Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

thoughtcatalog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#71

Post by tossacct »

jacques_chester wrote: post #66
tossacct wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the concept of an "objective" is very useful when trying to describe emergence. A semi-related question: If no emergent systems have "objectives", then what things do have "objectives"?

Please, I'm too old for running down teleological rabbit holes.

If you had simply stated that you didn't believe in the concept of "objectives", instead of singling out my precious emergent systems, there would be no rabbit holes to run down. :) Also is 1 thing that has an objective too much to ask for?

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#72

Post by jacques_chester »

tossacct wrote: post #71
jacques_chester wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please, I'm too old for running down teleological rabbit holes.

If you had simply stated that you didn't believe in the concept of "objectives", instead of singling out my precious emergent systems, there would be no rabbit holes to run down. :) Also is 1 thing that has an objective too much to ask for?

I'm saying that complex systems in and of themselves don't have "objectives".

Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives.

If you want to be nitpicky there's a frothing sea of philosophers smashing endlessly against the little rowboat we're in here. Feel free to dive off and swim around, I'll stay here.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#73

Post by ruswick »

jhuni wrote: post #49
rndmize wrote: post #40

Happiness, health and stability are not core objectives of our society. The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success. I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures.

One feature of such a better society is that it should be classless. As long as there is there are segments of society whose happiness, health, and stability are dependent upon the whims of the ruling class rather then in their own hands then these problems will persist.

People don't want a classless society because it removes the ability to attain the one thing that all people want: distinguishment. People usually want money not for its utility, but as an arbitrary measure of merit and a way to distinguish oneself. This is why the American Dream is so pervasive: the concept of economic mobility appeals to people. If anything, we've seen a regression from equality and an exacerbation of class segregation throughout the century.

People (at least in this country) don't want to be happy and healthy. They want to be richer than everyone else because that is what success is.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#74

Post by tossacct »

jacques_chester wrote: post #72
tossacct wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you had simply stated that you didn't believe in the concept of "objectives", instead of singling out my precious emergent systems, there would be no rabbit holes to run down. :) Also is 1 thing that has an objective too much to ask for?

I'm saying that complex systems in and of themselves don't have "objectives". Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives. If you want to be nitpicky there's a frothing sea of philosophers smashing endlessly against the little rowboat we're in here. Feel free to dive off and swim around, I'll stay here.

I'm responding to your philosophical ideas about emergence, I don't intend on making any philosophical points here, only responding to the ones that you made. You disagreed with the idea that society can have objectives based on philosophical grounds.

>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate.

Society may or may not have some emergent qualities, but it definitely has "deliberately designed" qualities, so therefore according to you: society "can absolutely have purposes and objectives".

Examples of deliberately designed qualities: banking system, fiat currency, stock market, credit card infrastructure, etc. All engineered to streamline economic activities and to allow those who control them to wield power(among other purposes).

>>>The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success.

What is success other than the ability to succeed at wielding power, control over your environment etc?

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#75

Post by pjzedalis »

nhaehnle wrote: post #60
jacques_chester wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate. GDP is a derived statistic. > I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures. And your proposal is? A lot of alternatives have been tried in the past several thousand years and almost all of them suck.…

And your proposal is? A lot of alternatives have been tried in the past several thousand years and almost all of them suck. Real hard. Don't think in terms of The Alternative System, just think in terms of the small things that can make life better. Things like reduced working hours to have more time for family, or better economic freedoms for everyone. Those things do not represent a change in The System. In particu…

If enough people say they are done with 40+ hour work weeks and only will do 35 companies will adapt. So far there has not been enough people willing to do so.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#76

Post by pjzedalis »

jhuni wrote: post #49
rndmize wrote: post #40

Happiness, health and stability are not core objectives of our society. The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success. I hope that in the remainder of the century we can can transition to better forms of society where the health and happiness of the general population is more important than the efficiency of our economic structures.

One feature of such a better society is that it should be classless. As long as there is there are segments of society whose happiness, health, and stability are dependent upon the whims of the ruling class rather then in their own hands then these problems will persist.

