Voting is meant to allow a community to police itself to some extent, although the downside to that is it incentivizes controlling the discussion over contributing to it. It’s a lot easier to vote in accordance with your own beliefs than articulate counter-arguments. The prisoner dilemma takes hold, people stop visiting as they get frustrated by the downvoting, and a bubble forms. It’ll be interesting to see how AI changes the online discussion landscape.
Also note that votes don't just mean agree/disagree. I frequently upvote comments I disagree with and downvote comments I agree with. The votes place the comments in the discussion ranking so plenty of people vote this way.
One example of this is I might like a conversation that's responding to a comment I don't like. But it's a common misunderstanding so I want the conversation to be boosted. Therefore I upvote the comment I disagree with because it's parent to the comments I want to be more visible.
I don't think I'm the only one that does this on HN. And I think doing this can help reduce the repeated comments. In the above example an early common misconception might get downvoted, not seen by others, and then repeated by some, where it can then rise because it's seen by a different subset.
Anyways, I don't think people should vote strictly on agree/disagree
I also don’t think people should vote like that, the problem is there’s no way to enforce such a pattern[1]. Everyone benefits from voting as you describe, but that’s precisely where the prisoner’s dilemma comes into play. There’s also a size component to it. Small, tight knit communities tend to do well with voting, but as communities grow interactions become less personal, trust drops, and the incentive structure I described above becomes dominant. Voting essentially allows a community to establish its own Overton window distinct from what the official rules create, but that can be changed and constricted until a bubble is established[2]. I’ve seen it happen with countless communities across social media. Despite good intentions I think voting systems are a net negative to fostering good discussions and debate.
[1] Maybe AI meta-moderation?
[2] I don’t mean that this is happening intentionally by bad actors, merely that on average large groups produce outcomes that are dictated by incentives.
As I’ve grown older I’ve come to realize that there are no solutions, merely tradeoffs. Saying something is “free” is selling a solution which rhetorically works well with a voting populace that has little, if any, knowledge of economics. Describing the n-th order economic consequences and how you are trading one set of issues for a different set of issues — which may be acceptable on balance but is not without consequence — is a very difficult thing to communicate. In reality the attack ads basically write themselves. Or to put it more bluntly utopia sells a lot better than reality.
The second aspect to this is that specifically when it comes to economics the timescales needed to understand the impact of a policy are generally longer than the collective memory of the people. Politicians inevitably sell and enact good intentions, but by the time the reality of the consequences from those intentions becomes manifest it will be years or decades later and the causal relationship is masked and the politician will generally be long gone. At that point it just looks like a new problem that similarly needs a “solution”.
Agreed. Many in this thread appear confident that “everyone” comprehends that anything labeled “free” actually implies “subsidized.” However, I still believe they are mistaken.
People fail to realize that increased social programs inevitably result in reduced income for everyone. If they understood this, you would observe the polls on this issue, which already reflect the fact that most individuals are willing to assist those in need but do not support most social programs.
You’re using multiple definitions of “free” here. One is freedom in the Lockean sense, the other is freedom from the properties and consequences of an emergent system. It’s a bit like saying you are free to choose your own mate and have kids without government involvement but you’re still a slave to natural selection.
The concept of the free press does not guarantee that the truth will proliferate, it merely attempts to avoid the problem of the state defining what truth is. It’s an attempt to select the least worst option because no one knows of a perfect solution or even if one exists.
You’re only considering one part of the system, not the whole. As the GAO puts it[1]:
> Intragovernmental debt holdings represent federal debt owed by Treasury to federal government accounts—primarily federal trust funds such as those established for Social Security and Medicare—that typically have an obligation to invest their excess annual receipts (including interest earnings) over disbursements in federal securities.
> Debt held by the public represents a claim on today’s taxpayers and absorbs resources from today’s economy, meaning that when an investor buys Treasury securities it is not investing that money elsewhere in the economy.
> Intragovernmental debt holdings reflect a claim on taxpayers and the economy in the future. Specifically, when federal government accounts redeem Treasury securities to obtain cash to fund expenditures, Treasury usually borrows from the public to finance these redemptions.
Or to put it simply the excess contributions are lent to the Treasury who uses it for general government expenditures. When it’s time to pay it back the Treasury can either pay it with tax revenue assuming it has excess or has cut spending elsewhere or it will be forced to borrow it. The latter is generally what happens.
I wouldn’t be so quick to call people ill-informed on this subject if I were you.
