most wealthy...
  - sebastos 1y ago
    This is a pet peeve. Everyone has learned this meme that “economics is dumb”, and now people assume that the most basic difficulties they can imagine are probably valid criticisms. Modern economics has limitations, but they’re not so simplistic and obvious as the ones you’re raising. The problem isn’t that magical market theory takes an average and determines we’re all better off because we all got poorer and one guy got way richer. But it might say that we’re all better off if everybody DID get richer, but one guy got _extra_ rich. That we still might object to the latter situation is a valid concern, but it’s a very different level of oversight on the part of the economist. Another one that comes up is that people seem to think that because the consumer is assumed to be ‘rational’, this implies that the economist is imagining people as unfeeling automatons incapable of valuing experiences over material wealth. When really it’s more like “if I offer you two paid vacation options for the same price, you will choose the one you prefer”. Even that, it turns out, is inaccurate and incomplete - but it’s a much more defensible simplification.
    - johnea 1y ago
      I'm too old for memes. I'm sure you've heard of GDP, it's pretty much exactly what you say the market theories are not about... When in fact, GDP is the most common metric used to illustrate economic health. WRT theories of the "rational consumer", no memes are required, an entire field of modern economics is dedicated to debunking this assumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics Outside of all of that, both previous rebukes to my comment fail to address the main point, the majority of people are not better off even given massive economic growth of recent decades. > FacePlant bought InstaGram, Goggle bought youtube, M$ bought github and linkedin. > The ultimate veto power of the third option is evident all around us. ... > The main difference between theory and reality, is that in theory they're the same, but in reality they're not. > This applies doubly to economic theory... Economic theory is based on assumptions of human behaviour. This makes it fundamentally a study in sociology. So while there are some brilliant mathematical mechanisms used, relying on those numbers to mean something in the real world that humans inhabit is a stretch, and has very often had a hard time when comparing it's own predictions to the historical record. Hayek argued that the best health care outcomes would come from private investment, and Keynes predicted we'd be working 15 hour weeks. Both of these are in stark contrast to the reality on the ground in the world today.

by johnea 1y ago

jack_h 1y ago

> And like the vacuous market theory that claims "market competition solves all problems" I'm not aware of any market theory that makes such a claim. Hayek's "The Use of Knowledge in Society" as referenced at the beginning of this essay certainly doesn't claim this. What Hayek claims is that a centralized economic approach can't allocate resources more efficiently than a decentralized market because the information required for central planners is too vast, changes too quickly, and is too dispersed across individuals. This is not the same as saying that a free market is perfect or solves all problems, it's just the most practicable system we know of currently. The main point the article seems to be making is that there's a new form of control operating through decentralized algorithms that subtly but pervasively shape tastes and behaviors. These algorithms, rather than traditional institutions, are becoming the mechanisms of social order. Future political battlegrounds may be fought over these methods of control. I could be wrong about the main takeaway as it was a long article, but I didn't read it as being a "market is magical puff piece".

johnea 1y ago
> allocate resources more efficiently More efficiently for whom? "Efficient" in what way? The extent to which a thing is "efficient" or "optimal" is entirely based on a desired outcome being comparing to actual outcomes. All magical market theory is completely silent on the desired outcome or who would be the beneficiary... The hyperbolic paraphrasing "market competition solves all problems", is for the purpose of pointing out that making a few of the richest people much richer, while impoverishing the rest of the world's population, may be "most efficient", but it's not really helping make the world a better place to live, even for the most wealthy...
- sebastos 1y ago
  This is a pet peeve. Everyone has learned this meme that “economics is dumb”, and now people assume that the most basic difficulties they can imagine are probably valid criticisms. Modern economics has limitations, but they’re not so simplistic and obvious as the ones you’re raising. The problem isn’t that magical market theory takes an average and determines we’re all better off because we all got poorer and one guy got way richer. But it might say that we’re all better off if everybody DID get richer, but one guy got _extra_ rich. That we still might object to the latter situation is a valid concern, but it’s a very different level of oversight on the part of the economist. Another one that comes up is that people seem to think that because the consumer is assumed to be ‘rational’, this implies that the economist is imagining people as unfeeling automatons incapable of valuing experiences over material wealth. When really it’s more like “if I offer you two paid vacation options for the same price, you will choose the one you prefer”. Even that, it turns out, is inaccurate and incomplete - but it’s a much more defensible simplification.
  - johnea 1y ago
    I'm too old for memes. I'm sure you've heard of GDP, it's pretty much exactly what you say the market theories are not about... When in fact, GDP is the most common metric used to illustrate economic health. WRT theories of the "rational consumer", no memes are required, an entire field of modern economics is dedicated to debunking this assumption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics Outside of all of that, both previous rebukes to my comment fail to address the main point, the majority of people are not better off even given massive economic growth of recent decades. > FacePlant bought InstaGram, Goggle bought youtube, M$ bought github and linkedin. > The ultimate veto power of the third option is evident all around us. ... > The main difference between theory and reality, is that in theory they're the same, but in reality they're not. > This applies doubly to economic theory... Economic theory is based on assumptions of human behaviour. This makes it fundamentally a study in sociology. So while there are some brilliant mathematical mechanisms used, relying on those numbers to mean something in the real world that humans inhabit is a stretch, and has very often had a hard time when comparing it's own predictions to the historical record. Hayek argued that the best health care outcomes would come from private investment, and Keynes predicted we'd be working 15 hour weeks. Both of these are in stark contrast to the reality on the ground in the world today.