1.5M ratings
277k ratings

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Sounds perfect Wahhhh, I don’t wanna
ranma-official
ranma-official

Something I’ve been thinking towards lately is that the benefits of a free market economy are actually side effects.

For example, the general idea of “competition-driven constant innovation in the form of amazing new products” (ideal outcome) or “marginally improved products at the same prices or the same quality at lower prices”. It appears to me that it’s merely one of the many ways to get market leverage rather than the desired outcome, and at some point it hits diminishing returns pretty hard.

I have a lot of experience dealing with ISPs and saw the mechanism first hand. First we have the amazing benefits of a de facto monopoly who could get away with shit like $100 for dial up speeds in ADSL era being forced to offer cheap fast internet, fast forward a year and we descend into shit like shady under the table deals, dishonest marketing, and guys cutting our fiber to create an impression of unreliable service.

And that’s internet. You can take it or leave it. If you knew what goes on with food you’d never want to eat again.

mitigatedchaos

Try applying it to labor and it becomes obvious why politicians have so much trouble “creating jobs”.  Capitalism hates “creating jobs”.  Jobs are a cost.  “Job creators” do not want to “create jobs”.  They want to make money.  The jobs are, to them, an undesirable side effect.

ranma-official

I thought that much was obvious from the term “job makers”. The claim that job makers make jobs out of the goodness of their heart implies that they don’t like doing so.

mitigatedchaos

I don’t think the people using it (or rather, the target audience of the people using it) really understand the full implications that the jobs aren’t something that’s wanted by the incentives in the system itself.  I think how they understand it is that if only the government would stop punishing these “valuable job creators”, then the job creators would create jobs.

politics
ranma-official
ranma-official

Something I’ve been thinking towards lately is that the benefits of a free market economy are actually side effects.

For example, the general idea of “competition-driven constant innovation in the form of amazing new products” (ideal outcome) or “marginally improved products at the same prices or the same quality at lower prices”. It appears to me that it’s merely one of the many ways to get market leverage rather than the desired outcome, and at some point it hits diminishing returns pretty hard.

I have a lot of experience dealing with ISPs and saw the mechanism first hand. First we have the amazing benefits of a de facto monopoly who could get away with shit like $100 for dial up speeds in ADSL era being forced to offer cheap fast internet, fast forward a year and we descend into shit like shady under the table deals, dishonest marketing, and guys cutting our fiber to create an impression of unreliable service.

And that’s internet. You can take it or leave it. If you knew what goes on with food you’d never want to eat again.

mitigatedchaos

Try applying it to labor and it becomes obvious why politicians have so much trouble “creating jobs”.  Capitalism hates “creating jobs”.  Jobs are a cost.  “Job creators” do not want to “create jobs”.  They want to make money.  The jobs are, to them, an undesirable side effect.

politics capitalism
ranma-official
memecucker

I just found the stupidest peak white moderate thing ever

kula

how to be a white ally: be a useless weak ass bitch who only knows how to ‘check privilege’

memecucker

The white moderates are starting to couch their arguments in ‘more SJ than thou’ lingo. They’re evolving

insurrectionarycompassion

Uwu violent resistance kills people. You should be killed without fighting back while waiting for the Tides of Progress to set you free. You’re not morally dying otherwise.

marxandrecreation

HAHA it was deleted

statist-shill-cuck

John Brown, original brocialist, manarchist, Berniebro, privileged white First World leftist,

ranma-official

“These men are all talk. What we need is action—action!”

“Excuse u, u don’t speak for all poc”

mitigatedchaos

“There is no way that celebrating, or getting excited about, killing people could go wrong. The only reason it ever went wrong in the past is that it was our enemies doing it. We will have complete control over who takes our ideas and decides to kill people. Killing people will also be a highly-effective tool of our resistantance which will not be used as proof by our enemies to undecided people that they were right all along, resulting in a brutal crackdown that hits people that weren’t even involved in our actions. Our killing will also be highly-organized and directly serve our goals. We will never accidentally kill the wrong people, or kill people for other purposes related to our internal politics or because we warped the idea of killing up to kill people who are down.”