No, I considered the whole thing. It's worth, in some contexts, pointing out that we borrow to service existing debt, but it remains irrelevant that one of the owners of that debt happens to be the Social Security Trust Fund, if we're talking about the budget deficit.
We halt all spending on Social Security tomorrow. Great, wonderful. Buuuuut... that debt still exists and nothing whatsoever changes for the budget deficit. [EDIT pedantic nuance: technically it might let us spread repaying that debt over a longer period, but the debt itself remains identical, unless we decide we're just gonna let it sit there and never pay anything against it, which is identical to nullifying it, which, see next paragraph]
Unless we're prepared to nullify debts we've already incurred, in which case, why single out the debt Social Security owns for that treatment?
> I wouldn’t be so quick to call people ill-informed on this subject if I were you.
Nah, gonna continue until I see any reason to stop.
>why single out the debt Social Security owns for that treatment
Because it's the biggest slice of the federal budget pie, and currently it goes to the segment of the US population with the highest average net worth.
Whether you think it's right or wrong, it is a massive chunk of mandatory spending. Combined with Medicare, it's close to 40% of the entire budget, and it is ultimately unsustainable.
> Because it's the biggest slice of the federal budget pie
It's not spent out of the general fund. The only—only—effect Social Security spending has on the budget is that for part of its spending, it calls in debt the general budget already owes it when it spend its money (which is invested in government debt). That money came from a dedicated, separate source, and wasn't generated by deficit spending, but by actual income. That money bought US government debt, so we owe that back, and that repayment is the only part of any of this that affects the budget.
[EDIT] To boil this down for international readers or people who just haven't ever bothered to learn the super interesting (LOL) way Social Security is structured:
1) Social Security is funded by the majority of the money that comes out of workers' paychecks under the "FICA" heading (some goes to other benefits-related stuff, but most of it goes to Social Security). This is a static proportion of ~15%, not progressively bracketed like ordinary income tax. About half is paid separately by your employer, typically, but people filing as independent contractors (form 1099) pay the whole shebang. This tax also phases out abruptly at a certain level (I forget exactly where, something like $200k for an individual tax filer I think) which means it's actually not just not-progressive, but rather extremely regressive (i.e. it preferentially targets income dollars with the highest marginal utility, not the lowest)
2) Under certain circumstances, but mostly when you get sufficiently old, you can start to draw benefits (payments back to you) out of Social Security. These benefits are (basically) adjusted for how much you paid in. Paid in more? Get more back.
3) For a long time Social Security ran a surplus from their FICA income, so that money went into the Social Security "Trust Fund". This money is not available to the general budget. The law is structured such that the excess money couldn't just be spent on other stuff.
4) ... however, you don't really want money just sitting around inflating away, you want to invest it. Plus, sure would be nice for the rest of the budget to access that big tempting pile of money somehow, if you're a politician and kinda an asshole (but I repeat myself). So, the trust fund bought government debt.
5) Social Security is now deficit spending, because we have a fuckload of old people drawing benefits from it, and not enough young people funding it to balance that out. That means it's spending down the trust fund (ITS OWN MONEY that it ALREADY COLLECTED). This requires cashing in some of those IOUs.
6) "Well when it runs out of money it saved up, won't that mean that spending becomes deficit spending against the general budget?" Nope! Not without changing the law, anyway (which opens up practically infinite possibilities, so it's kinda pointless to introduce to a discussion of "how does this work?"). What'll happen is the SSA (Social Security Administration) has to cut benefits until payments balance with income (from the FICA tax).
I want to highlight your point because you're correct and this is something that a lot of people don't understand about economic systems. We exist in a resource constrained system. There are finite medical workers, finite time, finite medicine, finite medical facilities, finite medical equipment, and just finite resources in general. There will always be shortages and surpluses in such a system as resource allocation is never perfect. If you have a shortage you must ration supply through some mechanism. It can be by prices, by queue, by need, by lot, by status, or countless other mechanisms or combinations of mechanisms but you must ration regardless. This will lead to people dying under certain conditions who may not have died if some other rationing mechanism was used, but if a different rationing mechanism was used then a different set of people would have died. The only thing that can be done is to select the system that allocates resources more efficiently than other systems to minimize this failure mode. This whole idea of "statistical murder" would just lead to the banning of medical care entirely as no system has perfect allocation at all times, although some are certainly worse than others.
