I think you're both over-estimating AND under-estimating the rationality of people's behaviour. It is important that going bankrupt is somewhat unpleasant. If it wasn't, then normal people, who are somewhat rational, would have no incentive to pay back debt, and defaulting on loans would become normal. However, some people are always going to fail to think ahead and try to borrow irresponsibly. Even if bankrupt people were put in the workhouse and given punishing physical labour, those kinds of people would still be financially irresponsible. That's why the poorhouses were never empty, despite them being horrible places by design. Saddling people with debt forever won't stop irresponsible borrowing. Being broke is already horrible and punishing people harder is unlikely to make them think more rationally.
I'm guessing you're probably a smart person who thinks ahead and makes smart choices - you have to understand that not everyone in the world is like that. Punishing people who are not like that is unlikely to change them. You can't punch someone in the face to make them smart. You can punch someone in the face to make them obey you, but in this context that would mean singling out all irresponsible people and then punishing them before they take out a loan, not after. If you were able to identify irresponsible people then you might as well just not lend them any money.
Which brings me to the real benefit of bankruptcy. That is, if you really want to stop irresponsible borrowing, then it makes a lot of sense to also discourage irresponsible lending. Banks and credit unions are far more rational than the general population. If individuals are allowed to go bankrupt, there is a clear incentive not to lend money to people who don't have the means to pay off the debt. By providing that incentive, it then becomes the problem of the lender to identify whether or not an individual is likely to be able to pay of a loan. The lender is has a lot of information and resources through which they can make such a determination.
Now, different people have different ideas about the morality of this situation. Some would say that it's wrong for banks to take advantage of the irrational people, so it makes sense to provide incentives for responsible lending. Others would say that if individuals are irrational, then they get what they deserve, and banks should only be required to behave rationally. Personally, I don't think stupidity is morally wrong (otherwise dogs would be pure evil), and it's often quite self serving to argue otherwise.
> Letting the market allocate resources has a lot of inefficiencies, but it works better than any alternative that has been tried.
I don't think we've ever tried having the market solely allocate resources. I think pretty much every government has regulated trade, collected taxes, that sort of thing. What seems to have worked best would be letting the market allocate resources to some extent, but collecting taxes and investing in long term goals (such as research and infrastructure). But maybe this isn't necessary, maybe in a truly free market there would always be genius entrepreneurs like Elon Musk appearing every now and again to progress humanity. Still, there's a massive difference between the kinds of long term planning that modern western democracies already do and a communist dictatorship.
I think you're creating a false dichotomy here. It's perfectly possible for a government to encourage people to work in certain areas without descending into tyranny.
Most modern democratic governments already regulate their financial markets, and already invest in research grants, infrastructure projects and support for start ups. The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at.
The fact is, providing incentives to work towards long term goals is exactly the kind of thing that free markets aren't good at
To claim that markets are not "good" at this kind of optimization entails the belief that they should be.
I'd argue that capital allocation in the face of risk and uncertainty is a hard problem, and that while governments (in their role as infrastructure providers) make the problem easier, they (governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups.
>(governments in their role as social planners) enact policies to alter the risk landscape to achieve desirable social/economic ends and sometimes rents for specific interest groups.
Yes. And this is a GOOD thing. Because society as a whole (not to mention the human fucking species) is better off when certain special interest groups are advantaged: Children. The Elderly. Parents. Altruistic people. Social services. Healthcare. Investment in basic science research. Space exploration. Protecting the environment.
...and when certain people are disadvantaged: Killers. Psychopaths. Rapists. Thieves. Bullies. People who exploit market inefficiencies. Monopolists. Oligarchs that buy elections and bribe politicians. Aristocrats who throw their weight around to abuse and bully.
If you think certain types of people ("special interest groups") should NOT receive advantages or disadvantages based on their value to the human species... well... then you are f u c k i n g d u m b.
Who decides these things? WE DO. SOCIETY. YES, LIBERTARIANS, SOCIETY IS REAL.
