Live data from Hacker News

We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

kasperjunge.com

111–115 of 115 posts

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#111
post #82
post #65

1. An airplane crashes, everyone dies. Clearly a bad thing. Not so quick. For the funeral industry this means additional business, a good thing. And this is true for a LOT [1] of things, they are not good or bad, right or wrong, their judgment depends on perspective and personal preferences. 2. Which means that there is generally no policy that makes everyone happy. So you need a party with a program that aims at fin…

Are you seriously suggesting that there are different acceptable perspectives on the first point? I think it's important to hold on to such things, that's how we get further and get agreement, to try to agree on fundamental principles. No reason to upset that balance by suggesting that a plane crash is ever preferable.

What do you prefer, a plane crash or a nuclear war? But that does not matter, I did not say a airplane crashing is preferable over something, I said it is not a bad event for everyone. It is bad for the people on board and their friends and families but there are also people that benefit from a crash. That still does not mean that people benefiting from the event are in favor of more airplanes crashing. And for the majority of people it will essentially be neutral, half the planet might never even hear about this particular crash and for many more it will be a thirty second news segment they once saw.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#112
The purpose of a system is what it does. You're never going to have success optimizing a system towards goals that are not the goals of the system. You need to first assess what the system is optimizing towards in the first place and now to change the incentives, otherwise you're going to misdiagnose competence as incompetence.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#113
post #69
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it? There are plenty of disastrous decisions in the last 70 years at the level of major policies. There are plenty of failed projects. The west in general used to be a lot more efficient. IMO the main cause is exactly the problem the Soviet Union used to have, and China still does: centralisation.

What disasters, particularly relatively modern ones? This reads as massive cope because China has lifted ~800M people out of extreme poverty [1][2] and the transformation of the ordinary lives of Chinese people is almost unbelievable. More cope here is "yeah but that's Tier 1 cities". But look at rural life in small villages. Even 20 years ago people were still drawing water from wells and didn't have indoor plumbing…

You have to remember that a lot of that a quarter of that extreme poverty was inflicted by the CCP itself [1]. It's not as hard to lift off people from misery you caused. Specially so after most of the wealth and productivity came after decentralizing a lot of control.

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#114
post #3

China seems to do a decent job of it. Why can't we?

Does it? There are plenty of disastrous decisions in the last 70 years at the level of major policies. There are plenty of failed projects. The west in general used to be a lot more efficient. IMO the main cause is exactly the problem the Soviet Union used to have, and China still does: centralisation.

> problem [is] centralisation

Yet every major successful company is centralised. If centralisation works for capitalist organisations, why can't it work for geographical units?

Re: We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society

#115

[flagged]

being successful is a liability? no, being a failure and a loser is a liability

Being successful at extracting massive amounts of money from economy while avoiding taxes and fucking everything they touch to benefit themselves is.

Especially if your billionaire company have 1/3 of workforce on benefits coz you don't pay them enough

Also did you really created account just to defend billionaires ?

Post reply on HN