I’m not going to go into how to effectively use political violence, but I have no reason to believe most people in this chain would accomplish anything with it rather than, say, killing a few random people and becoming fodder for white nationalist news sites.

You can pay back money. You can fix or rebuild a building. You can let people out of prison. Sometimes, people will even heal from being beaten. But you can’t un-kill someone. There is no making it right if you screw up.

ranma-official

There’s a huge difference between arguing about political violence in the times where we have no clear enemies and talking about how John Brown is a problematic white berniebro.

mitigatedchaos

I should have been more specific, I was responding to what insurrectionarycompassion said.  (I’m still not 100% used to the Tumblr interface.  I can’t find some obvious way to quote just a chunk of something.)

Source: memecucker politics
argumate
argumate

I’m dubious about the idea of trying to shame neo-nazis by accusing them of being involuntarily celibate losers who can’t get a date, one reason being that the tactic fails to work on anyone who can get a date.

Now, you might say this tactic is still useful anyway on others, and for reinforcing the social perception of neo-nazis as losers that no one should date, making it a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But it still seems to be focusing the attack on a fairly non-central part of the question at hand. The reason to oppose neo-nazi ideology is because it’s terrible, not because its proponents struggle on the dating market.

gender politics politics
argumate
argumate

@statist-shill-cuck:

I know it’s considered pretty paternalist by some to give people stuff rather than money that they could spend on what they desire, but I think free food, free housing, and free healthcare should just be a thing. It really wouldn’t even be very disruptive to integrate all that into an existing capitalist society. Turn restaurants into people’s kitchens where food is served buffet style, for free, to all. Socialize housing and build some skyscrapers where the poor can live for free. And most rich and semi-rich countries already have that free healthcare thing down already. Only barbarian nations like the US are easily able to pay for it but don’t have it.

Free healthcare might be the easiest part of that actually, as barring a few pathological cases people generally don’t enjoy spending more time in hospital.

Free food incentivizes ways to exploit it in a way that just giving people money to buy food does not, and makes it harder for other food production services to compete by offering better products or service.

Some level of socialised housing may be necessary, but if you overdo it you end up creating crime ridden ghettos that no one actually wants to live in, bringing you back to square one.

mitigatedchaos

Where should the people live?  What food should they eat, and how much?

For the majority of cases, the individual has more information about this than the central planner.  A housing voucher or a food voucher, if one insists on something more like an in-kind transfer, is still a better option than direct food and housing, because it can adapt to individual and local conditions.

politics policy
argumate
argumate

neoliberalism-nightly said: man argumate u can do better than this

Do I have to, though? Seems like without basic income you have to bite at least some of these bullets:

1. Existing welfare systems deliver better outcomes more efficiently.

2. Some people will starve and that’s okay.

3. Automation won’t inevitably increase unemployment.

4. People will never rebel if forced into menial labour to survive.

5. Society without basic income will involve less suffering over all.

That just seems unlikely to me.

voximperatoris

What happens when people squander the basic income and then need additional assistance to avoid starving (or “starving” in the sense of not having an acceptable first-world standard of living)?

I don’t know enough about the history of it to say whether it was justified or not, by that sort of consideration is the main reason why welfare has historically shifted from cash grants to in-kind aid.

argumate

Pay it on a daily basis.

mitigatedchaos

It can be put on a card system actually, for efficiency.  Then they don’t even need to have a check or mailing address, visit an office, or so on.

Regardless, this will need to be tested by experiment.

politics policy
argumate
argumate

@voximperatoris: Also, you keep saying you don’t like prediction markets, but I’ve never seen you make a decent argument why not. Clearly, on a small and illiquid market (or one with fake money), quality will generally be poor. But that is reason to expand their use.

All prediction markets will be small and lack liquidity, as the range of things people want to predict is very broad but the number of people able or willing to get involved is very limited.