Well, to be fair, governments also do things like create internment camps for Japanese Americans, Gitmo, horrible prisons, genocides, etc.
The worst atrocities of history are generally Government power run amok, where governments use propaganda mechanisms to rally the public into a frenzy and then do horrible things (like the Iraq war, Holocaust, etc.)
There is a big difference between the constructive activities of governments (solving coordination problems, building roads and other infrastructure, basic criminal justice) and the perverse social engineering that corrupt governmental organizations seem to universally gravitate toward.
I don't think that is entirely fair, as it seems to presume the scale of atrocity for any government necessarily outweighs the scale of its benefit. It isn't the case that events like you describe (genocide, internment camps, the Holocaust) are inevitable or constant. Governments do these things, when they do, because governments are the only power structures capable of it -- one would have to prove that corporations given the same opportunity or power would somehow not engage in anything similar. Other governments also fight against them. The only difference between a company hiring Pinkertons to shoot striking miners and an army killing civilians is in scale, I don't believe it says much about the implicit evil of government versus the implicit good of a free market.
Most of these events had some measure of popular support. Many people wanted to put the Japanese in camps. Many people wanted to rid Europe of Jews. A lot of Americans wanted the Iraq war, and a lot of Americans want prisons to be horrible, believing we're a Christian nation and that a Christian nation should punish the wicked and smite the infidels. It is, I think, a mistake to presume that government even in the act of tyranny necessarily separates people from the better angels of their nature through deception or coercion.
I don't disagree with any of your points (and they are well put).
However government is viewed by many as a legitimate purveyor of lethal force, both locally (everything from cops w/ guns to the death penalty) and remotely (intercontinental missile strikes, rendition, and foreign occupation).
Since governments typically have significant control over the media (by being able to classify information or more direct measures) there exists a significant self-perpetuating propaganda regime, which I think calls into question the basic legitimacy government is thought to enjoy, and along with it the mandate to use lethal force.
Most of the things we consider atrocities are the abuse of lethal force. When a militia member in Africa forces a child to murder his parents, we consider that unequivocally wrong, yet when a government murders his parents we consider that a legitimate projection of lethal force, perhaps only b/c we don't know the details.
So while governments do have some legitimacy and do a lot of good, the basic structures (consent, monopoly on coercion, and propaganda) are ripe for abuse and (I'd argue) transition into covert/improper use of force as they stabilize and their purpose becomes widely viewed as oriented toward peacetime activities.
>So while governments do have some legitimacy and do a lot of good, the basic structures (consent, monopoly on coercion, and propaganda) are ripe for abuse and (I'd argue) transition into covert/improper use of force as they stabilize and their purpose becomes widely viewed as oriented toward peacetime activities.
I agree with you. But I also feel that cynicism, while justifiable and oftentimes necessary, can itself be a blinder to the degree to which the faults of government can tend to take root in any power structure of any significance. Government can fall prey to abuse, and often does, but this doesn't necessarily mean that a lack of government in and of itself will limit abuse where any one group of people has any power over another. If government isn't a legitimate purveyor of lethal force or significant social planning then who or what is?
>the faults of government can tend to take root in any power structure of any significance
Absolutely.
>cynicism, while justifiable and oftentimes necessary, can itself be a blinder
I agree with this as well, and think that the proper course of action for the individual citizen is to uphold his civic duty and actively dissent, rather than merely resorting to cynicism.
Dissent can take many forms, but generally ought to provide a check to the tendency of government (or any kind of institution) to abuse its' power.
I can imagine that in extreme cases it is useful to have people who follow their own judgement rather than a fixed set of rules. The problem here is that these spies place practically no value on the rights of the public. Which means their judgement continually works against the public interest. Now this could be due to stupidity or corruption, but either way, it's not what you want from people who think themselves above the law.
In the future, we may simply not have a use for violent people anymore. War can be automated to some extent. Violence can be abstracted, so it is done via remote control. This is already happening.
