A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty • Hacker News Board

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#251

Post by igravious » Fri, Feb 15, 2019, 1:58 PM UTC

petermcneeley wrote: post #250

igravious wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm Irish and I like Canada. > First Im Canadian and I like Canada. You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That's contradictory. You can't say that you "like" Canada (a social democracy) but also say you admire the US healthcare system (non socialised healthcare). Make up your mind. > However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions vi…

Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private prop…

> Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor.

Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims.

> I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy.

You're not describing what Capitalism means, you're describing what you _think_ it means. When I say Capitalism I mean Capitalism, if I wanted to say Mixed Market economy I'd say Mixed Market economy.

> Its sorta like the Communism.

Vacuous.

> If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore.

Never disagreed with this. Not that Communism was mentioned.

> Private property is antithetical to Communism

True claim, the hint is in the name.

> just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.

False claim.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/04/13/its-free...

And to reiterate, neither are unions antithetical to Capitalism.

[1] https://www.vox.com/2014/9/1/6094051/three-sentences-no-one-...

[2] https://www.commdiginews.com/business-2/labor-day-are-unions...

---

If your entire argument hinges around the assertion that once an entirely 100% pure Capitalist system (market economy w/ attendant private property rights and share-holding and dividends and profit taking, the whole nine yards) has any tweaking whatsoever it stops being a Capitalist system … giving you what Forbes says “[a] social democratic version of a market economy” … then I don't know what to say …

It's entirely correct to still classify a version of a market economy as a market economy. So long as the fundamentals and essentials are unchanged a thing remains itself, not to be trite but a blue house is still a house. To argue otherwise is unhelpful at best.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#252

Post by igravious » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 11:48 AM UTC

igravious wrote: post #251

petermcneeley wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private prop…

> Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims. > I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. You're not d…

> but a blue house is still a house.

This was a bad analogy – a better one would be 'a houseboat is still a house (and a boat)' (two things coming together and still being identified with each rather than something modifying another thing) – in coding terms: multiple inheritance versus single inheritance plus an interface?

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#253

Post by petermcneeley » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

igravious wrote: post #252

igravious wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor. Sorry, I misread you, I was projecting onto you. I stand by my other claims. > I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy. You're not d…

> but a blue house is still a house. This was a bad analogy – a better one would be 'a houseboat is still a house (and a boat)' (two things coming together and still being identified with each rather than something modifying another thing) – in coding terms: multiple inheritance versus single inheritance plus an interface?

Multiple inheritance is evil :)

Anyway I do think there is more going on here than a mere semantic disagreement about a word. However I dont think it can really be covered in a casual HN post.

I would say I did find that one article quite amusing. "And Smith is right in that pretty much nowhere has ever managed to limb up out of peasant destitution without the use of a market economy and the associated price system. "

The USSR used central planning (Gosplan) to manage their economy. They were the first space fairing nation on earth. What kind of author is this author to make these claims in direct contradiction to the historical record.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#254

Post by pas » Sun, Feb 17, 2019, 9:38 PM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #165

pas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they simply trying to explain and persuade people current institutions are responsible for the positive changes, and that therefore they are good, and thus we should be supporting them? Also, they seem to counter misconceptions, not advocate for blind faith in a never ending progression. Pinker actually addressed this, but unfortunately I can't remember in which book/lecture/talk/article. Largely paraphrasing…

> people current institutions are responsible for the positive changes, and that therefore they are good, and thus we should be supporting them? Current institutions as a vague continuity or the same? Because if Pinker and other try to argue that current institutions have been historically enough, we just continue growth, they are very much wrong. Benefits from innovations and growth have been accompanied with massiv…

I'm of course no Pinker himself, nor a tenured prof at Hardvard, or even friends with him, but based on what I read from him and about him, he is very much in support of change toward new, more inclusive, more fair, more egalitarian and more rational institutions. And argues that trade and good old classic liberal ideas are slowly but surely bringing forth these changes (through the work of many hundreds of millions of slightly altruistic people), despite the efforts of our demons (innate or cultural/contextual xenophobia, ignorance, extreme greed/selfishness, etc).