4 ms·

Human beings with a brain, in discussion with other humans, creating the kind of world they want to live in. Just like everything else in the world is decided.

Human beings with a brain, in discussion with other humans, creating the kind of world they want to live in. Just like everything else in the world is decided. It makes no sense at all to pretend that humans are too stupid to understand what is and is not good for our planet. The whole point of having language and intelligence is that it should be used, not just discarded with some discredited hand wave that "if we just do nothing, everything will work out for the best!"

lmm 13y ago
> It makes no sense at all to pretend that humans are too stupid to understand what is and is not good for our planet. The whole point of having language and intelligence is that it should be used, not just discarded with some discredited hand wave that "if we just do nothing, everything will work out for the best!" Centrally planned economies have been tried. The Soviet Union discouraged a lot of research into areas like psychology that they saw as pointless; artists had to conform to traditional styles. It didn't turn out very well. Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried.
- flumbaps 13y ago
  > Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried. I don't think we've ever tried having the market solely allocate resources. I think pretty much every government has regulated trade, collected taxes, that sort of thing. What seems to have worked best would be letting the market allocate resources to some extent, but collecting taxes and investing in long term goals (such as research and infrastructure). But maybe this isn't necessary, maybe in a truly free market there would always be genius entrepreneurs like Elon Musk appearing every now and again to progress humanity. Still, there's a massive difference between the kinds of long term planning that modern western democracies already do and a communist dictatorship.
- RodericDay 13y ago
  I don't understand how you can think this is the be-all-and-end-all of economic thought. You are literally regurgitating a line ("Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried.") you were probably taught in middle school without the slightest hint of irony. I'm not saying it's untrue because it's taught early, but I am saying that it seems you haven't done much due diligence beyond that.
  - lmm 13y ago
    I was a communist until age 20 or so, but keep beating up that strawman.
    - AkimChristine 13y ago
      So you swung from one idiotic ideology to the opposite one. Eric Hoffer had a lot to say about this. The Communists recruit from the Nazis, and the Nazis recruit from the Communists, because all ideological mass movements (even "opposing" ones) are made up of the same idiots and losers who can't think for themselves--who can't make an intelligent decision without submission to some ridiculous utopian fantasy whether it's rightwing or left.
- eli_gottlieb 13y ago
  The question of Neoliberalism versus The Soviets is a completely false dichotomy. In the real world, Western-style social democracy has appeared to work best when tried, and that is not, by any means, a pure market system. (Indeed, in a certain sense, neoliberalism can no longer be called a "pure" market system, since the government becomes property of the financial and landowning rentier classes, and is used to fight a class war by actively suppressing all other profits and wages in order to increase rent and debt.)
grandalf 13y ago
I think you misunderstood my point. I meant who should decide for someone else what he/she ought to work on? Who should decide for someone else what kind of world that person should want to live in?
- flumbaps 13y ago
  I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. It's perfectly possible for a government to encourage people to work in certain areas without descending into tyranny. Most modern democratic governments already regulate their financial markets, and already invest in research grants, infrastructure projects and support for start ups. The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at.
  - grandalf 13y ago
    The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at To claim that markets are not "good" at this kind of optimization entails the belief that they should be. I'd argue that capital allocation in the face of risk and uncertainty is a hard problem, and that while governments (in their role as infrastructure providers) make the problem easier, they (governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups.
    - AkimChristine 13y ago
      >(governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups. Yes. And this is a GOOD thing. Because society as a whole (not to mention the human fucking species) is better off when certain special interest groups are advantaged: Children. The Elderly. Parents. Altruistic people. Social services. Healthcare. Investment in basic science research. Space exploration. Protecting the environment. ...and when certain people are disadvantaged: Killers. Psychopaths. Rapists. Thieves. Bullies. People who exploit market inefficiencies. Monopolists. Oligarchs that buy elections and bribe politicians. Aristocrats who throw their weight around to abuse and bully. If you think certain types of people ("special interest groups") should NOT receive advantages or disadvantages based on their value to the human species... well... then you are f u c k i n g d u m b. Who decides these things? WE DO. SOCIETY. YES, LIBERTARIANS, SOCIETY IS REAL.

