4 ms·

Fully with you - it would seem that the trifecta of a modern and most productive society is: - Education for all: To increase your productivity / fulfillment

Fully with you - it would seem that the trifecta of a modern and most productive society is: - Education for all: To increase your productivity / fulfillment - Healthcare for all: To keep you productive / happy for as long as possible - Basic Income for all: To remove the risk that you can't earn your "living credits", thereby allowing greater risk taking and social beneficial / poorly compensated work to be paid (like volunteering, etc.)

chris_mahan 13y ago
You've just described Soviet Communism.
- bcoates 13y ago
  Not without central planning and state ownership of enterprise he hasn't. What he's describing is just a somewhat 'Social' Liberalism.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    And how do you achieve education for all, healthcare for all, and basic income for all without central planning? And how do you achieve basic income for all without heavy regulation? Heavy regulation is the same as state ownership, except that the state then uses private investors as owners, but the owners don't get a say in the way the company is run (because of the heavy regulation).
    - bcoates 13y ago
      Taxes? There doesn't seem to be a very high correlation between how many of these social programs a country implements and how heavily the state involves itself in businesses. I'm not even arguing that these projects are good ideas, just that they're fundamentally from an entirely different political and economic philosophy than the actual system that existed in the Soviet Union.
- wutbrodo 13y ago
  Not even close. Communism is practically defined by the centralized direction of capital and the direction of the economy (see: Five-Year Plans). The idea that the removal of basic impediments to efficient capitalism IS Soviet Communism is a particularly laughable case of association fallacy.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    what is 'efficient' capitalism? the whole point of free-market capitalism is that centrally directed plans cannot perfectly allocate resources and there is no such thing as 'efficient' capitalism, no matter how smart the committee who decides where to steer things is.
    - chris_mahan 13y ago
      And that's why allocation of income to people by anything else than supply and demand forces leads to market inefficiencies.
      - wutbrodo 13y ago
        I hesitate to use the word 'strawman', but the replies to my comment seem to be debating something I didn't even come close to saying. Chapter 1 of a basic econ textbook will tell you that there are many pitfalls that make markets less-than-free (by the way, a "free market" in economics is not defined "free from any regulation", it's a market in which supply and demand can operate freely and efficiently. Regulation can be ONE of the ways a market becomes less free). Asymmetric information, lack of exposure to the cost (or benefit) of externalities, etc etc etc. The goal of basic income (the basic part is very important; giving everyone the median income would be a disaster of the kind that you're thinking of) is to PRESERVE the ability for supply and demand to function correctly. Currently, the success of an idea is a function not only of its quality, but of its quality and the wealth of the parents of the person who thought of it (the US has some of the worst economic mobility in the developed world).
    - wutbrodo 13y ago
