7 ms·

Our current global economic system was intentionally designed by (and for) a very small Elite, over roughly 4 centuries. Those at the very top are certainly not

by rphlx 13y ago

Our current global economic system was intentionally designed by (and for) a very small Elite, over roughly 4 centuries. Those at the very top are certainly not typical victims [1] of the system they carefully create; indeed, history shows they constantly and incrementally revise it to their benefit. [1] They're only victims if they go too far, trigger civil unrest, and wind up on the losing side of the guillotine. "I must Create a System, or be enslav'd by another Man's" -William Blake

grey-area 13y ago
I'd contend that it wasn't designed to any significant degree. As the parent poster is trying to tell you, it just is. The system we have is just the result of the emergent behaviour of humans interacting, it's more down to chance than design, even if some elements seem predictable. We haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies, so we're stuck with the least worst system, but I would note that globalisation has actually raised living standards in many countries from India to China, in spite of, or perhaps because of its deleterious effects. People always want to hoard wealth (almost everyone does this, even those at the bottom), and it's hard to change that. It remains to be seen whether we can effectively temper human desires and spread that wealth and not end up in dystopia, but please don't try to blame things on a secret elite directing a carefully created system - it's a mirage and is not helpful. There are many contending forces vying for prominence in our societies, and in many ways corporations are more powerful than people or politicians (NB a corporation is not a CEO, it is a composite body). The guillotine you mention was actually far worse for the ordinary people of France than for the aristocracy (many of whom simply fled) - terror and denunciation was used as a weapon on moderate politicians and everyday citizens, and even eventually the chief proponent of its use.
- brador 13y ago
  Only way to stop hoarding is abundance.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    We live in an age of incredible abundance. Yet hoarding continues, does it not?
    - brador 13y ago
      It's superficial abundance. The Walmart is full, but your pockets are not. Aside: I wonder what effect increased lifespans will have on hoarding. We know the old horde, will they horde even more?
    - throwaway1979 13y ago
      This leads to an interesting thought. If IP were free and we had the concept of a Jubilee (all debts forgiven at certain points in time), I think global human suffering would go down a lot.
  - Mikeb85 13y ago
    No, the only way to stop hoarding is to cultivate non-attachment...
- mrow84 13y ago
  I've been a fan of the emergent structure hypothesis for quite a long time, but I do feel that you are pushing it too far. There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. To some extent this was easier historically, partly because there were fewer laws, but even now, with the legacy of hundreds of years of social and political reform, and a lot of it intended to liberate common people, there are still large distortions in our political systems that significantly mis-allocate power to the already powerful. I would also take some umbrage with your statement that we "haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies" and your defence of the "least worst system" meme. Whilst there are aspects of the Western socio-political setup that are designed around the (reasonably) fair distribution of wealth, there remains constant pressure against legislation designed to develop the rights of common people in society. Indeed, those interested in reducing those rights are often able to gain popular support for their cause by positioning themselves as defenders of the wealth and power of those people whose wealth has recently increased - i.e. the middle classes, which now form a very significant political power base. We do know of ways of more fairly distributing the rewards of labour (cooperatives come to mind, as a single example), but they are unpopular in a lot of the West, and if you look back to history you will see that that mentality was actively created to counter threats to vested interests. Ironically the system of laissez-faire capitalism that was adopted to counter these more de-centralised power structures ended up diluting the power base of the "old money" (and was eventually massively scaled back), though it persisted the fundamental inequality in wealth distribution. I would, however, fully agree with your assertion that these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group. I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word. N.B. This is obviously a pretty broad sweep based on my interpretation of history - if anyone has any corrections or comments I'd appreciate hearing them.
  - vidarh 13y ago
dylangs1030 13y ago
The point was that you choose how to perceive your life. You cannot control the world. You can control your happiness.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

by rphlx 13y ago

grey-area 13y ago

I'd contend that it wasn't designed to any significant degree. As the parent poster is trying to tell you, it just is. The system we have is just the result of the emergent behaviour of humans interacting, it's more down to chance than design, even if some elements seem predictable. We haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies, so we're stuck with the least worst system, but I would note that globalisation has actually raised living standards in many countries from India to China, in spite of, or perhaps because of its deleterious effects. People always want to hoard wealth (almost everyone does this, even those at the bottom), and it's hard to change that. It remains to be seen whether we can effectively temper human desires and spread that wealth and not end up in dystopia, but please don't try to blame things on a secret elite directing a carefully created system - it's a mirage and is not helpful. There are many contending forces vying for prominence in our societies, and in many ways corporations are more powerful than people or politicians (NB a corporation is not a CEO, it is a composite body). The guillotine you mention was actually far worse for the ordinary people of France than for the aristocracy (many of whom simply fled) - terror and denunciation was used as a weapon on moderate politicians and everyday citizens, and even eventually the chief proponent of its use.

brador 13y ago
Only way to stop hoarding is abundance.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  We live in an age of incredible abundance. Yet hoarding continues, does it not?
  - brador 13y ago
    It's superficial abundance. The Walmart is full, but your pockets are not. Aside: I wonder what effect increased lifespans will have on hoarding. We know the old horde, will they horde even more?
  - throwaway1979 13y ago
    This leads to an interesting thought. If IP were free and we had the concept of a Jubilee (all debts forgiven at certain points in time), I think global human suffering would go down a lot.
- Mikeb85 13y ago
  No, the only way to stop hoarding is to cultivate non-attachment...
mrow84 13y ago
I've been a fan of the emergent structure hypothesis for quite a long time, but I do feel that you are pushing it too far. There have been, historically and presently, power and wealth grabs by the already powerful, and manipulation of political and social structures to suit their needs. To some extent this was easier historically, partly because there were fewer laws, but even now, with the legacy of hundreds of years of social and political reform, and a lot of it intended to liberate common people, there are still large distortions in our political systems that significantly mis-allocate power to the already powerful. I would also take some umbrage with your statement that we "haven't yet found a way to fairly spread privilege in our societies" and your defence of the "least worst system" meme. Whilst there are aspects of the Western socio-political setup that are designed around the (reasonably) fair distribution of wealth, there remains constant pressure against legislation designed to develop the rights of common people in society. Indeed, those interested in reducing those rights are often able to gain popular support for their cause by positioning themselves as defenders of the wealth and power of those people whose wealth has recently increased - i.e. the middle classes, which now form a very significant political power base. We do know of ways of more fairly distributing the rewards of labour (cooperatives come to mind, as a single example), but they are unpopular in a lot of the West, and if you look back to history you will see that that mentality was actively created to counter threats to vested interests. Ironically the system of laissez-faire capitalism that was adopted to counter these more de-centralised power structures ended up diluting the power base of the "old money" (and was eventually massively scaled back), though it persisted the fundamental inequality in wealth distribution. I would, however, fully agree with your assertion that these problems are not (or at least very unlikely to be) the result of a direct conspiracy by some elite group. I don't think history supports that view, and I don't believe people are particularly capable of maintaining such a conspiracy for so long a period of time. It should be clear, however, that the "conspiracy" could itself be an emergent part of the system - a higher order structure that has managed to persist itself (thus far) without continuous direct human intervention, however that would make it not a conspiracy in the traditional sense of the word. N.B. This is obviously a pretty broad sweep based on my interpretation of history - if anyone has any corrections or comments I'd appreciate hearing them.
- vidarh 13y ago

dylangs1030 13y ago

The point was that you choose how to perceive your life. You cannot control the world. You can control your happiness.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]