On Moral Superiority • Hacker News Board

Re: On Moral Superiority

#61

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:25 AM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #55

astine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, in the united States at least, it doesn't work that way. Public works are significantly less efficient than private works. It is very common in the US for a public entity to spend many times as much on a work as a private company. The incentive systems in the private sector are just that much much better. This is in fact one of the arguments for a capitalist society. If a command economy were capable of…

You might not know (or forget) Stalin's various purges of some of the most brilliant and effective people the USSR (along with millions of others), not to mention the tens of millions of Soviet citizens who died when their country was ravaged during WW2. There was also the fear and terror the country was ruled by, resulting in a state of constant paranoia among the citizenry. Not to mention the cronyism inherent in t…

[deleted]

Re: On Moral Superiority

#62

Post by rdl » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:31 AM UTC

jbz wrote: post #57

rdl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's pretty unclear on economics, yes. Capitalism more efficiently allocates the labor of people than a command/communist economy. Thus, for the same population, a capitalist economy has more wealth -- it can spend this on better consumer goods AND better military hardware. The tokens themselves don't matter. As well, the "western world" was much bigger and better resourced than the soviet bloc, and started from a mu…

It doesn't seem right to state "He's pretty unclear on economics, yes." and then go on to make an unqualified statement of amazement that soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did. Like it or not Russia defeated the bulwark of the German war machine, there is no question they suffered the brunt of the German military force that would have easily overwhelmed other allied nations, even poss…

I am fully aware of the quality of Russian military equipment and military during WW2. (they had the best mass-produced tank in the war, one of the best air support fighters, and they had much simplified logistics vs. the US) However, after Stalin purged most of the officers, and the damage of WW2 to the industrial base, and then the results of planned economy (shrinking the overall size of the economy), it's pretty amazing they had the resources to maintain near-parity with the US for ~10-20 years. They only really achieved this by devoting a much larger fraction of their industrial base to the military than was done in the west.

Also, any discussion of Russia during WW2 needs to include Simo Hayha ("White Death"), just because he's the most amazing sniper in the history of the world.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#63

Post by rdl » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:35 AM UTC

lionhearted wrote: post #48

rdl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's pretty unclear on economics, yes. Capitalism more efficiently allocates the labor of people than a command/communist economy. Thus, for the same population, a capitalist economy has more wealth -- it can spend this on better consumer goods AND better military hardware. The tokens themselves don't matter. As well, the "western world" was much bigger and better resourced than the soviet bloc, and started from a mu…

> It's amazing that the soviets were able to maintain some level of parity as long as they did (maybe to 1960-1965 in most military forces) They actually never had arms parity - USA had over a 20:1 ratio of nukes in the 1960's. The problem is, the :1 is still enough to wreck all sorts of havoc. Also, massively more infantry. Edit: Sorry, my numbers were wrong, misremebered. 1964: USA 2,416 USSR 375 [1]. So more like…

Within Europe, they had a massively superior conventional force, to the point that the US almost certainly would have initiated the use of nuclear weapons (tactical or strategic), after being overrun. Part of this is that they really only had to put their forces on their own border, and could support them with lines of communication entirely on land and within their own territory. The US had to pay a lot more to sustain forces in Europe, and keeping the Atlantic open during a major war would have been difficult.

At some point, nuclear forces are pretty much a binary thing -- either you have enough to guarantee a second-strike countervalue capability, or you don't. China seems to believe it can do this mission with ~200 warheads, today.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#64

Post by jbm » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:35 AM UTC

Confusion wrote: post #46

te_platt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, things like making a decision between ending a hellish war by killing millions or by killing hundreds of thousands (was there another option?) is terrible thing to have to do. Making a calculated political decision to murder millions just isn't in the same category. I don't want to justify any of the wrongdoings of anyone based on "the other guy is worse". I also don't accept that the United States was mora…

It's irrelevant whether you can rationally defend dropping an atomic bomb. The only thing that matters is that you lose moral credibility when you do, whether you like it or not. This isn't about who is right; this is about how the public responds.

I'm a bit depressed that you are being downvoted.

