4 ms·

In a recent article from The Guardian titled, 'Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project', there's the following: 'The world's largest project

by Multics 12y ago

In a recent article from The Guardian titled, 'Scientists threaten to boycott €1.2bn Human Brain Project', there's the following: 'The world's largest project to unravel the mysteries of the human brain has been thrown into crisis with more than 100 leading researchers threatening to boycott the effort amid accusations of mismanagement and fears that it is doomed to failure.' And. 'But it proved controversial from the start. Many researchers refused to join on the grounds that it was far too premature to attempt a simulation of the entire human brain in a computer. Now some claim the project is taking the wrong approach, wastes money and risks a backlash against neuroscience if it fails to deliver.' €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. Many wealthy individuals got that way via judicious resource allocation. The same can't be said of the monumental leaders of our fine countries. They got that way via looking good in public. To expect them to excel at speech giving and resource allocation is quite the ask!

hackuser 12y ago
I'm not sure what one project demonstrates, even if we take a news report at face value. There also are many successes; we're using one now to discuss this. > €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. I think this argument idealizes the "free market". * There is plenty of waste and spectacle there too -- look at other news headlines, or just remember our recent financial crisis * The 'free market' doesn't exist. First, it's an amalgam of an incredible number and diversity of people and organizations. Second, it's not free; I was trying to think of examples of social goods not funded at all by taxpayers (for the point below), but it's hard to name any. And many 'free market' companies get tax breaks and other support from government (EDIT: including laws and regulations made in their favor). * The marketplace does not care prioritize solving human problems; it prioritizes money and power. Sometimes that happens to solve problems (discovering a new vaccine, clean energy), sometimes it happens to cause them (increasing the cost of vaccines, climate change), sometimes it's just money for money's sake (slashing a ms off response time in computerized securities trading).
- Multics 12y ago
  It's an example. It's the cost of the success that's the issue. Financial crisis == moral hazard. And, come on! There's an economic theory that predicted the crisis, and explains it. I.e. ABCT (Austrian business cycle theory). My point being, it's not as clear cut when there's 'crony capitalism' and other market distortions. 'Free', as in freedom! Everyone knows the 'free market' is made up of individuals. Or groups of individuals, such as a firm, which is formed to reduce transaction costs -- as per Coase's description in his Nobel winning (1991) The Nature of the Firm (1937). Money is a medium of exchange. We use it to trade. And by definition: when people trade freely, they are both better off (otherwise they wouldn't trade!). Money also has the functions of 1) store of wealth 2) unit of account. But that's by the by. Problems are always going to occur, but because humans are motivated to solve the problems, solutions are found. And a profound way to facilitate such solutions is a market-based economy.
  - voronoff 12y ago
    "when people trade freely, they are both better off (otherwise they wouldn't trade!)" isn't true. Instead, it's that both people think that they are better off when they make the trade. A subtle distinction but also the most important criticism of a purely free market.
    - Multics 12y ago
      Value is subjective. A.K.A, the subjective theory of value. Without subjectivity, there's no marginal utility. And that takes us back to classical economics. I.e pre-marginal revolution.
      - voronoff 12y ago
        I'm not talking about the subjectivity of value at all, though I can see how that might be unclear. I'm talking about the assumption of perfect information that is inherent in your statement.
        12y ago
yongjik 12y ago
In a free market €1.2bn can't even buy a messaging app. A free market would be perfectly OK spending that money on dating apps, more ads for "alternative medicines" that sell well but never shown to work, or disinformation campaign against (government-funded) scientists pointing out that your product causes cancer. Free market sometimes works, but it's no silver bullet.
- Multics 12y ago
  What did the HealthCare.gov site cost? ~$650M. At least the messaging app would work!

by Multics 12y ago

hackuser 12y ago

I'm not sure what one project demonstrates, even if we take a news report at face value. There also are many successes; we're using one now to discuss this. > €1.2bn could solve any number of problems. And in a free market that's how the resources would be put to use. Solving human problems. Instead, there's a grand spectacle. I think this argument idealizes the "free market". * There is plenty of waste and spectacle there too -- look at other news headlines, or just remember our recent financial crisis * The 'free market' doesn't exist. First, it's an amalgam of an incredible number and diversity of people and organizations. Second, it's not free; I was trying to think of examples of social goods not funded at all by taxpayers (for the point below), but it's hard to name any. And many 'free market' companies get tax breaks and other support from government (EDIT: including laws and regulations made in their favor). * The marketplace does not care prioritize solving human problems; it prioritizes money and power. Sometimes that happens to solve problems (discovering a new vaccine, clean energy), sometimes it happens to cause them (increasing the cost of vaccines, climate change), sometimes it's just money for money's sake (slashing a ms off response time in computerized securities trading).

Multics 12y ago
It's an example. It's the cost of the success that's the issue. Financial crisis == moral hazard. And, come on! There's an economic theory that predicted the crisis, and explains it. I.e. ABCT (Austrian business cycle theory). My point being, it's not as clear cut when there's 'crony capitalism' and other market distortions. 'Free', as in freedom! Everyone knows the 'free market' is made up of individuals. Or groups of individuals, such as a firm, which is formed to reduce transaction costs -- as per Coase's description in his Nobel winning (1991) The Nature of the Firm (1937). Money is a medium of exchange. We use it to trade. And by definition: when people trade freely, they are both better off (otherwise they wouldn't trade!). Money also has the functions of 1) store of wealth 2) unit of account. But that's by the by. Problems are always going to occur, but because humans are motivated to solve the problems, solutions are found. And a profound way to facilitate such solutions is a market-based economy.
- voronoff 12y ago
  "when people trade freely, they are both better off (otherwise they wouldn't trade!)" isn't true. Instead, it's that both people think that they are better off when they make the trade. A subtle distinction but also the most important criticism of a purely free market.
  - Multics 12y ago
    Value is subjective. A.K.A, the subjective theory of value. Without subjectivity, there's no marginal utility. And that takes us back to classical economics. I.e pre-marginal revolution.
    - voronoff 12y ago
      I'm not talking about the subjectivity of value at all, though I can see how that might be unclear. I'm talking about the assumption of perfect information that is inherent in your statement.
      - 12y ago

yongjik 12y ago

In a free market €1.2bn can't even buy a messaging app. A free market would be perfectly OK spending that money on dating apps, more ads for "alternative medicines" that sell well but never shown to work, or disinformation campaign against (government-funded) scientists pointing out that your product causes cancer. Free market sometimes works, but it's no silver bullet.

Multics 12y ago
What did the HealthCare.gov site cost? ~$650M. At least the messaging app would work!