Plus I have no idea what the word "statistical" even means in this context...
Our system isn't this resource constrained though. Our system has evolved unintentionally to allocate things this way, but our system does in fact have the resources. In fact, we have so much resources/efficiency/excess we have all kinds of labs/practices doing all kind of optional procedures across the entire country. So many that wait times are really really low for those elective procedures.
Example. I live in a mountain town. Our ER takes hours. I can go to one of the multiple nearby doc in a boxes and get seen in 15 minutes. My town HAS the resources to see those people waiting in the ER. We just don't allocated the resources that way.
My town is a ski town. We have WAY more orthopedic surgeons than we need, but it's extra profitable for them here and living rich in a remote ski town is nice.
My tiny town has multiple beauty skincare facilities with licensed doctors on staff.
It's not a 'we don't have resources' it's a 'we don't prioritize these lives'.
Which is fine. But don't lie to us and say there aren't medical resources.
You also have way more orthopedic surgeons because the AMA lobbied to require primary care physicians to go through the same rigorous residency track as specialists do, where before they could begin practice after a year, and so there's almost no incentive to enter primary care medicine directly anymore; it's the same cost and effort as becoming a cardiologist, but less pay.
> There's something that happened during ZIRP & Negative Real Interest Rate Policies that completely divorced the value of money in the real economy from the value of assets & future cash flows
I’m not sure I follow. The USD is just a medium of exchange. 100% of the dollars commands 100% of the wealth of the economy. If you increase the number of dollars but the size of the economy itself doesn’t increase then the underlying prices would go up and the value of individual dollars would go down.
That’s not accurate for two reasons. First, the dollar isn’t just a medium of exchange, but a medium for storing value since it’s the reserve currency. Second, a dollar can get spent multiple times so there isn’t a direct relationship with the amount of economic activity as you suggest.
I don’t disagree with your first point, but your second point may have been a misunderstanding of what I said or I don’t understand what you’re saying. I’m not suggesting when you spend money it goes away and can’t be used again. I was more suggesting the M0/M1/M2 money supplies change in size which is distinct from GDP size, although I admit that is a simplification.
> If you increase the number of dollars but the size of the economy itself doesn’t increase then the underlying prices would go up and the value of individual dollars would go down.
Just looking the number of dollars, without looking at what they're doing, is like thinking you will gain weight because your fridge/pantry is stocked:
> But also – why do so many people insist that inflation is an increase in the money supply? This makes zero sense. Here’s why – our economy is mostly a credit based economy. So, if I take out a loan for $100,000 then the money supply has technically increased by $100,000. But what if I don’t actually tap that loan? What if I borrow the money because, for instance, house prices just went up 25% and I want to have some cash around for emergencies? This doesn’t tell us anything about prices, living standards or really anything. But this is what so much of the money supply represents – money that has been issued and is just sitting around unused. Why is this useful? It’s like calculating your weight changes by counting how much food you have in your refrigerator. No. That’s potential calories consumed and potential weight gain. The amount of food in your fridge tells you little about your future weight changes just like the amount of money in the economy tells us little about the actual price changes in the economy.
I fully admit what I said was simplistic and not meant to indicate the true complexity of the system. I agree with everything you’ve posted as inflation is not immediate merely because the money exists. I was presenting a rough zeroth order approximation because I didn’t understand how the value of money could be completely divorced from assets/the economy.
> I was presenting a rough zeroth order approximation because I didn’t understand how the value of money could be completely divorced from assets/the economy.
Money has no value except in what it can buy you, the most important of which are shelter, water, and food for survival. After that you get into what can help you achieve happiness / fulfillment.
As a percentage of household spending, food (even with recent risen prices) have never been lower:
We've never lived longer, with fewer diseases, and had an easier (and safer) time to travel.
Sadly shelter (especially if you want to buy) has gotten more expensive (at least in the Anglo-sphere), but that's more about things like zoning policy and such rather than money supply.
So what exactly has dropped in "value" in human life/lives with the increased amount of money that's supposedly bouncing around? When in human history have things been better? If you could jump in a time machine that goes 88 mph, what period of history would you rather be in to live your life?
It's no different than the South in the US which does not include Texas, New Mexica, Arizona, or any other states that are geographically South in the modern day US. Once you understand the historical aspect of the naming it makes sense. The category itself, regardless of its label, is useful.
