4 ms·

That's a tricky position to take, as a political habit. The problem with defining 'worker happiness' some way is that if unhappiness entitles you to something

by netcan 12y ago

That's a tricky position to take, as a political habit. The problem with defining 'worker happiness' some way is that if unhappiness entitles you to something unhappiness can be achieved. What about the happiness of those who would like to be a worker, but can't because it conflicts with existing worker happiness? Workers are ann entrenched interest group (or even class, to borrow more Marxist language) and they are interested in maintaining the way things are. The loudest are reactionary, preferring to go back to the way things were. The unionized factories of 2 generations ago were not the pinnacle of human civilization.

pron 12y ago
But here's precisely the role of politics. If more workers would mean no one can make a sustenance, then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else". Or maybe it's the opposite, and when all interests are considered, it's best to let the incumbents shave a few percents off their income. But this kind of decision is exactly what politics is for. I wouldn't want to let a Silicon Valley brat with tons of VC money behind him to decide that for me in the name of "innovation" (here we're starting to see how "innovation" is being used as an instrument to restrict freedom).
- davidw 12y ago
  How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else? Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves?
  - pron 12y ago
    > How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else? I'm not sure why you put government in quotations, but the government doesn't know; it's supposed to decide through bargaining. > Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves? Sure, but that's the name of the game. I would hope that politicians who want to get reelected support sensible policy (or at least a sensible "grand bargain"). The way the game is played sucks, but it's a lot better than living at the mercy of those who have more means (not that it isn't like that anyway, but at least democracies give people the power to organize and form an opposing power to capital).
    - davidw 12y ago
      I'm certainly not someone who has bought into the 'Austrian school' of economics, nor "market fundamentalism" in other forms, but some of their ideas were pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem And as a consequence I think that markets are a more efficient way of calculating some things like "how many people should be taxi drivers" than government planning.
      - pron 12y ago
        Government planning and government regulation are two very different things. Regulation is an iterative process, where the market is allowed to determine some things, and then society tries to correct the flaws and to better direct the outcome. The economy is like a river that starts out as a natural process (or, at least something that's hard to control), and along its flow, people may divert it or dam it to make sure it provides the desired benefit and to prevent possible harm it may cause.
- icebraining 12y ago
  then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else" On the other hand, there's almost 5 million people in Spain "looking for something else". Many of whom have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.
  - pron 12y ago
    I wouldn't count on Uber and Travis Kalanick to help you there. That's a job for you, through your politicians, and it seems that, for the moment, you want to tell Uber, "Thanks, but no thanks". That's your right, and it's got nothing to do with stifling "innovation" or "progress", because Uber's got nothing to do with either of those things. It's nothing but a different (and I think, particularly exploitative) form of employment (packaged in arrogance and disdain for the law and the people who make it), which may, or may not be right for Spain.
- netcan 12y ago
  I don't understand this approach. It's as if we'd never seen politics or economics in action and therefore our best guess comes from musings. Democracy does not equal the will or the good of the people in some hermetically perfect way. The reality is that in both economics and democracy entrenched culture, institutions and interest groups gain power. They guard it and enlarge it. They quickly develop the belief that they are entitled to it. The 'good of society' even if it could be understood objectively is not represented in the volumes of trade policy enacted into legislation after months of committees, "consultations" and such. Political power is the oldest currency. You call innovation a euphemism used to justify things. I call these authorities euphemism. Incidentally, I lean very left on a lot of things. I am a European. I am pro-EU and I think that the true goals of the EU, solidarity, peace and open borders are a genuinely worthy goal. What I reject is this rule-by-beaurocracy mindset enabling and encouraging letters of objection to your neighbor's lawn furniture. In any case, it's very easy to launch accusations from your 1,000m high, drone's eye view that these people should just shave a percentage off their margin. It's not about shaving a few percentages point. It's about shaving themselves out of existence in order to allow old, decrepit and corrupt institutions another few years at the trough.
  - pron 12y ago
    Yeah, democracy sucks, but being ruled by VCs carrying the BS banner of "innovation" is far worse. What you see as corrupt institutions, I see as the possibly outdated results of many years of political bargaining, which -- like everything else -- requires the occasional shakeup. But I'd much rather this shakeup happen as a result of new, better, interest groups forming, than as a result of companies who have zero interests other than their own profit.
    - netcan 12y ago
      How about people who would like to drive uber taxis and people who would like to ride in them?
      - pron 12y ago
        I don't know -- that's up to society to decide. If the people think Uber is harmful, they have a right to ban it. At the end of the day, it's up to the people to come up with some bargain that will direct their society in the direction they want. And if society decides one way, but some people prefer it another, well in this case the choice is easy: if riding or driving Uber is so important to them, they can try and move to another country/state/region where Uber is welcome. It's a bit like asking, but what about people who would really like to pay less taxes? If we don't like our civilization, we're free to rebel. It would be sad, though -- at least in my opinion -- if the cause for rebellion would be a "ride-sharing" app that's become so synonymous with spoiled consumerism.