lmm 13y ago

> It makes no sense at all to pretend that humans are too stupid to understand what is and is not good for our planet. The whole point of having language and intelligence is that it should be used, not just discarded with some discredited hand wave that "if we just do nothing, everything will work out for the best!" Centrally planned economies have been tried. The Soviet Union discouraged a lot of research into areas like psychology that they saw as pointless; artists had to conform to traditional styles. It didn't turn out very well. Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried.

flumbaps 13y ago
> Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried. I don't think we've ever tried having the market solely allocate resources. I think pretty much every government has regulated trade, collected taxes, that sort of thing. What seems to have worked best would be letting the market allocate resources to some extent, but collecting taxes and investing in long term goals (such as research and infrastructure). But maybe this isn't necessary, maybe in a truly free market there would always be genius entrepreneurs like Elon Musk appearing every now and again to progress humanity. Still, there's a massive difference between the kinds of long term planning that modern western democracies already do and a communist dictatorship.
RodericDay 13y ago
I don't understand how you can think this is the be-all-and-end-all of economic thought. You are literally regurgitating a line ("Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried.") you were probably taught in middle school without the slightest hint of irony. I'm not saying it's untrue because it's taught early, but I am saying that it seems you haven't done much due diligence beyond that.
- lmm 13y ago
  I was a communist until age 20 or so, but keep beating up that strawman.
  - AkimChristine 13y ago
    So you swung from one idiotic ideology to the opposite one. Eric Hoffer had a lot to say about this. The Communists recruit from the Nazis, and the Nazis recruit from the Communists, because all ideological mass movements (even "opposing" ones) are made up of the same idiots and losers who can't think for themselves--who can't make an intelligent decision without submission to some ridiculous utopian fantasy whether it's rightwing or left.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
The question of Neoliberalism versus The Soviets is a completely false dichotomy. In the real world, Western-style social democracy has appeared to work best when tried, and that is not, by any means, a pure market system. (Indeed, in a certain sense, neoliberalism can no longer be called a "pure" market system, since the government becomes property of the financial and landowning rentier classes, and is used to fight a class war by actively suppressing all other profits and wages in order to increase rent and debt.)

grandalf 13y ago

I think you misunderstood my point. I meant who should decide for someone else what he/she ought to work on? Who should decide for someone else what kind of world that person should want to live in?

flumbaps 13y ago
I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. It's perfectly possible for a government to encourage people to work in certain areas without descending into tyranny. Most modern democratic governments already regulate their financial markets, and already invest in research grants, infrastructure projects and support for start ups. The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at.
- grandalf 13y ago
  The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at To claim that markets are not "good" at this kind of optimization entails the belief that they should be. I'd argue that capital allocation in the face of risk and uncertainty is a hard problem, and that while governments (in their role as infrastructure providers) make the problem easier, they (governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups.
  - AkimChristine 13y ago
    >(governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups. Yes. And this is a GOOD thing. Because society as a whole (not to mention the human fucking species) is better off when certain special interest groups are advantaged: Children. The Elderly. Parents. Altruistic people. Social services. Healthcare. Investment in basic science research. Space exploration. Protecting the environment. ...and when certain people are disadvantaged: Killers. Psychopaths. Rapists. Thieves. Bullies. People who exploit market inefficiencies. Monopolists. Oligarchs that buy elections and bribe politicians. Aristocrats who throw their weight around to abuse and bully. If you think certain types of people ("special interest groups") should NOT receive advantages or disadvantages based on their value to the human species... well... then you are f u c k i n g d u m b. Who decides these things? WE DO. SOCIETY. YES, LIBERTARIANS, SOCIETY IS REAL.