In terms of Latin America being a part of the West or not, that's more interesting. I'm currently reading Samuel P. Huntington's "A Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order" and in it he talks a lot about civilizations which he defines as the highest cultural grouping of people short of what makes us human. Language, law, and religion in Latin America largely derive from Europe, although there are other aspects like economics that tend can differ. Some people consider Latin America as part of the West, others believe it's peripheral to the West or its part of its own civilization as Huntington does.
As others have pointed out Russia is not part of the West and at least according to Huntington would be placed in the Orthodox Civilization. Interestingly Huntington also argues that Greece, despite being the center of Classical Civilization which is the bases for Western Civilization, is not a part of the West, rather they too are Orthodox.
Regardless of whether you agree with these groupings, I think distilling it down to skin color is incorrect and not useful. The West itself is not even remotely homogenous in this aspect. You wouldn't go to sections of the Deep South in the US and declare it as not being a part of the West anymore than you would include Belarus as part of the West.
> A free market actually requires a lot of surrounding regulation to work
While I am not a free market absolutist, I think your assertion is based on judging negative outcomes of a free market vs the positive intentions of regulations trying to prevent those negative outcomes, i.e. you’re not considering the negative outcomes of regulations. I don’t think any free market advocate would state categorically that they produce perfect results, merely that any attempt to prevent certain negative outcomes through law will produce different negative outcomes elsewhere.
For instance regulations tend to incentivize very large corporations to advocate for more regulation as it raises the barrier to new competition entering the market place. Another example would be over burdensome regulations that slow the production of housing which constrains supply and prices a lot of people out of the market. I would have loved to take public transit where I lived a few years ago, but they spent a decade on environmental impact studies while traffic and the environmental impact from it got significantly worse.
There’s also a time component where the effects of regulations can take decades or even generations to really play out, but people tend to only remember the well-meaning goal of the regulation if they remember it at all. This tends to be very beneficial for politicians who end up being judged not on outcomes, but intentions.
I think you missed the parent comment’s point. They are not saying that a free market had it’s downsides, but rather that a lassaiz-faire approach often does not even result in a free market, but rather in a market that tends towards monopolization. And a market without competition is not free.
In order to have free, competitive markets, you need to have a referee to enforce a common set of rules, like antitrust.
Thanks, that's a very succinct way of putting my original idea.
It was well put in (one of the) the ending(s) of Evangelion, where the protagonist Shinji learns that gravity, a constraint that removes a degree of freedom, also gives him freedom by providing a surface upon which he can walk; without the constraint, he would actually be less free.
Sorry for the double reply but I think a concrete example might elucidate what I am discussing.
I have had to deal with close friends being addicted to heroin. I believe the free market is harmful when it comes to hard drugs because of my experiences. I am all for the complete ban of these hard drugs. However, that does not mean no one will OD on heroin even though it is banned. Such a law will create a black market, crime due to its illicit nature, incentivize horrific cartels to smuggle it into the country, and cost a lot of tax money to enforce. These are all negative outcomes from legislation whose goal is to prevent people from having access to heroin. I think this trade-off is worth it personally although some would disagree. The point is I’m not comparing the negative outcomes of hard drug use to the intentions of “fixing” it through legislation. Rather I am comparing outcomes to outcomes because there are some serious downsides to such a policy solution.
I have also lost a friend to heroin (well, probably fent... it was the early days of that, and we suspect that nobody knew how to dose properly...) and so I appreciate your tangent.
One of the things we've learned up here in Canada over the last couple decades is the need to understand that some people just cannot be sober. They will not be, and they will do anything to not be, ranging from the familiar drugs to whatever they can find (gasoline, inhalants, etc). Obviously, there are worse and better choices in this range of options, and there are more and less self destructive outcomes. Harm reduction has become a key strategy; what can we do that will help keep these people from hurting themselves and others?
We've achieved some manner of success helping prevent people from OD'ing, getting needle-transmitted drugs, etc. which helps them and helps all of us at large (in the most utilitarian sense, it keeps social healthcare costs lower). What we've failed at is preventing them from hurting others, unfortunately.
In the long run, I think that what we're going to need is better drugs. We have to find something that makes people feel as good as they need to feel, without all the massively negative side effects of heroin, meth, etc. that result in wrecked lives. Healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry should seriously be looking at it this way; not just working on antidepressants and other clinical meds that are trying to get people to a stable "normal", but drugs that actually make you feel good so that they can displace heroin / fentanyl, without the downsides.