      > centrally directed plans cannot perfectly allocate resources and there is no such thing as 'efficient' capitalism, no matter how smart the committee who decides where to steer things is. I honestly have no idea at all where you thought I was making this point. The entire premise behind my comment was the preservation of the ability of the market and the profit motive to direct capital (i.e. capitalism), and I drew an explicit contrast to Soviet-style central direction of capital. "The whole point of free-market capitalism is that.... there is no such thing as efficient capitalism"? What? Efficient capitalism is capitalism in which the flow of capital (by free markets) to where it will create the most wealth is unimpeded. Every time this flow is blocked or diverted by some external factor, that's a loss of efficiency. If some factor that was irrelevant to wealth creation determined that people born in the month of March (or people of a certain race) were not allowed to go to good schools (even if their parents can afford it), that would be a (somewhat silly) loss of efficiency in capital. "Deciding" that people born to middle class or lower parents don't deserve the kind of education that's increasingly critical to survive in the modern economy is basically the same thing in terms of its effect on wealth creation (though of course it's more palatable ethically). All too often, people conflate capitalism with "government that's as small as possible", when it's blindingly obvious that this couldn't be farther from the truth. For an obvious example, contract enforcement is an essential for markets to function. Responsible regulation is another case (A company dumping toxic waste into a town's river and causing cancer among its citizens is a case of the company's capital direction decision-making process not being exposed to all the costs to the economy; the company could theoretically destroy more wealth than it creates for society). To get to my point, a big part of America's historical economic dynamism (aside from the fact that we've got probably the richest geography in the entire world) was the fact that we didn't have class systems as entrenched as Europe did. Whether your idea was successful was (more) dependent on whether it was _good_ and would create wealth, as opposed to how you knew or how you were born. Arbitrarily closing off the class of potential entrepreneurs to people who are "high-born" obviously reduces the potential for new sources of innovation (and thus wealth generated for society). Being able to afford a private school or being able to afford to live in a district with a good public school (where you pay your "tuition" in the price of your house) is the modern equivalent of being "high-born" (it's certainly much more flexible than strict class systems, but it has much the same effect). As far as healthcare and basic income, this should be particularly familiar to anyone reading HN. The idea that your healthcare should be tied to your employer is insanely stupid. This system very clearly incentivizes being an employee over being an entrepreneur which, again, is not the way to have a healthy, innovative economy*. Every time a person is prevented from building a startup solely out of fear that their kid might get sick and they won't have good healthcare, that's a loss of efficiency. A similar argument trivially applies to basic income. The US (in contrast to our formerly deserved reputation of the probability of rags-to-riches stories) has worse economic mobility than most of the developed world. It's absolutely pathetic that we've gotten to this state given that this was a big source of our historical economic dominance. TL;DR: Efficiency in capitalism is the unimpeded flow of capital to where it is most needed. This is best achieved by a meritocracy of ideas. Anything that affects that flow negatively is an inefficiency. Healthcare, education, and a basic income have nothing to do with the government directing the economy's capital but rather with the government ensuring that capital can flow correctly.
dnautics 13y ago
how much education? Which educations are 'productive' or 'fulfilling'? Can I get a subsidized PhD in 1960s soviet literature? Or will we only do that for industrial chemists? Who decides? how much healthcare? Which healthcare 'makes you happy'? Let's say a clever biologist comes up with a machine that keeps you alive indefinitely, no matter what, but the cost is that it burns 100 liters of oil an hour (and it has to be oil, because of the carbon in oil). Do you have a right to this healthcare? Who decides?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

