3 ms·

"vastly expand the welfare state and divvy up at least part of the accumulated surplus to everyone" That's a technology we haven't had much luck with so far. W

by netcan 13y ago

"vastly expand the welfare state and divvy up at least part of the accumulated surplus to everyone" That's a technology we haven't had much luck with so far. We've had economies where "distribution" was related to direct wealth creation (make a sandwich and eat it myself), property & labour (you make a sandwich with my bread,we eat half each), thievery (gimme your sandwich). We've done sharing in small groups, that may have been the paleo-economy. We've doe bits of charity welfarism, redistribution and centralization but never really succeeded at making those work well at a large scale, especially for those supposed to be protected by it.

jaibot 13y ago
We disagree about how well redistribution can and has worked at scale. My ultra-compressed (lossy) take is "pretty inefficient, but somewhat effective improving the lives of the less-wealthy". One of the most dramatic and promising examples of redistribution, GiveDirectly, is actually doing some followup research on the effectiveness of their redistribution, and it looks pretty good so far: (pdf warning) http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/haushofer_shapiro_uct_2013.11.16.pdf http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/haushofer_shapiro_u... That's an extreme example - a relatively-small scale transfer from wealthy donors to a much poorer country - but it speaks well to the principle.
- netcan 13y ago
  A - Most of those attempts have had mixed results to put it mildly. B - Scale in economics is a big deal. Obviously you can transfer wealth from one person to another pretty effectively but what happens to an economy, government, society, etc when it's the main income source is a different kettle of fish. I didn't say impossible. But it's a technology we need to make a big leap on. Money itself is a technology. Maybe we need money itself to be disrupted to overcome some apparent limitations.
- sirkneeland 13y ago
  I think there are pretty strong correlations between smaller social/political units and more effective, efficient, and non-corrupt welfare/redistribution systems. There isn't a Nordic country with a population greater than just the population of the New York metro area (let alone New York state...let alone the United States as a whole)
  - netcan 13y ago
    Even in Nordic countries "normal" is working for a living. They have big social and governmental institutions that have a lot of money passing through them and they manage to do that relatively efficiently. But, they don't have a complete disconnect between wealth creation by normal means (owning productive property and/or working) and consuming that wealth. The government is just more involved in the process. If most people work, pay taxes and use the "free" public transport you still have a situation where most people are both funding the transportation and using it. Consumers & producers of stuff. These futuristic ideas about AI doing all the work while most people are unnecessary creates a completely different jar of pickled fish.

by netcan 13y ago

jaibot 13y ago

We disagree about how well redistribution can and has worked at scale. My ultra-compressed (lossy) take is "pretty inefficient, but somewhat effective improving the lives of the less-wealthy". One of the most dramatic and promising examples of redistribution, GiveDirectly, is actually doing some followup research on the effectiveness of their redistribution, and it looks pretty good so far: (pdf warning) http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/haushofer_shapiro_uct_2013.11.16.pdf http://web.mit.edu/joha/www/publications/haushofer_shapiro_u... That's an extreme example - a relatively-small scale transfer from wealthy donors to a much poorer country - but it speaks well to the principle.

netcan 13y ago
A - Most of those attempts have had mixed results to put it mildly. B - Scale in economics is a big deal. Obviously you can transfer wealth from one person to another pretty effectively but what happens to an economy, government, society, etc when it's the main income source is a different kettle of fish. I didn't say impossible. But it's a technology we need to make a big leap on. Money itself is a technology. Maybe we need money itself to be disrupted to overcome some apparent limitations.
sirkneeland 13y ago
I think there are pretty strong correlations between smaller social/political units and more effective, efficient, and non-corrupt welfare/redistribution systems. There isn't a Nordic country with a population greater than just the population of the New York metro area (let alone New York state...let alone the United States as a whole)
- netcan 13y ago
  Even in Nordic countries "normal" is working for a living. They have big social and governmental institutions that have a lot of money passing through them and they manage to do that relatively efficiently. But, they don't have a complete disconnect between wealth creation by normal means (owning productive property and/or working) and consuming that wealth. The government is just more involved in the process. If most people work, pay taxes and use the "free" public transport you still have a situation where most people are both funding the transportation and using it. Consumers & producers of stuff. These futuristic ideas about AI doing all the work while most people are unnecessary creates a completely different jar of pickled fish.