Yes, we would still see people addicted to that.... <sips coffee> <watches guy across the street smoking>
I didn’t miss their point, I challenged the foundation upon which it rested.
You are asserting that a free market is unstable and will inevitably lead to a monopoly. Even if I take this as a fact for the sake of argument, it doesn’t nullify my point that judging the intention of political action (antitrust laws to prevent monopolies) against the outcomes of a system (free markets devolve into monopolies) is comparing apples to oranges. You must judge the outcomes of both systems. As I stated in my original reply, regulations can actually lead to monopolies, so the outcomes matter a lot more than their good intentions.
If I don’t take your assertion as a fact though[1], then what you’re doing is judging what you believe to be the outcome of a free market with what you believe will prevent that through legislation. This is entirely too theoretical and doesn’t even begin to answer which is a better system. Ultimately we need to understand the actual trade-offs that are being made between these systems in order to select the system with the most desirable characteristics.
[1] It is not at all proven that a free market will naturally devolve into a monopoly. This has been a contentious debate in economics for centuries and is absolutely not resolved. People tend to assume a static market and extrapolate into the infinite future, e.g. if a horse drawn carriage manufacturer has 99% market share then will it forever be a monopoly in a broken system or will a fledgling automotive industry dethrone this “monopoly” with a better alternative that is not even a direct competitor? This is a really, really deep subject in either case.
> You are asserting that a free market is unstable and will inevitably lead to a monopoly.
No, I am not asserting that.
I think the first thing to clear up is our definitions. My main point would be that a market that is controlled by a monopoly is not a free market. I would define a free market not as a market that is free from government interference, but a market in which all of the actors are free to participate on a fair competitive playing field.
I think that lassaiz-faire, with the meaning of "hands off" may be a more precise way to describe what you are saying when you say "free market".
I think that a fair competitive landscape is ultimately what we want out of markets. I agree that it is bad when government actions interfere with a fair competitive landscape. But it is not inevitable that all goverment actions will do that, and in many cases government action can help rather than hurt. And similarly, plenty of actions by non-government actors can interfere with a fair competitive landscape as well.
> a market that is controlled by a monopoly is not a free market.
In other words, the thing you are talking about _does not exist_ except in libertarian fantasies. Without a government (the monopoly on force in a region, that controls the markets within) providing the backbone for this - i.e. with features such as courts, police, mint - there is no freedom, because an aggrieved party has no recourse other than violence.
> It is not at all proven that a free market will naturally devolve into a monopoly.
I think it comes down to the category of item being offered in the market. Some things naturally lend themselves to monopolies; it feels like perhaps it's based on factors like the difficulty of entering the market with a new product at all, the amount of coordination and manpower required to field it, and the cost efficiencies of having a singular producer vs. many.
There are certainly cases where we see duopolies or triopolies etc. where one really-well-run company might be more efficient, from a labour standpoint; but then, in turn, we all benefit from having a redundant array of supply chains.
There are other cases where we absolutely want a monopoly, such as with policing, or (in many countries) with healthcare, because they apply to everyone and being a consumer of the service is not exactly optional.
> There's a real folly in capitalist countries thinking they can be self-sufficient walled castles. Capitalism by its nature will seek out the lowest cost be it in labor or manufacturing. That means often means outsourcing.
It can mean outsourcing, but I think your broader point is undercut by the fact that the USD holds a very special place as the world reserve currency. This creates high foreign demand for the USD which pushes up the exchange rate and leads to US exports being less competitive on the international market (i.e. our manufacturing base gets hollowed out because it cannot compete). This is a large market distortion that the US actively defends because it benefits us in other ways. Tariffs and general protectionism is not a good thing in a free market, but that's not really what is happening at the international level.
Before AI companies were usually very reticent to do a rewrite or major refactoring of software because of the cost but that calculus may change with AI. A lot of physical products have ended up in this space where it's cheaper to buy a new product and throw out the old broken one rather than try and fix it. If AI lowers the cost of creating software then I'm not sure why it wouldn't go down the same path as physical goods.
Every time software has gotten cheaper to create the end result has been we create a lot more software.
There are still so many businesses running on pen and paper or excel spreadsheets or off the shelf software that doesn't do what they need.
Hard to say what the future holds but I'm beginning to see the happy path get closer than it looked a year or two ago.
Of course, on an individual basis it will be possible to end up in a spot where your hard earned skills are no longer in demand in your physical location, but that was always a possibility.
