100 years of whatever this will be • Hacker News Board

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#181

Post by pdonis » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

preseinger wrote: post #116

pdonis wrote: post #110

The article lost me here: "The job of market regulation - fundamentally a restriction on your freedom - is to prevent all that bad stuff." Here's the problem: a "market" that is regulated this way is no longer a market . In order to have a market that works at all as a market, it has to be free in the sense that all transactions are voluntary. If you restrict people's freedom to engage in the transactions of their ch…

All useful markets are regulated.

All useful markets are regulated by the free choices of the market participants of which transactions they will and will not engage in, yes. The idea that a free market, with the definition of "free" that I gave (all transactions are voluntary) is "unregulated" is simply wrong. In a free market, you can't force other people to do things they don't want to do; you have to get them to voluntarily trade with you. That regulates the behavior of all market participants. And it does it better than any regulation by third parties, who have no skin in the game and suffer no penalty if their regulations cause harm, can possibly do.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#182

Post by endisneigh » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

zeroxfe wrote: post #149

thesuitonym wrote: post #136

>Centrally planning a whole society clearly does not work (demonstrated, bloodily, several times). I really, really hate this argument. If it's true, why does the CIA feel the need to destabilize countries with centrally planned markets? Why has China been so successful despite what is widely believed to be a failed premise? Central planning works as well as unplanned markets work: That is, sometimes they work, somet…

These arguments are not helpful because their metrics and criteria for what constitutes "works vs. does not work" are different from yours. > Why has China been so successful despite what is widely believed to be a failed premise? They're successful as an economy, not as a society (obv, using my metrics.)

By which criteria are they not successful as a society?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#183

Post by betwixthewires » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #68

cowl wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By every measurable metric, Humanity has gotten better. Longer lifespan, lower child mortality, better education, easier access to basic life neccessities and goods, (ironic to say at this time but yes even) better health, etc etc etc. We live in an age where every problem is weaponised and we are hyperaware of the problems now so that we don't see all the progrees that is done. https://www.openculture.com/2020/05/16…

>By every measurable metric Every measurable metric? How about median wealth? How about levels of debt? How about job satisfaction? How about median income per household? Per person? How about access to healthcare and cost? How about suicide rates? How about drug overdose rates? How about corruption? How about cost of higher education? How about homelessness? I mean cmon, you're looking at thing with rose colored gla…

By every single one of those metrics the world in aggregate is better than 100 years ago. Go back 250 years ago and it's not even arguable.

You're being short sighted.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#184

Post by cblconfederate » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

zeroxfe wrote: post #149

thesuitonym wrote: post #136

>Centrally planning a whole society clearly does not work (demonstrated, bloodily, several times). I really, really hate this argument. If it's true, why does the CIA feel the need to destabilize countries with centrally planned markets? Why has China been so successful despite what is widely believed to be a failed premise? Central planning works as well as unplanned markets work: That is, sometimes they work, somet…

These arguments are not helpful because their metrics and criteria for what constitutes "works vs. does not work" are different from yours. > Why has China been so successful despite what is widely believed to be a failed premise? They're successful as an economy, not as a society (obv, using my metrics.)

> successful as an economy, not as a society

You 're going to have to give a definition of that. Subjective measures of success don't matter, that's why people have different morals. Maybe the west has produced the most "culturally dominant society" but it has also been boosted by a few centuries of economic dominance, while china has just come out of poverty. I'm not even going to ask why china is considered unsuccessful as a society since afaik the chinese neither commit suicide in droves nor are they running to exit as fast as possible.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#185

Post by rkalla » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

nouveaux wrote: post #80

pjkundert wrote: post #39

This article is profoundly insightful. I have been searching for patterns and insights in this field for 25 years. What apenwarr concludes is true: All we need is to build distributed systems that work. That means decentralized bulk activity, hierarchical regulation. The problem is, everyone wants distributed systems that require everyone else to agree (global consensus), which is literally impossible (see: CAP theor…

"There's another word for "require everyone else to agree": Tyranny." I think this is often thrown out there to push back on liberals and socialism but this is the wrong point. We as a global society _need_ to agree to be productive. We need to work together to find the best solutions for as many people as possible. Everyone needs to agree that starting a nuclear war is bad. You would likely want to stop China from s…

I love your last sentence here - so well stated.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#186

Post by jonstaab » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:01 PM UTC

Great essay, but I think fundamentally wrong.

