3 ms·

A good economy is an economy that benefits most of the population and not just a few percent at the top. I would argue it should be a political goal to keep inc

A good economy is an economy that benefits most of the population and not just a few percent at the top. I would argue it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable. A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people. In a crash rich people lose a lot of paper money but not-rich people may have trouble affording shelter or food. Or middle class may lose their savings.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
> it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable This penalizes economic dynamism and moves economic decision making from risk taking to whoever defies the baseline distribution. > A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking.
- tartoran 8mo ago
  Risk taking should be penalized harshly when the risk is high, that’s the nature of risk. If it pays off good, it was a good move but if it was bad one let the risk taker suffer.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > Risk taking should be penalized harshly when the risk is high, that’s the nature of risk If the odds (and pay-outs) are 10,000:1 and you cap pay-outs at 1,000:1, you've made a high-risk/high-reward risk unworkable in your economy. Systems that target a distribution tend to wind up in that mode, with the risk takers taking their risks (and producing their rewards) outside the system. Keeping distributions stable means capping upsides. There are better ways to redistribute wealth.
- thrance 8mo ago
  > Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking. The wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling. The working class ends up bearing the full cost of their reckless actions, literally every time. What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling Huge difference between boom and bust and gambling. (As there is a difference between a business cycle and total boom and bust.) Healthy ecologies have an overpopulate-underpopulate cycles. It turns out it's a good strategy for finding and efficiently filling niches in a dynamic environment. > What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was. Forests beat golf greens.
    - thrance 8mo ago
      To me, there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy, and often ends up hurting millions accross the world in the "burst" phases of the cycle. Also, I don't think we should model our economies and societies after actual jungles. Let's strive for a system where everyone gets enough instead of chasing perfect efficiency and leaving a large part vulnerable to be crushed by any moderately strong wind. > This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was. I am not advocating for central planning or any form of communism. I'm just noticing that nowadays, it takes remarkably little for things to go horribly wrong, and we ought to address that somehow.
- joquarky 8mo ago
  > risk taking All I see is bailouts where risk should have wiped out at least some of these so-called risk takers.
  - JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
    > bailouts where risk should have wiped out at least some of these so-called risk takers Sure. I’m not saying we have a great system right now. Just that swinging to the other end is also a bad idea. You want risk takers to enjoy their fruits when they win and suffer their losses when they lose.
  - s1artibartfast 8mo ago
    I see a lot of risk takers getting wiped out too.

JumpCrisscross 8mo ago

> it should be a political goal to keep income distribution relatively stable This penalizes economic dynamism and moves economic decision making from risk taking to whoever defies the baseline distribution. > A good economy is also relatively stable. Big booms with a crash following are very devastating to not-rich people Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking.

tartoran 8mo ago
Risk taking should be penalized harshly when the risk is high, that’s the nature of risk. If it pays off good, it was a good move but if it was bad one let the risk taker suffer.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > Risk taking should be penalized harshly when the risk is high, that’s the nature of risk If the odds (and pay-outs) are 10,000:1 and you cap pay-outs at 1,000:1, you've made a high-risk/high-reward risk unworkable in your economy. Systems that target a distribution tend to wind up in that mode, with the risk takers taking their risks (and producing their rewards) outside the system. Keeping distributions stable means capping upsides. There are better ways to redistribute wealth.
thrance 8mo ago
> Not necessarily–plenty of social systems let the market boom and bust without causing social distress. And again, smoothing out the business cycle penalizes risk taking. The wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling. The working class ends up bearing the full cost of their reckless actions, literally every time. What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > wealthy are shielded from most negative consequences of their degenerate gambling Huge difference between boom and bust and gambling. (As there is a difference between a business cycle and total boom and bust.) Healthy ecologies have an overpopulate-underpopulate cycles. It turns out it's a good strategy for finding and efficiently filling niches in a dynamic environment. > What the modern world needs isn't insane risk-taking, it's robust chains of prductions that can accomodate a shifting climate, while redistributing the global production more fairly This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was. Forests beat golf greens.
  - thrance 8mo ago
    To me, there is little difference between the stock market, prediction markets and horse betting. I just don't believe speculation is necessary to a healthy economy, and often ends up hurting millions accross the world in the "burst" phases of the cycle. Also, I don't think we should model our economies and societies after actual jungles. Let's strive for a system where everyone gets enough instead of chasing perfect efficiency and leaving a large part vulnerable to be crushed by any moderately strong wind. > This is the myth of central planning. Like, yes, if you could predict the future this would be better. But you're always going to be constrained by your leadership's assumptions about what the world will look like. It works–sometimes fabulously–until the context changes. A new technology. A new climate. A new idea. Then the system, overoptimised for the past, reveals itself as the brittle thing it always was. I am not advocating for central planning or any form of communism. I'm just noticing that nowadays, it takes remarkably little for things to go horribly wrong, and we ought to address that somehow.
joquarky 8mo ago
> risk taking All I see is bailouts where risk should have wiped out at least some of these so-called risk takers.
- JumpCrisscross 8mo ago
  > bailouts where risk should have wiped out at least some of these so-called risk takers Sure. I’m not saying we have a great system right now. Just that swinging to the other end is also a bad idea. You want risk takers to enjoy their fruits when they win and suffer their losses when they lose.
- s1artibartfast 8mo ago
  I see a lot of risk takers getting wiped out too.