= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
yew comments on The Stable State is Broken - 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 (43)
"Scientists and economists advise politicians" is not quite the same as "scientists and economists indirectly control policy." In practice, in the US, most advisors who are not also politicians are pitted against an equal and opposite party and then ignored. That is not universally true and it is not the only problem with the US government by a long shot, but it is a significant effect.
As for the Chinese government, you were more or less right until relatively recently. They were fairly successful too (which is not the same thing as being nice, of course).
I think a large part of the problem is that even the scientists who rise to or near the top are selected for their ability to play politics and not their scientific ability.
I'd say they were selected for how well their conclusions support the desired policies of the politician appointing them.
I wasn't just talking about US scientists.
You expect this in equilibrium regardless of how far you are from the counterfactual with no economists, so this is not evidence either way.
Not following you there. In a mostly functional government I would expect to see either politicians with additional domain knowledge and few advisors or pure government functionaries with many advisors who had significant sway in their area of expertise. The current situation seems indicative of a particular ideological influence combined with the aforementioned career politician phenomenon.
I am not asserting a lack of economists - just a lack of influence over policy-in-practice.
Many argue that this was only because until the last decade and a half Chinese society has been fairly archaic, indeed pre-industrial in many aspects such as culture, and could be directed by accordingly simple means. It takes a lot more patience, wisdom and subtlety to steer an economy which depends upon Silicon Valley enterpreteurs (as shown by its nearly universal mishandling today, although I know nothing about what should be done) than a forcefully industrialized one with many leftovers of a collectivist agrarian one - because both formal and informal relations in it are different; in Marxist terms, both the productive forces and the relations of production have been undergoing a dramatic shift in China.
Remember, almost all the talk about "democracy" and "human rights" in China is nonsense because it looks at politics first, while these concepts (concrete enough, just mostly misconstructed) arguably depend upon an economic foundation (as described by Marx) first, a nation's culture (as mostly ignored by Marx) second, and only lastly upon the formal systems and fleeting power arrangements that are "Politics" in the narrow sense. I'm not a Marxist, I just think that the Marxist approach (see e.g. Slavoi Zizek) is uncharacteristically clear and spot-on in this particular regard.
(This is a forward payment of sorts for my long-promised post on the economic underpinnings of democracy and freedom.)
I've been PM'd with an explanation of the above being downvoted. Something about how mentioning Marx in any content on LW could be inflammatory, attract some wrong kinds of attention, etc, etc. To be honest, I'm incredulous and a little pissed off, but I'll comply.
In return, would the downvoters kindly please tell me if they find any specific claims in this opinion of mine mistaken or overly vague/bold/etc?
Is that an accurate paraphrase? As it is it sounds paranoid. A quick Google search turns up loads of drama-free mentions of Marx, including a sequences post.