Robin Hanson often suggests that corporations should use prediction markets to predict the outcome of various internal projects, which would limit the number of participants to dozens or hundreds of people at best, require the company to provide liquidity, be confounded by all kinds of internal politics, and is really just a clumsy way of providing random bonuses to lucky employees.

Large scale real money prediction markets have to compete with all the other places people might want to invest, many predictions are very long-term, and it’s very difficult to nail down exactly how to judge a prediction, even for something as structured as a US election (eg. consider electoral college shenanigans).

Hanson’s futarchy is particularly ridiculous. Say you have a poorly designed government program like cash for clunkers to get old cars off the road and reduce pollution and CO2 emissions. The limited reach and high overhead means it’s going to have no effect or even be counterproductive, and you bet accordingly. Then the global financial crisis hits, economic growth stalls, and CO2 emissions actually decline, unexpectedly. Nothing to do with the policy you thought was bad, but how is that handled? Do you have a panel of experts to carefully go through all these issues and pronounce a verdict on each one?

There are already ways to use predictions to profit. If you think that Trump will be elected and pivot towards Russia, that has implications for energy markets and Eastern Europe and the Middle East and currencies. If you think that China will enter an economic slump you can take advantage of that. If you think that a particular movie will fail at the box office you can short the studio. If strong AI will be developed earlier or later you can invest accordingly.

People who have good ideas about the future already have plenty of options!

Prediction markets may be useful in certain fairly limited situations, but it is necessary to actually demonstrate that on a case by case basis; mostly it just seems to be the equivalent of averaging a bunch of guesses, which typically outperforms a single guess but isn’t some radical new way to structure society.

thefutureoneandall

These are all good criticisms; I’ve torn into UNU elsewhere for this sort of stuff. (Their pitch is swarm intelligence, but check out their pictures. It’s just an overhyped prediction market with low stakes, plus they’ve added some totally novel bugs like letting people spread vote between certain pairs of outcomes, but not others.)

Futarchy has some way bigger problems, though. I think the common rebuttal to the things you cited is “all our existing systems suck too, so this might still beat them”. I’m not convinced by that, but I certainly think we can avoid the argument by citing more severe problems.

One is that futarchy can’t effectively deal in long-odds or long-timescale events. Black swan reasoning is always a bitch, but wisdom of the crowds is a particularly awkward way to approach it. And handling things like “global warming with lead to > 2°C of temperature rise by 2100″ has all kinds of secondary problems where running a bet that long is basically a nonstarter no matter how you assess results.

Another, which I think dooms the project, is that futarchy is catastrophically unable to reason about its own existence. If I propose a betting topic of “the prediction market will be dissolved and replaced with a dictatorship which cancels all bets”, there’s no way to coherently bet true and get profits.

If people think too big to fail is a serious issue with the stock market, they ought to be screaming in terror at the thought of futarchy. Because the equivalent faulty-downside predictions there are things like “let’s do nuclear brinkmanship with Russia to improve our economic standing when they back down”. The failure case doesn’t pay out, so it must be a good idea!

I’m being glib here, but I’ve seen this issues raised before and I’ve never seen even an attempt at a rebuttal. If someone has addressed things like “how to prediction market about 100 year x-risk issues”, I’d love to read it.

argumate

like an assassination market, but for the entire planet.

mitigatedchaos

Perhaps payouts along the way based on the estimated probability for long-term bets - I guess that would be Prediction Derivatives? That allows people to profit if the estimate of high global warming increases. However, I’m not sure on how it incentivizes holding the prediction in the first place.

If we allow selling the shares of your position in the market, then people could hold long-term positions speculatively. For instance, I estimate a good chance that high global warming will happen, and that it will become more obvious in the intervening time, then I can buy low now and sell later.

bambamramfan
popthirdworld

“When I was 26, I went to Indonesia and the Philippines to do research for my first book, No Logo. I had a simple goal: to meet the workers making the clothes and electronics that my friends and I purchased. And I did. I spent evenings on concrete floors in squalid dorm rooms where teenage girls—sweet and giggly—spent their scarce nonworking hours. Eight or even 10 to a room. They told me stories about not being able to leave their machines to pee. About bosses who hit. About not having enough money to buy dried fish to go with their rice.