This article, right or wrong, is about perception; your comment perfectly captures the way the same act can be perceived by different groups. Can one of the down modders please explain why they did so? The only thing that is coming to mind is that you disagree with the opinion (and that really is no reason to do a down mod)

Re: On Moral Superiority

#65

Post by astine » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 12:48 AM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #55

astine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that, in the united States at least, it doesn't work that way. Public works are significantly less efficient than private works. It is very common in the US for a public entity to spend many times as much on a work as a private company. The incentive systems in the private sector are just that much much better. This is in fact one of the arguments for a capitalist society. If a command economy were capable of…

You might not know (or forget) Stalin's various purges of some of the most brilliant and effective people the USSR (along with millions of others), not to mention the tens of millions of Soviet citizens who died when their country was ravaged during WW2. There was also the fear and terror the country was ruled by, resulting in a state of constant paranoia among the citizenry. Not to mention the cronyism inherent in t…

I most certainly don't forget, (I have a degree in this :)) Stalin's purges happened long before the Soviet Union's collapse and actually precipitated its high-point. Not to mention that the economic difficulties of collectivism actually preceded the atrocities. The Soviet Union found out extremely early on that centralized economies don't work. During the first wave of collectivization, the economy collapsed and millions starved. (This is on top of the economic difficulties already afforded by the war and revolution.) Lenin was forced to institute the NEP which was a limited free market system in order for the economy to recover. The purges themselves were responses to the failures of collectivization. They targeted scapegoats such as the Kulaks (who, if you take Soviet policy as any kind of guide, were a sort of fictional minority group,) in order to distract from the deeper problems with the system. You can actually poke through the early Soviet economic history and see a pattern of attempted collectivization, famine and revolts, loosening of market controls, and finally recovery of the economy. The history of the Soviet Union is actually a pretty strong condemnation of extreme collectivism.

It's not like the USSR was unique historically. China, Vietnam, and North Korea also attempted similar systems. Of the three, two have effectively admitted defeat and are now pursuing progressively free-market systems while the third hasn't, and is a Hell-hole as a result.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#66

Post by bpyne » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 1:58 PM UTC

locopati wrote: post #38

bpyne wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are the back-to-the-land and localism movements?

I see young people buying farms as a form of back-to-the-land. Localism seems to capture eating locally grown foods & buying locally made goods. Not saying these are real movements with web sites and books about them, just words to capture trends.

I was pretty sure that's what you meant by "localism" but didn't realize this purchasing tendency had been raised to the level of an "ism". My family and I started going in this direction around 10 years ago. To be clear, we prefer locally grown and made goods, but we like variety in our diet, so we happily purchase food that is out of season locally.

Back-to-the-land is a new one for me. I didn't realize young people were eschewing modern office life for farming. It's a very respectable choice.

Re: On Moral Superiority

#67

Post by jerf » Wed, Aug 04, 2010, 5:13 PM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #59

jerf wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just explained part of why a centralized system is less efficient, though even if you remove all those problems a centralized system still can not beat a capitalistic system with its superior capital allocation via pricing mechanisms. But those things are an intrinsic part of having a fully centralized system. Somebody not in the favored central government is going to want to be in the favored central government…

"You just explained part of why a centralized system is less efficient," Um.. No. I explained some of the reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed. No other "centralized system" had the particular history that the Soviet Union had. It was absolutely unique. And I can see no reason why any other "centralized system" must have all, or even any, of those negative factors which caused the Soviet Union to collapse. "even if…

"This statement of yours sounds like an avowal of ideology (an ideology that's sadly all too prevalent on HN), rather than any sort of argument in favor of capitalism or against communism."

No, it's a reflection of Economics 101, really. You simply can not replicate the amount of information in a price in a centralized system, it's actually impossible.

Walk through the first few chapters of http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_ToC... . No, seriously, do it. The first few chapters are very basic and if you can just wave them away as "ideological" then we're done here anyhow. Prices contain a lot of information and no central authority can match it. They especially can't match it if they believe prices are a moral issue and they ignore the basis of them in the first place.

"Are you saying that "favored central government cliques" and violence aren't possible in capitalist systems? Even a superficial look at a model capitalist country like the US will reveal their presence."

First, the US is not a model capitalist country and has not been in a long time. The idea that the US is some sort of unrestricted capitalist paradise is propaganda, not fact. Second, your logic here is terrible. When I say that the only outlet for advancement is one or another form of violence in a centralized system, therefore I am claiming that in a capitalistic system it is never a form of advancement? If you're not even reading my actual points and you're willing to bend what I'm saying that hard, or you can't even see the grievous crime against logic you just committed, that's not even worth replying to.