= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Smart, (young), ambitious and clueless -- what to do to maximize goodness? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
Put them in a capitalist system where they have to bargain fairly for goods and services that satisfy their desires. The rest will take care of itself.
The fact that so many problems already fail to be taken care of by this system indicates otherwise. It's entirely practical to operate in a capitalist system without producing wealth. As long as you produce profits, you don't have to concern yourself with the possibility that negative externalities are rendering your operations wealth negative.
I am presuming that the individual in question "wants" to make the world a better place in that they get warm fuzzies if their neighbors think better of them and get offended when you ask them about trade-offs- because they're really not willing to trade off all that much. I'm also comparing capitalist systems to non-capitalist systems, where interactions between people are much more zero-sum (but not entirely so). Making almost all interactions positive-sum does an amazing amount to improve the world and works with average people.
[edit] Now, you could argue that those gains already exist (in the developed world) and that if they want to make the world a better place than it is now, they can't just institute capitalism again. I would argue in turn that the developed world has strayed pretty far from capitalism and a lot could be done to bring it back, and that they also have the option of moving to the developing world and making it more capitalist.
In what respects would you say that the developed world has strayed from capitalism that it suffers for?
I'm extremely skeptical of the idea that "almost all" interactions in capitalist systems tend to be positive sum. Of course, my area of study (environmental science) is one where examples of negative sum interactions crop up on a continual basis, so I may be biased by exposure, but I think economists tend to be more optimistic about the positive influence of free markets than evidence warrants.
China should be the best example of what even moderate levels of capitalism can do.
The Communist bloc aren't know for their environmentally-friendly outcomes or even policies.
They're not, but I never said that Communism does well, only that Capitalism doesn't do as well as it's given credit for.
If China is moderate capitalism, one shudders how would extreme one looks like...
Well, moderate as in they don't have rule of law etc. What I meant to say was that even this level of capitalism has worked wonders in dragging hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Contrary to decades of Western foreign aid.
This is a good strategy.
But here is where I disagree. It is up to the smart, ambitious and motivated to direct and harness the capitalist system and the dumb people's desires in such a way that they can achieve their own desires. Including those that happen to be altruistic.
You ignore that smart etc. people have to be able to distinguish between fuzzies and reality. Without a marketplace to weed out poor performers, this is wishful thinking.
I live in Europe...
I'm not sure what position you are arguing against but I am sure it is not mine.
I live in Australia but am visiting Berkeley. I am not sure why this is relevant either.
I'm sorry me message didn't come across clearly. I can see it's not phrased well.
I'm immensely skeptical of the notion that clever people are needed to tell dumb people what to do to achieve what they want; to "harness the capitalist system". Mostly because so-called smart people have multiple other flaws that mainly stem from their not participating in or acknowledging the marketplace.
Many (public/social) intellectuals have such poor understanding of basic issues of economics, psychology and evolution that their prescribed cures worsen the ailment.
Which is why I mentioned Europe, a moribound continent which doesn't seem to understand that it has to produce stuff to consume stuff and which appears to value appearances and 'ethical policies' over facing economic reality.
Save for problems regarding the tragedy of the commons, I see little hope for centralized harnessing by clever people. I see socialism as the economic variant of creationism: the notion that good, complex things cannot arise without central planning.
Caveat lector: I'm reading Atlas Shrugged right now.
Every system ever devised consists of smart people telling the dumb ones what to do. Even in feudal society with hereditary rule, the thicker-than-brick kings were manipulated by smart barons and courtiers :-P
Generalization from fictional evidence
I'd venture capitalism less so than other systems. At least dumb people to some extent get what they want in capitalism. But of course, this is one aspect of nature that's very difficult to remedy and I worry that the cure is worse than the ailment
I meant it as an explanation of my current dismal perspective, not as evidence of anything. Sorry if it didn't come across right.
You 'harness the capitalist system' by participating in it, selling stuff, acquiring resources and exchanging those resources to achieve your goals. (And those goals can be selfish, altruistic or as arbitrary and nonsensical as you please.)
That is the position that I was "sure was not mine".
I say the marketplace and the economic engine behind it are out there, ready and waiting to be exploited by anyone with the ambition and competence to do so. It is a tool which can be used to translate whatever comparative advantage you have into the most efficient goal-maximisation that you can manage.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
I took "harness the capitalist system and the dumb people's desires in such a way that they can achieve their own desires" as a paternalistic statement.
Nope, just Machiavellian. ;)