3 ms·

How do I know that a system maintained by people is exploitable by people? IDK, that's a real thinker, isn't it. That all systems are exploitable, in absence of

How do I know that a system maintained by people is exploitable by people? IDK, that's a real thinker, isn't it. That all systems are exploitable, in absence of human influence, isn't the argument I'm making. It's tautologically true that systems that humans design and implement and depend on the behavior of humans to continue to run would be exploitable by humans. You cannot design a system dependent on human action that is also immune to human nature. As for the second, the more in control of the system humans are, the more they can exploit it. Your return on exploitation, which I think is really what you're getting at, is based on how diffuse the control and power is at the point that you exploit it. But the more diffuse control and power, the less responsive and effective the system is when working at full tilt. It's two sides of the same coin. Capitalism is a system of decentralized resource allocation. Decentralized systems have their pros and cons, and other systems that would rely on centrally planned economies have pros and cons. Capitalism isn't the issue, unfettered capitalism is the issue.

Timon3 16d ago
After that opener I'm guessing this will be a waste of effort... yes, it might be a real thinker, because AFAICS the two statements don't form a tautology. Is this based on actual findings by research in game theory, or did you just decide that this must be the case? Funnily enough, in my eyes it's obvious that capitalism in a globalized world must inevitably lead to unfettered capitalism, since the gravity effect of money along with competition between countries for their investments (with tax breaks etc. ) inevitably allows the capitalists to change the laws in their favor more and more. So I would ask for an objective measure of "how much in control humans are". I don't think it's a single dimension like you're implying, and I don't think capitalism is near any optimum due to the aforementioned effect.
- philipallstar 16d ago
  Governments have power, not private companies. Private companies can influence the powerful, of course (as can you or I) but you're complaining about second order or third order power without caring about first order power.
  - Timon3 16d ago
    Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.
    - ipsod 16d ago
      Is the alternative is to give the power directly to the powerful? Not only will they hold the guns, but they decide what the markets will bear - often-enough with food for the poor becoming optional, if history has any lessons. Which non-capitalist system does not ultimately concentrate wealth and power even further? And, if nation-states are organisms, and survival of the fittest is a law, which of those systems can survive in the real world? Excepting perhaps those propped up by a disproportionate natural wealth and homogeneous culture, where it is easier for people to continue to believe in "our good" when hard times come. Capitalism is the only system that pretends to respect human nature - gives us a lever that says, "want more stuff? provide more value." It gives the self-interested a healthy outlet that the other systems lack. It must be managed, though, by power, and when the two collude you get fascism. So, I guess maybe I share your view, that lobbying breaks the system.
      - Timon3 15d ago
        Globally active/influential social systems are still very young. In the couple hundred years such systems have been able to form, we've only attempted a minority of realistically possible systems, and most of this data was collected under very specific sets of circumstances which most likely only cover a tiny subset of realistically possible circumstances. IMO it's not possible to justify your claims without taking a whole tower of (IMO likely false) assumptions for granted. I'd love to go into detail on each assumption I see, but I've had similar comments regarding flaws of capitalist systems get derailed too many times by very angry commenters who insist that such thoughts are not worth discussing and MUST NOT be discussed.
    - philipallstar 15d ago
      > Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments. The naive view is to think that lobbying is automatically bad. Policymakers can choose who they talk to. If you're worried about corrupt policymakers, you've correctly identified where power resides: in government.

Timon3 16d ago

After that opener I'm guessing this will be a waste of effort... yes, it might be a real thinker, because AFAICS the two statements don't form a tautology. Is this based on actual findings by research in game theory, or did you just decide that this must be the case? Funnily enough, in my eyes it's obvious that capitalism in a globalized world must inevitably lead to unfettered capitalism, since the gravity effect of money along with competition between countries for their investments (with tax breaks etc. ) inevitably allows the capitalists to change the laws in their favor more and more. So I would ask for an objective measure of "how much in control humans are". I don't think it's a single dimension like you're implying, and I don't think capitalism is near any optimum due to the aforementioned effect.

philipallstar 16d ago
Governments have power, not private companies. Private companies can influence the powerful, of course (as can you or I) but you're complaining about second order or third order power without caring about first order power.
- Timon3 16d ago
  Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments.
  - ipsod 16d ago
    Is the alternative is to give the power directly to the powerful? Not only will they hold the guns, but they decide what the markets will bear - often-enough with food for the poor becoming optional, if history has any lessons. Which non-capitalist system does not ultimately concentrate wealth and power even further? And, if nation-states are organisms, and survival of the fittest is a law, which of those systems can survive in the real world? Excepting perhaps those propped up by a disproportionate natural wealth and homogeneous culture, where it is easier for people to continue to believe in "our good" when hard times come. Capitalism is the only system that pretends to respect human nature - gives us a lever that says, "want more stuff? provide more value." It gives the self-interested a healthy outlet that the other systems lack. It must be managed, though, by power, and when the two collude you get fascism. So, I guess maybe I share your view, that lobbying breaks the system.
    - Timon3 15d ago
      Globally active/influential social systems are still very young. In the couple hundred years such systems have been able to form, we've only attempted a minority of realistically possible systems, and most of this data was collected under very specific sets of circumstances which most likely only cover a tiny subset of realistically possible circumstances. IMO it's not possible to justify your claims without taking a whole tower of (IMO likely false) assumptions for granted. I'd love to go into detail on each assumption I see, but I've had similar comments regarding flaws of capitalist systems get derailed too many times by very angry commenters who insist that such thoughts are not worth discussing and MUST NOT be discussed.
  - philipallstar 15d ago
    > Unfortunately this naive view breaks down as soon as lobbying is introduced, since it is a direct channel for private companies to influence governments. The naive view is to think that lobbying is automatically bad. Policymakers can choose who they talk to. If you're worried about corrupt policymakers, you've correctly identified where power resides: in government.