by netcan 12y ago

pron 12y ago

But here's precisely the role of politics. If more workers would mean no one can make a sustenance, then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else". Or maybe it's the opposite, and when all interests are considered, it's best to let the incumbents shave a few percents off their income. But this kind of decision is exactly what politics is for. I wouldn't want to let a Silicon Valley brat with tons of VC money behind him to decide that for me in the name of "innovation" (here we're starting to see how "innovation" is being used as an instrument to restrict freedom).

davidw 12y ago
How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else? Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves?
- pron 12y ago
  > How does "government" know exactly when to tell people to look for something else? I'm not sure why you put government in quotations, but the government doesn't know; it's supposed to decide through bargaining. > Do you think it's possible that the "insiders" might try and influence the state to get them to tell that to newcomers in order to gain a bigger share of the pie for themselves? Sure, but that's the name of the game. I would hope that politicians who want to get reelected support sensible policy (or at least a sensible "grand bargain"). The way the game is played sucks, but it's a lot better than living at the mercy of those who have more means (not that it isn't like that anyway, but at least democracies give people the power to organize and form an opposing power to capital).
  - davidw 12y ago
    I'm certainly not someone who has bought into the 'Austrian school' of economics, nor "market fundamentalism" in other forms, but some of their ideas were pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem And as a consequence I think that markets are a more efficient way of calculating some things like "how many people should be taxi drivers" than government planning.
    - pron 12y ago
      Government planning and government regulation are two very different things. Regulation is an iterative process, where the market is allowed to determine some things, and then society tries to correct the flaws and to better direct the outcome. The economy is like a river that starts out as a natural process (or, at least something that's hard to control), and along its flow, people may divert it or dam it to make sure it provides the desired benefit and to prevent possible harm it may cause.
icebraining 12y ago
then maybe it's society's role to tell the newcomers, "look for something else" On the other hand, there's almost 5 million people in Spain "looking for something else". Many of whom have already exhausted their unemployment benefits.
- pron 12y ago
  I wouldn't count on Uber and Travis Kalanick to help you there. That's a job for you, through your politicians, and it seems that, for the moment, you want to tell Uber, "Thanks, but no thanks". That's your right, and it's got nothing to do with stifling "innovation" or "progress", because Uber's got nothing to do with either of those things. It's nothing but a different (and I think, particularly exploitative) form of employment (packaged in arrogance and disdain for the law and the people who make it), which may, or may not be right for Spain.
netcan 12y ago
I don't understand this approach. It's as if we'd never seen politics or economics in action and therefore our best guess comes from musings. Democracy does not equal the will or the good of the people in some hermetically perfect way. The reality is that in both economics and democracy entrenched culture, institutions and interest groups gain power. They guard it and enlarge it. They quickly develop the belief that they are entitled to it. The 'good of society' even if it could be understood objectively is not represented in the volumes of trade policy enacted into legislation after months of committees, "consultations" and such. Political power is the oldest currency. You call innovation a euphemism used to justify things. I call these authorities euphemism. Incidentally, I lean very left on a lot of things. I am a European. I am pro-EU and I think that the true goals of the EU, solidarity, peace and open borders are a genuinely worthy goal. What I reject is this rule-by-beaurocracy mindset enabling and encouraging letters of objection to your neighbor's lawn furniture. In any case, it's very easy to launch accusations from your 1,000m high, drone's eye view that these people should just shave a percentage off their margin. It's not about shaving a few percentages point. It's about shaving themselves out of existence in order to allow old, decrepit and corrupt institutions another few years at the trough.
- pron 12y ago
  Yeah, democracy sucks, but being ruled by VCs carrying the BS banner of "innovation" is far worse. What you see as corrupt institutions, I see as the possibly outdated results of many years of political bargaining, which -- like everything else -- requires the occasional shakeup. But I'd much rather this shakeup happen as a result of new, better, interest groups forming, than as a result of companies who have zero interests other than their own profit.
  - netcan 12y ago
    How about people who would like to drive uber taxis and people who would like to ride in them?
    - pron 12y ago
      I don't know -- that's up to society to decide. If the people think Uber is harmful, they have a right to ban it. At the end of the day, it's up to the people to come up with some bargain that will direct their society in the direction they want. And if society decides one way, but some people prefer it another, well in this case the choice is easy: if riding or driving Uber is so important to them, they can try and move to another country/state/region where Uber is welcome. It's a bit like asking, but what about people who would really like to pay less taxes? If we don't like our civilization, we're free to rebel. It would be sad, though -- at least in my opinion -- if the cause for rebellion would be a "ride-sharing" app that's become so synonymous with spoiled consumerism.