Humans may just become domesticated, like dogs. If we have relative peace for long enough, those who can't control their violent urges just won't fit into society any more.
However, that doesn't negate your point that we could end up ruining it all through war. The thing is, most people want to follow, and they aren't very choosy about who leads them. Leadership tends to attract the kind of people who enjoy power, and so, even if resources are abundant, there is always something to fight about.
The technology that could bring about a lasting peace wouldn't be robotics, it would be some social mechanism through which we could obtain wise leadership. Which is certainly possible. Information technology opens up the possibility of entirely new levels transparency and accountability. Alternatively, there is the possibility of extremely rigid population monitoring and control.
Frankly, I think the most likely possibility is that there will only be a very brief period of time (maybe 50 years) between the point where we can automate all manual tasks, and the point where we have AI or augmented human minds, that are (by definition) impossible for us to predict.
I need to ask, when did we start routinely describing positive-sum cooperative behavior as "domesticated", implying a crippling or emasculation of the species?
Okay, so I agree that money in the bank doesn't do nothing. However, ultimately one of the main reasons why we want a thriving economy is to raise the quality of life for the people. If you look at the trends over time, in real terms, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer. If you look at other countries around the world, this seems to be a thing that happens as income disparity increases. Basically, even if having a concentration of wealth doesn't make the economy bad (that point is debatable) the benefits of the economy are not fairly shared by the people.
Which brings us to the next point, which is a bit of a mess, so I'm going to have to pick it apart in detail. Firstly, you are essentially saying that all people are not equal, and so it is not "fair" for wealth to be shared equally. This is true, but irrelevant. No-one has asked for wealth to be shared equally, we are asking for less of a concentration of wealth. We are saying "the system is not fair" you are replying "total egalitarianism is not fair" - irrelevant! Secondly you say that the only thing a society needs to do in order to be fair is make sure that everyone has the same rights in regard to the law. This is either obviously false or impossibly hard, depending on how you define the application of law. If you just think that the rules should be applied equally, then this is obviously not enough to ensure a fair society. For example, you could make it cost $100,000 to run for office. This is a rule that may be fairly applied to everyone, no matter their wealth. It just so happens that only rich people will be able to afford it. For another example, you could have entrenched media companies that act as gatekeepers into the political process (as we currently do). Now, nothing stops an individual with no connections to these entrenched interests from starting their own media empire - but even if they had a chance of succeeding, it still forms a massive barrier to entry that could hardly be called fair. If you expand your idea of what the law covers to include such things, then you're essentially saying is that the only thing society should do is have fair laws that are applied fairly, where a person of merit has an equal chance of success regardless of the circumstances of their birth. Which is great, but impossibly hard and definitely not what is happening right now. The third thing you say is that anything beyond the fair application of law is a race to make everyone the same. This is clearly not true. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is the same. I just don't think our current system is fair. Personally I think that everyone deserves to be fed, clothed, sheltered, educated and given access to healthcare just as a participation prize for being a human being. I think we can easily afford it (for proof, just look at countries with low income disparity). The set of standards I am describing is what people call human decency. It is not total egalitarianism. The last thing you say, almost in passing, is that making everyone the same in every aspect renders everyone poor by default. This is a strangely pessimistic view of matters. If you rendered everyone the same, then you'd render everyone average income by default, not poor. Unless you were talking about poverty in an objective rather than relative sense, which is either untrue or else you have very high standards. Even if we did descend into some kind of egalitarian nightmare where everyone was provided for equally (oh lord! the horror!) the quality of life would be fine. There's plenty of resources to go round, especially in the West where we have a lot of wealth. The real problem would be providing incentives for people to work, but I doubt that was the point you were making. (Incidentally we could, for example, create a currency that affords social status and narcotics rather than general material goods - which is, I suppose, just a streamlined version our current incentive system.)