They knew they were being badly exploited—that the garments they were making were being sold for more than they would make in a month. One 17-year-old said to me: “We make computers, but we don’t know how to use them.”

So one thing I found slightly jarring was that some of these same workers wore clothing festooned with knockoff trademarks of the very multinationals that were responsible for these conditions: Disney characters or Nike check marks. At one point, I asked a local labor organizer about this. Wasn’t it strange—a contradiction?

It took a very long time for him to understand the question. When he finally did, he looked at me like I was nuts. You see, for him and his colleagues, individual consumption wasn’t considered to be in the realm of politics at all. Power rested not in what you did as one person, but what you did as many people, as one part of a large, organized, and focused movement. For him, this meant organizing workers to go on strike for better conditions, and eventually it meant winning the right to unionize. What you ate for lunch or happened to be wearing was of absolutely no concern whatsoever.

This was striking to me, because it was the mirror opposite of my culture back home in Canada. Where I came from, you expressed your political beliefs—firstly and very often lastly—through personal lifestyle choices. By loudly proclaiming your vegetarianism. By shopping fair trade and local and boycotting big, evil brands.

These very different understandings of social change came up again and again a couple of years later, once my book came out. I would give talks about the need for international protections for the right to unionize. About the need to change our global trading system so it didn’t encourage a race to the bottom. And yet at the end of those talks, the first question from the audience was: “What kind of sneakers are OK to buy?” “What brands are ethical?” “Where do you buy your clothes?” “What can I do, as an individual, to change the world?”

Fifteen years after I published No Logo, I still find myself facing very similar questions. These days, I give talks about how the same economic model that superpowered multinationals to seek out cheap labor in Indonesia and China also supercharged global greenhouse-gas emissions. And, invariably, the hand goes up: “Tell me what I can do as an individual.” Or maybe “as a business owner.”

The hard truth is that the answer to the question “What can I, as an individual, do to stop climate change?” is: nothing. You can’t do anything. In fact, the very idea that we—as atomized individuals, even lots of atomized individuals—could play a significant part in stabilizing the planet’s climate system, or changing the global economy, is objectively nuts. We can only meet this tremendous challenge together. As part of a massive and organized global movement.

The irony is that people with relatively little power tend to understand this far better than those with a great deal more power. The workers I met in Indonesia and the Philippines knew all too well that governments and corporations did not value their voice or even their lives as individuals. And because of this, they were driven to act not only together, but to act on a rather large political canvas. To try to change the policies in factories that employ thousands of workers, or in export zones that employ tens of thousands. Or the labor laws in an entire country of millions. Their sense of individual powerlessness pushed them to be politically ambitious, to demand structural changes.

In contrast, here in wealthy countries, we are told how powerful we are as individuals all the time. As consumers. Even individual activists. And the result is that, despite our power and privilege, we often end up acting on canvases that are unnecessarily small—the canvas of our own lifestyle, or maybe our neighborhood or town. Meanwhile, we abandon the structural changes—the policy and legal work— to others.”

- Naomi Klein

mitigatedchaos

That’s a good note. Though, since you mentioned the getting yelled at theory in other places: no one will fight you for buying fair trade quinoa, but political opposition increases almost proportionately to involvement, and any talk about foreign working conditions already has pre-cached arguments to stop it. Individuals have made some changes en masse even if they are not sufficient to make all of them, making it more tempting. Of course, it might have been sold to Trumpers on the grounds of “fair competition”. They know they can never compete with firms that house people in dorms and dump industrial waste into the ocean. Forcing the matter makes outsourcing less competitive which helps them last a bit longer.

Source: popthirdworld politics