6 ms·

Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it

by 9rx 7mo ago

Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. Even if a magical unicorn were to step in and start distributing resources perfectly, solving that particular problem, if humans can't even get something as simple as resource allocation right, why are you so sure they won't also screw up everything else to ensure that all other problems remain?

roenxi 7mo ago
> Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. That is no social construct. There is a large social element involved, but that in itself is done in such a way as to try and encourage creation of a large amount of stuff to a large number of people. It isn't arbitrary; there are a lot of allocation schemes that lead to mass starvation and poverty. The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources; pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried.
- hackable_sand 7mo ago
  That's really funny
- altruios 7mo ago
  I hear and understand your point. It is not purely a social construct. But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal. And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information. And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
  - 9rx 7mo ago
    > It is not purely a social construct. What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
    - altruios 7mo ago
      While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. So there is nuance.
      - 9rx 7mo ago
        > Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity. But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here? This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
- schmidtleonard 7mo ago
  It's interesting that both the USA and China found that the prosperity maximum happened when capitalism was kept in line with a firm hand, even though China approached from the left and the USA approached from the right and later departed back to the right.
- einpoklum 7mo ago
  > That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. Indeed, but - human productive capacity has become so vast, that the only way for there to be scarcity is for it to be artificially maintained. > The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources Disagree, in the sense that a lot of what we consider "natural" is the result of social circumstances, emphasizing or encouraging the expression of some sentiments and tendencies over others. In other words, "natural" is usually rather artificial.
- janalsncm 7mo ago
  The amount of resources is not a social construct but how they are distributed is. The mean American has a net worth of $620k. The median American net worth is $192k. The global mean net worth is $95k. The median is $9k.
  - projektfu 7mo ago
    Putting out numbers, it's good to consider Equalland. https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equalland.html https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-eq... Ancient discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2087267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2087267
- 9rx 7mo ago
  > That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity. > If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. Hence resource allocation. If there were an infinite number of apples, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity. > There is a large social element involved There is only the human social element involved. There isn't a magical deity in the sky waving a magic wand or a group of space aliens from Xylos IV deciding who gets what. Resources are allocated only by how people, and people alone, decide they want to allocate them. You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. It is simply something people made up at random and decided to run with it. People could, in theory, change their mind on a whim such that suddenly you could become able to afford something. > The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources Now you're finally starting to get on-topic. So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Not going to happen. The harsh reality is that creating problems is human nature.
  - roenxi 7mo ago
    That is quite hard to marry up with > Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. though. If there are n people who want things and (n-1) things, then someone being unable to afford something isn't some pretend state. There is certainly an element of social construct in that the word we use is "afford", if we all agreed to use a different word that'd be possible. But the thing/people ratio being below one is not a social construct; and whatever you want to call it and whatever allocation scheme you want to use there will still be people who can't have one. Someone can't afford the thing. > You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. In many cases it is. Eg, topically, how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Ditto most energy emasures like watts of solar energy or power from nuclear decay. > So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Well I suppose I don't. Although I'll admit the question is too convoluted for me to be sure of that.
- win311fwg 7mo ago
  > pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried. Have they? Aside from maybe Revolutionary Catalonia, which only stood up for a few years*, we haven't actually tried anything else since the emergence of capital. Obviously pre-neolithic humans lived under a different model, but that is because capital didn't exist yet. The closest thing to an aberration was the USSR. Despite all the lip service paid to trying to suggest otherwise, in the end it remained under capitalism, standing out only because a small group of capitalists managed to seize control of all the capital. * Which ironically, given what the USSR stood for on paper, fell down to war pressure from the USSR. Less ironic when you remember that the USSR was, in practice, actually most interested in capitalism for the benefit of the "elite", of course.

by 9rx 7mo ago

roenxi 7mo ago

> Resource allocation is entirely a social construct. Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. That is no social construct. There is a large social element involved, but that in itself is done in such a way as to try and encourage creation of a large amount of stuff to a large number of people. It isn't arbitrary; there are a lot of allocation schemes that lead to mass starvation and poverty. The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources; pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried.