There are some important distributed systems he overlooks: the ones found in nature. Gas Laws, photosynthesis, and radiant energy are pretty great, it means I always have air to breathe. No one is regulating that, and to do so would only make things much worse.

The challenge is that humans suck at designing distributed systems. Nature is exquisitely designed (or, if you want, evolved). The solution then, is to root ourselves in nature rather than desperately, constantly trying to replace it. Bitcoin is the only new tech I can think of that does this (not sure if that's the 'most obvious horrifically misguided recently-popular "decentralized" system' the author refers to). Everything else: farming subsidies, AI, Keynesian economics, plastic surgery, vaccines, desk jobs — are all hopelessly out of touch with reality.

That's not to say technology is Bad, but it needs to be real, not manufactured.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#187

Post by dmitriid » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

moistrobot wrote: post #98

notpachet wrote: post #49

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

Code doesn't actively resist your attempts to improve it. Our broken institutions are fighting to protect their kingdom

> Our broken institutions are fighting to protect their kingdom

Three years ago I bought an apartment.

I got a loan from a bank over internet and phone. The contract was three pages of clear Swedish that even I, with my rudimentary knowledge of i, could understand. The contract signing was intermediated by a person whose job is to make sure everything goes smoothly.

In the end, all of the following was guaranteed:

- I had the money

- money was transfered into the other person's account

- I was not a scammer

- that person wasn't a scammer

- I received actual physical keys to an actual physical apartment (and not to an non-existent address)

(a bunch of other stuff)

So, tell me. What exactly does your crypto improve?

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#188

Post by HappyKasper » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

gtsop wrote: post #57

Excuse me for the dismissive tone, but this looks a dog chasing his tail. Does anyone REALLY believe that "things don't work"™ because the systems put in place are flawed? No sir, the systems in place work flawlessly for those who put them there, enjoy the benefits of those systems and make damn sure these systems keep benefiting them no matter what. As long as one doesn't acknowledge this very simple fact, they have…

I think the acknowledgement is implicit in this piece - current structures have allowed this "power capture" and need to be improved. The point the author makes is that blockchain has very obvious avenues for the same power capture and that for this reason, it's not a better option than the difficult work of improving existing and well-explored systems of power/political order.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#189

Post by jonstaab » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

notpachet wrote: post #49

All of the current histrionics that we hear from DeFi advocates regarding escaping the evil centralized Banks and Regulators and what not -- you know what they remind me of? They remind me of what I hear from junior developers when they're tasked with fixing an antiquated, broken software system. These developers typically lack the experience and the patience necessary to fix the system incrementally from within, so…

Broaden your historical context, and Keynes becomes the junior developer who thinks he can elegantly fix everything.

Re: 100 years of whatever this will be

#190

Post by dsign » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 5:03 PM UTC

lisper wrote: post #103

This essay seems deep and profoundly insightful but I don't think it actually is. Its ultimate call for "better designed regulation" is the no-true-scotsman fallacy in sheep's clothing. How do you know if your regulations are "properly designed?" If they produce good outcomes. But the problem is that there is no consensus about what a good outcome is. Some people are not happy, for example, unless women are quite lit…

This is not a problem with a simple solution or only a few dimensions.

"better designed regulation" is all that is needed in some cases, when it is possible at all. I also know of plenty of places where the only option people have, if at all, is to vote with their feet.

Some people can throw money and time at changing the system from within, and that's okay. But for those many cases where it is futile, if I had a bag of money of a pertinent size and wanted to throw it at philanthropy, I would think of ways for people who want to vote with their feet to be able to do so systematically.