We are making progress. It used to be your class was determined by how much money your great great great grandfather had. Now it's determined by how much you have. Soon it will be determined by how much we think you will have based on your profession ("oohh a doctor"), health ("oohh she's skinny and eats right), habits (non-smokers). Eventually that bubble will pop or cancers/diabetes and other ridiculous ravagers of our species will be eliminated. Class has a real shot of being eliminated then.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#77

Post by tossacct »

ruswick wrote: post #73
jhuni wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One feature of such a better society is that it should be classless. As long as there is there are segments of society whose happiness, health, and stability are dependent upon the whims of the ruling class rather then in their own hands then these problems will persist.

People don't want a classless society because it removes the ability to attain the one thing that all people want: distinguishment. People usually want money not for its utility, but as an arbitrary measure of merit and a way to distinguish oneself. This is why the American Dream is so pervasive: the concept of economic mobility appeals to people. If anything, we've seen a regression from equality and an exacerbation…

I think that you are right that there are some people that will not become happier or more healthy if they got more money. More money does mean "distinguishment" to them. I think we could describe American upper and middle class people in this way.

The vast majority of the people in America and the rest of the world are not upper or middle class. They want both "distinguishment" AND health, because both could improve. Look at health problems and obesity and the poverty line and education rates. Look at what happens to the birth rate when you introduce economic stability and health care access that can more or less guarantee the survival of your children.

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#78

Post by fumar »

snogglethorpe wrote: post #65
fumar wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two big events happened before I left my job. My car was taken from me, insurance labeled it a total loss. I received money from that. I was also hit by a car while riding my bike. This also provided me with some money. This money, has run out at this point. I have done some freelancing for people, graphic design. I also help my girlfriend run her dog treat business. Arrfscarf.com But most importantly, now that I hav…

> But most importantly, now that I have no income, [my girlfriend] has been a huge help. Ah, you must play bass...

I wish I played an instrument.

I intern for startup in Chicago. We help nonprofits receive donations. Zealousgood.com

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#79

Post by waterlesscloud »

rayiner wrote: post #25
michaelochurch wrote: post #16

It's amazing to me how much expense comes out of fear. For example, one of the reasons why Manhattan real estate is so expensive is that people feel a need to live here in order to keep up their professional status. Not to limit their commutes, but because the really evil law and financial firms stop promoting you as soon as you move off the island. So they spend $5 million on a house, as opposed to, for example, not…

I'm not sure that's the whole story. There are lots of reasons to live in Manhattan. Being able to walk or take a quick bus to work is one. Wanting to live in a modern building is another (although there are finally some coming up in Brooklyn). By far the overriding thing keeping Manhattan real estate prices high is housing regulation. Given the density of Manhattan, it should look like Hong Kong in terms of high ris…

I'd read somewhere that the pattern of where skyscrapers can and cannot be built in Manhattan has to do with the depth of the bedrock at various places on the island.

EDIT - Apparently this has been 'debunked', although the debunking might just be an alternate theory. http://observer.com/2012/01/uncanny-valley-the-real-reason-t...

Re: How To Make Trillions Of Dollars

#80

Post by minikomi »

001sky wrote: post #68
rayiner wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't say regulation is the same as geography. For one, it's self-imposed. Second, it costs a lot less to build up than to build out. Note that Chicago has a very densely built core, even though it has no real barriers to sprawl to the north, west, or south. That's the result of (lack of) regulation plus good urban planning.

it costs a lot less to build up than to build out This is another fair point, but consider the land is massively more expensive. The dynamic is relative scarcity and bargaing power. The more scarcity, the more the economics look like monopoly on the underlying asset. At that stage, the cost of building out is sort of second order. The other examples, such as London, Geneva, and SF have a combination of massive wealth…

After the 3/11 quake, I did a lot of thinking about what would happen if Tokyo became unlivable .. It, basically, freaked me out. There's a lot of Japan stuck in just one spot..
Post reply on HN