TFYS

12 ms·

121.
by TFYS 1y ago
Those people could have been doing something more useful with their time if Bezos hadn't bought them. Because Bezos has such an obscene amount of wealth, he can outpay any other cause that people would want to pay for. Those craftsmen
122.
by TFYS 1y ago
Those are the result of a free market. Zoning laws are the results of participants in a free market protecting their investments. Even in the absence of a government (if functioning markets could exist in such an environment) with which to
123.
by TFYS 1y ago
> They exist to serve their customers. No, they exist to serve the capital that owns them. If they get more profits by serving fewer customers and reducing quality of service, they'll do it. If it could operate at 0 profit but serve
124.
by TFYS 1y ago
But why is there a need for a security architecture in the first place? Because if you don't have it, some competing entity will come and take the resources that you cannot protect. In the absence of such a competing entity, there&#x27
125.
by TFYS 1y ago
Security competition is about securing resources. Markets are a mechanism for deciding who owns and how to use those resources. They are very closely related. If one country gets competitive advantage in the global market for owning a piece
126.
by TFYS 1y ago
> Why not just do market socialism? Because markets are based on competition, and that causes a lot of issues on it's own, even in the absence of capitalism. It's because of competition that we consume too much resources, have
127.
by TFYS 1y ago
> centralized planning, which leads to catastrophe because of the local knowledge problem, and because people have no private incentive to do anything. The local knowledge problem might have been an issue with central planning a few deca
128.
by TFYS 1y ago
Unless the country can be completely self-sufficient, even that is not enough. If a country decides to cut working hours and other's won't, it will eventually not be able to afford the resources it needs from other countries becau
129.
by TFYS 1y ago
I think we now have the technology to make decision-making and resource allocation systems that do not need to centralize power. If we can do that, then it wouldn't matter that people can be corrupt, because there would be no positions
130.
by TFYS 1y ago
They don't suffer the most, but the point isn't to make them suffer. The point is to change the system. If the current system feels unfair or wrong in some way, people will want to change it. If the only way to change it is war, a
131.
by TFYS 1y ago
I don't think the kind of foundational change that is needed to solve these issues has ever been done in other ways. If it can be done, it's much harder than just letting it all burn down. The people at the top of any system are n
132.
by TFYS 1y ago
It's not the centralization that's the main problem. Centralization of those services can make sense. It's how and why those centralized services are run. They're run like dictatorships, for the purpose of making the dic
133.
by TFYS 1y ago
It's rational only if you don't consider the risks of an actual superhuman AGI. Geopolitical issues won't matter if such a thing is released without making sure it can be controlled. These competition based systems of ours wi
134.
by TFYS 1y ago
The disaster will happen if AGI is created and let loose too quickly, without considering all the effects it will have. That's less likely to happen when the number of people with that power is limited.
135.
by TFYS 1y ago
International co-operation to control development and usage. The decision to unleash AGI can only be made once. Making such a decision should not be done hastily, and definitely not for the reason of pursuing private profit. Such a decision
136.
by TFYS 1y ago
Exactly. AGI is something that will significantly affect all of humanity. It should be treated like nuclear weapons.
137.
by TFYS 1y ago
Making a choice to consume as an individual is different from supporting a policy that would affect everyone. Taxing consumption and fossil fuels does have a lot of support. People are willing to reduce their quality of life if everyone els
138.
by TFYS 1y ago
How is buying from Chinese companies embracing the CCP? BYD didn't do anything to Uighurs. The US is also supporting something much worse than what China has done at this moment, so if we use the same logic, we shouldn't be buying
139.
by TFYS 1y ago
The number was just an example. My point was that even if we provide a basic income that covers all basic needs, you'd still get a much better life by working. Housing, food and healthcare is already provided for everyone in many count
140.
by TFYS 1y ago
The fairness comes from the effects that would have on society. Reduced crime, reduced stress, more freedom, more demand for labor, etc. These effects would have positive effects on the economy and that could increase your salary in additio
141.
by TFYS 1y ago
Wealth is power. Power matters, as with it you're in a position to decide what can be consumed to begin with. People that control wealth control what policies get implemented, which projects get funded, etc. They will not support polic
142.
by TFYS 1y ago
There’s no objective way to determine how much of a product’s utility is created by whom. For example, if I invent a thingamajig and hire people to build and sell it, how can we determine what percentage of the value comes from me, the work
143.
by TFYS 1y ago
With the technologies we have today, I'm pretty sure it would be possible to create a system that doesn't have to give anyone so much influence that it becomes a problem. If you allow a system to have such concentrations of power,
144.
by TFYS 1y ago
It does, at least according to the statistics and research we have. Labor share of income has been decreasing during the last few decades. The reason is also simple: without strong interference from governments, markets have a tendency to c
145.
by TFYS 1y ago
If online discourse is not shaped by the EU or European governments, it will be shaped by even less trustworthy entities. It will be shaped by US, China and Russia based organizations, and they will tear the EU apart from multiple direction
146.
by TFYS 1y ago
They compete, but the level of competition has gone down and the share of income labor gets has decreased as a result.
147.
by TFYS 1y ago
They boost the economy if there exist enough mechanisms that spread the generated gains to everyone. Those mechanisms used to be unions, political power of the working class and the demand for labor. The first two are close to nonexistant n
148.
by TFYS 1y ago
It's risky to give so much power to a single person anyway. The president is "useless" in a lot of countries and it's usually a good thing.
149.
by TFYS 1y ago
I think it's the lack a of deeper meaning in the things we do have to do in this system. We're just cogs in a large machine that creates more and more wealth, but after you have enough to live a comfortable life that is no longer
150.
by TFYS 1y ago
You're probably right, though U.S healthcare costs per capita are much higher than they need to be, and would be much lower in a "proper" single payer system like in Europe. In any case, a wealth tax would still help a lot wi

More ›