chris_mahan 13y ago

You've just described Soviet Communism.

bcoates 13y ago
Not without central planning and state ownership of enterprise he hasn't. What he's describing is just a somewhat 'Social' Liberalism.
- chris_mahan 13y ago
  And how do you achieve education for all, healthcare for all, and basic income for all without central planning? And how do you achieve basic income for all without heavy regulation? Heavy regulation is the same as state ownership, except that the state then uses private investors as owners, but the owners don't get a say in the way the company is run (because of the heavy regulation).
  - bcoates 13y ago
    Taxes? There doesn't seem to be a very high correlation between how many of these social programs a country implements and how heavily the state involves itself in businesses. I'm not even arguing that these projects are good ideas, just that they're fundamentally from an entirely different political and economic philosophy than the actual system that existed in the Soviet Union.
wutbrodo 13y ago
Not even close. Communism is practically defined by the centralized direction of capital and the direction of the economy (see: Five-Year Plans). The idea that the removal of basic impediments to efficient capitalism IS Soviet Communism is a particularly laughable case of association fallacy.
- dnautics 13y ago
  what is 'efficient' capitalism? the whole point of free-market capitalism is that centrally directed plans cannot perfectly allocate resources and there is no such thing as 'efficient' capitalism, no matter how smart the committee who decides where to steer things is.
  - chris_mahan 13y ago
    And that's why allocation of income to people by anything else than supply and demand forces leads to market inefficiencies.
    - wutbrodo 13y ago
      I hesitate to use the word 'strawman', but the replies to my comment seem to be debating something I didn't even come close to saying. Chapter 1 of a basic econ textbook will tell you that there are many pitfalls that make markets less-than-free (by the way, a "free market" in economics is not defined "free from any regulation", it's a market in which supply and demand can operate freely and efficiently. Regulation can be ONE of the ways a market becomes less free). Asymmetric information, lack of exposure to the cost (or benefit) of externalities, etc etc etc. The goal of basic income (the basic part is very important; giving everyone the median income would be a disaster of the kind that you're thinking of) is to PRESERVE the ability for supply and demand to function correctly. Currently, the success of an idea is a function not only of its quality, but of its quality and the wealth of the parents of the person who thought of it (the US has some of the worst economic mobility in the developed world).
  - wutbrodo 13y ago
    > centrally directed plans cannot perfectly allocate resources and there is no such thing as 'efficient' capitalism, no matter how smart the committee who decides where to steer things is. I honestly have no idea at all where you thought I was making this point. The entire premise behind my comment was the preservation of the ability of the market and the profit motive to direct capital (i.e. capitalism), and I drew an explicit contrast to Soviet-style central direction of capital. "The whole point of free-market capitalism is that.... there is no such thing as efficient capitalism"? What? Efficient capitalism is capitalism in which the flow of capital (by free markets) to where it will create the most wealth is unimpeded. Every time this flow is blocked or diverted by some external factor, that's a loss of efficiency. If some factor that was irrelevant to wealth creation determined that people born in the month of March (or people of a certain race) were not allowed to go to good schools (even if their parents can afford it), that would be a (somewhat silly) loss of efficiency in capital. "Deciding" that people born to middle class or lower parents don't deserve the kind of education that's increasingly critical to survive in the modern economy is basically the same thing in terms of its effect on wealth creation (though of course it's more palatable ethically). All too often, people conflate capitalism with "government that's as small as possible", when it's blindingly obvious that this couldn't be farther from the truth. For an obvious example, contract enforcement is an essential for markets to function. Responsible regulation is another case (A company dumping toxic waste into a town's river and causing cancer among its citizens is a case of the company's capital direction decision-making process not being exposed to all the costs to the economy; the company could theoretically destroy more wealth than it creates for society). To get to my point, a big part of America's historical economic dynamism (aside from the fact that we've got probably the richest geography in the entire world) was the fact that we didn't have class systems as entrenched as Europe did. Whether your idea was successful was (more) dependent on whether it was _good_ and would create wealth, as opposed to how you knew or how you were born. Arbitrarily closing off the class of potential entrepreneurs to people who are "high-born" obviously reduces the potential for new sources of innovation (and thus wealth generated for society). Being able to afford a private school or being able to afford to live in a district with a good public school (where you pay your "tuition" in the price of your house) is the modern equivalent of being "high-born" (it's certainly much more flexible than strict class systems, but it has much the same effect). As far as healthcare and basic income, this should be particularly familiar to anyone reading HN. The idea that your healthcare should be tied to your employer is insanely stupid. This system very clearly incentivizes being an employee over being an entrepreneur which, again, is not the way to have a healthy, innovative economy*. Every time a person is prevented from building a startup solely out of fear that their kid might get sick and they won't have good healthcare, that's a loss of efficiency. A similar argument trivially applies to basic income. The US (in contrast to our formerly deserved reputation of the probability of rags-to-riches stories) has worse economic mobility than most of the developed world. It's absolutely pathetic that we've gotten to this state given that this was a big source of our historical economic dominance. TL;DR: Efficiency in capitalism is the unimpeded flow of capital to where it is most needed. This is best achieved by a meritocracy of ideas. Anything that affects that flow negatively is an inefficiency. Healthcare, education, and a basic income have nothing to do with the government directing the economy's capital but rather with the government ensuring that capital can flow correctly.

dnautics 13y ago

how much education? Which educations are 'productive' or 'fulfilling'? Can I get a subsidized PhD in 1960s soviet literature? Or will we only do that for industrial chemists? Who decides? how much healthcare? Which healthcare 'makes you happy'? Let's say a clever biologist comes up with a machine that keeps you alive indefinitely, no matter what, but the cost is that it burns 100 liters of oil an hour (and it has to be oil, because of the carbon in oil). Do you have a right to this healthcare? Who decides?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]