> If you look at the trends over time, in real terms, the rich have been getting richer and the poor have been getting poorer
No, this is totally false. You can say that the gap between very rich people and poor people has been expanding, but both groups have been getting richer, and as a whole the world is clearly getting out of poverty. The poors are getting less poor from generation to generation. And it's fundamentally "normal" that the rich get richer faster than the poor because if you have 10% of asset increase every year for both groups (just a random number) anyway the larger assets will grow faster (in relative terms) and the gap will increase. This being said, the poor do get richer over time, there's numerous presentations on that subject on TEDtalks from different researchers. Don't deny the facts.
This discussion is devolving into pointless bickering about where you draw the line between science and technology.
If we stop being fussy about the definitions, it's pretty clear that some research/engineering is profitable in the short term and some is not. A lot of the work that is not profitable in the short term has potential long term benefits that are very important.
I think the main potential in analogue computing is to create complex networks of feedback loops where different regions of stability correspond to different machine states. I've seen models of neural network memory where the interconnection of neurons works like a combination of a symmetric linear transform and an amplifier followed by vector normalisation. The transform maps the sensory input into a reduced dimensional space (where each dimension corresponds to a possible memory). The reduced vector is amplified via the neural response function, and then it's transformed back to the sensory input vector space through an inverse to the original transform. That creates a feedback loop where (because of how the neural response function works) whatever the input is, the system converges to a vector that corresponds to exactly one of the memory vectors. It basically picks out and amplifies the closest memory to the sensory input.
That kind of system is a huge simplification, but similar things could be done with analogue computing. In particular, I think probabilistic computing could be done by setting up network feedback loops corresponding to underlying Bayesian networks, where stable points correspond to highest likelihood parameterisations. (I may actually do some work in this direction next year, because it's pretty cool stuff.)
The coach (according to the author) made that call based on her assumptions about the hire based on his gender, age and geographical origin. That's not informed personal opinion, it's exactly the kind of discrimination which the author is complaining about.
a) There is such a thing as cultural awareness. It is not the same as discrimination. If you travel a bit you find that there are actual differences between cultures. If you use those differences as justification to treat individuals unfairly then that is discrimination. (If you use false stereotypes as justification to treat individuals unfairly then that is also discrimination.) Discrimination is about how you treat individuals, not about being unaware of general trends. In this case, since the author's interaction with this individual is in the past, neither she nor her coach is discriminating.
b) The coach, according to the author, made that call after she recounted the story. Presumably in a lot of detail, and after numerous other coaching sessions in which her coach would have built up a detailed picture of how she worked and where her weaknesses lay.
Elaine Wherry lives in Bay Area. Is gender discrimination a huge common problem there?
All she has is a guy refusing a job offer. After that she talks to some radical feminist who decided it was because of her gender, and she, for some strange reason, accepts that explanation as truth and shifts all the blame to the guy.
I'm guessing you're probably a smart person who thinks ahead and makes smart choices - you have to understand that not everyone in the world is like that. Punishing people who are not like that is unlikely to change them. You can't punch someone in the face to make them smart. You can punch someone in the face to make them obey you, but in this context that would mean singling out all irresponsible people and then punishing them before they take out a loan, not after. If you were able to identify irresponsible people then you might as well just not lend them any money.
Which brings me to the real benefit of bankruptcy. That is, if you really want to stop irresponsible borrowing, then it makes a lot of sense to also discourage irresponsible lending. Banks and credit unions are far more rational than the general population. If individuals are allowed to go bankrupt, there is a clear incentive not to lend money to people who don't have the means to pay off the debt. By providing that incentive, it then becomes the problem of the lender to identify whether or not an individual is likely to be able to pay of a loan. The lender is has a lot of information and resources through which they can make such a determination.
Now, different people have different ideas about the morality of this situation. Some would say that it's wrong for banks to take advantage of the irrational people, so it makes sense to provide incentives for responsible lending. Others would say that if individuals are irrational, then they get what they deserve, and banks should only be required to behave rationally. Personally, I don't think stupidity is morally wrong (otherwise dogs would be pure evil), and it's often quite self serving to argue otherwise.