hackable_sand 7mo ago
That's really funny
altruios 7mo ago
I hear and understand your point. It is not purely a social construct. But how much available farmland to allocate to grow food from the available farmland becomes a political issue. Pricing, distribution... same deal. And considering our (humanity's) food production outmatches our total food calorie/nutrition requirements... any argument using food as an example for scarcity indicates that you may be working with incorrect, or outdated information. And Is "money" a social construct, or is there 'natural' money, some platonic ideal from which all other instantiations of money arise? I'm betting on the former.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  > It is not purely a social construct. What else is involved? Despite the inane ramblings of the parent comment, scarcity isn't actually a factor. Allocation occurs because of scarcity. Without scarcity, there is no such thing as allocation. It is the reason for why resource allocation exists entirely a social construct.
  - altruios 7mo ago
    While food is not scarce in total, logistics are (at some limit) physics bound. Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. So there is nuance.
    - 9rx 7mo ago
      > Other resources are currently in higher demand than their current supply: silver for example. That, of course, is why we created resource allocation as a social construct. Obviously you fundamentally cannot have allocation without scarcity. But it doesn't answer the question. If resource allocation is not entirely a social construct, are you imagining that resources are also allocated by some kind of natural force? Given the scarcity of silver, maybe the universe decides that you get some and I don't? And if you try to give me yours, contrary to the fabric of the universe, you will be struck down by a bolt of lightning before you can give it to me? What is the "what else" here? This nuance you vaguely refer to but don't say anything about is certainly intriguing. I am looking forward to you completing that chain of thought.
schmidtleonard 7mo ago
It's interesting that both the USA and China found that the prosperity maximum happened when capitalism was kept in line with a firm hand, even though China approached from the left and the USA approached from the right and later departed back to the right.
einpoklum 7mo ago
> That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. Indeed, but - human productive capacity has become so vast, that the only way for there to be scarcity is for it to be artificially maintained. > The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources Disagree, in the sense that a lot of what we consider "natural" is the result of social circumstances, emphasizing or encouraging the expression of some sentiments and tendencies over others. In other words, "natural" is usually rather artificial.
janalsncm 7mo ago
The amount of resources is not a social construct but how they are distributed is. The mean American has a net worth of $620k. The median American net worth is $192k. The global mean net worth is $95k. The median is $9k.
- projektfu 7mo ago
  Putting out numbers, it's good to consider Equalland. https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-equalland.html https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2011-01-10-inequality-in-eq... Ancient discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2087267 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2087267
9rx 7mo ago
> That can't exactly be true, because scarcity is a physical limit. Hence resource allocation. If there were no physical limit, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity. > If there is exactly 1 apple, it is impossible for 2 people to eat it. Hence resource allocation. If there were an infinite number of apples, there would be nothing in need of allocation. Allocation is intrinsically bound to scarcity. > There is a large social element involved There is only the human social element involved. There isn't a magical deity in the sky waving a magic wand or a group of space aliens from Xylos IV deciding who gets what. Resources are allocated only by how people, and people alone, decide they want to allocate them. You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. It is simply something people made up at random and decided to run with it. People could, in theory, change their mind on a whim such that suddenly you could become able to afford something. > The natural human instincts are beyond terrible at allocating resources Now you're finally starting to get on-topic. So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Not going to happen. The harsh reality is that creating problems is human nature.
- roenxi 7mo ago
  That is quite hard to marry up with > Not being afford something is a 'pretend' state that only exists because everyone agrees to go along with it. though. If there are n people who want things and (n-1) things, then someone being unable to afford something isn't some pretend state. There is certainly an element of social construct in that the word we use is "afford", if we all agreed to use a different word that'd be possible. But the thing/people ratio being below one is not a social construct; and whatever you want to call it and whatever allocation scheme you want to use there will still be people who can't have one. Someone can't afford the thing. > You being unable to afford something isn't some fundamental property of the universe. In many cases it is. Eg, topically, how much economically extractable oil is available on earth is actually a fundamental property of the universe. Ditto most energy emasures like watts of solar energy or power from nuclear decay. > So given that you see humans as being beyond terrible at allocating resources, why do you think, if they were relieved of having to handle resource allocation, that they would suddenly become not terrible at everything else in order to see all of those other problems magically disappear, per the contextual parent comment? Well I suppose I don't. Although I'll admit the question is too convoluted for me to be sure of that.
win311fwg 7mo ago
> pretty much everyone at this point has discovered that laws and capitalism with some welfare trimmings on the edge is a much better approach than any alternative that got tried. Have they? Aside from maybe Revolutionary Catalonia, which only stood up for a few years*, we haven't actually tried anything else since the emergence of capital. Obviously pre-neolithic humans lived under a different model, but that is because capital didn't exist yet. The closest thing to an aberration was the USSR. Despite all the lip service paid to trying to suggest otherwise, in the end it remained under capitalism, standing out only because a small group of capitalists managed to seize control of all the capital. * Which ironically, given what the USSR stood for on paper, fell down to war pressure from the USSR. Less ironic when you remember that the USSR was, in practice, actually most interested in capitalism for the benefit of the "elite", of course.