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

Is everything an MLM

annehelen.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 297 posts

Re: Is everything an MLM

#171

Post by seibelj »

yeahitslikethat wrote: post #161
seibelj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. I’m arguing on fundamental principles because the parent commenter is advocating a reorganization of market-based economies. I don’t care how complex the system is. If you aren’t letting me, the individual, determine what is best for my life, then you are coming from a place of superiority and belief that you kn…

That's just it. Sometimes you DO know better. Like we know it's better that homes aren't bought and left empty in dense urban housing markets, but wealthy people love to buy them all up. So, yes. I do. And you do too. We also don't need humvees. Or diamonds.

Housing is a very complex subject, but in general the biggest issue with housing is that communities block new developments on artificial grounds such as environmental review, ruining their view, or "historical character". If you want to reduce housing prices, build more houses.

On humvees and diamonds - if people want large cars and diamonds, let them buy them. If your unhappy about fossil fuels, would an electric humvee be better? I could go through your or anyone's home and critique the usefulness of any number of possessions based on my own subjective definition of value. That doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong, or that you don't deserve such things.

We let the individual decide what is best for them.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#172

Post by ddingus »

seibelj wrote: post #165
aiisjustanif wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suggest you take a but to watch https://youtu.be/PHe0bXAIuk0 . Economics isn't so simple and only from the perspective of the buyer.

I have seen this video and it's well put together. But how does it advocate for reorganizing the economy to eliminate market principles, which is the entire debate we are having? Great video, but wholly irrelevant to this discussion.

There does not have to be a binary choice here.

Markets do some things very well. They do not do everything well.

The basic idea of self governance is we surrender some choice in order to maximize personal freedom.

Applying market principles everywhere results in people being free to live under a bridge, or in an alleyway...

We can and should very seriously constrain markets, and or eliminate them for some things.

What is left will function much better because more people will be able to participate in a meaningful way.

The left is moving this direction, adding economic reform to it's standard social agenda for these reasons. The party struggle over it is plain to see.

Way too many people are in real economic trouble. Markets are killing them.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#173

Post by [deleted] »

njepa wrote: post #122
rectang wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. In real-world "free" markets, the poor have their choices made for them by the wealthy.

It is less "real-world markets" and just markets. Markets are one dollar one vote.

[deleted]

Re: Is everything an MLM

#174

Post by sridca »

rectang wrote: post #112
seibelj wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. I’m arguing on fundamental principles because the parent commenter is advocating a reorganization of market-based economies. I don’t care how complex the system is. If you aren’t letting me, the individual, determine what is best for my life, then you are coming from a place of superiority and belief that you kn…

> The alternative to letting the individual determine what they want is to let someone else choose for them. In real-world "free" markets, the poor have their choices made for them by the wealthy.

Hah, exactly.

Capitalism is not perfect; apparently it is the better of the alternatives we have right now.

In order to effect fundamental change, and find a better alternative to capitalism, each human being needs to fundamentally change themselves--yet apparently no one is willing to do that. As long as we let instinctual passions like desire, and social emotions like envy, hold sway over us so will continue to exist institutions like capitalism and fashion. And forced change (like socialism), without fundamentally addressing the underlying human condition, wouldn't achieve anything fruitful as evidenced from history.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#175

Post by pbhjpbhj »

sverige wrote: post #152
petra wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

soviet-style housing is a bit extreme. But what's wrong with being equal ?

So far, all of the experiments to make everyone equal have resulted in soviet-style housing for the many and well-appointed dachas for the few -- and that's at best. I'm doubtful that future experiments will have a different result.

Kibbutz are pretty egalitarian. The New Testament describes the early Christians as living with everything in common ownership. Not every attempt to be equally valued has resulted in the disparities you suggest. The problem is top-down vs bottom-up ... eg https://www.quora.com/How-did-Karl-Marx-define-socialism/ans... .

Genuine question, which bits of the Soviet projects were targetting making everyone equal -- all I've seen are the bits where a dictator rides the coattails of communist ideology to subdue the people. I'm still learning about this part of history, so am keen to understand which bits were started "properly" from a communist perspective. It strikes me that in all cases a portion of society wanted to impose communism, those who didn't want to give up their supremacy (of power or wealth) perverted that system.

As (IIRC) Galbraith says (paraphrase?) "in Capitalism man exploits man, in Communism it's the other way around". The thing is that communism at least seeks to gain equality, capitalism seeks to exploit others up to the legal limits imposed.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#176

Post by cheerlessbog »

ericd wrote: post #120
cheerlessbog wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Did I say that? I like living in a predominantly capitalist society. I would like us to pay more attention to the consequences of consumption. One way to do that is to build it into prices (such as a carbon tax, or upstreaming disposal cost) or by regulation. Building cost into price is actually a very capitalist and arguably libertarian approach as it enables the market to reallocate resources to minimize what w…

So you're not disagreeing with the parent. Yes, a carbon tax would be the way to account for that externality while maintaining individual choice.

That part yes, but not this, "Are you suggesting it's better to ban individual choice ...". That's not a fair characterization.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#177

Post by ddingus »

seibelj wrote: post #169
petra wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> A government bureaucrat managing the country’s only deodorant factory could never possibly match the range of options and preferences that the market has provided me. There aren't only two options - the free market, or soviet russia. there are many more.

I would argue that preventing an individual from creating a new deodorant (or any typical consumer product) because "there is already enough of them" is a defining philosophical difference - either you are for freedom, or you are for collective coercion. In my opinion, there are never enough deodorant brands. If a new entrant wants to make a new product, it will succeed or fail. It may compete on price or quality, it…

You do realize the moment we reform health care, living wages, housing, college, individuals all over the place will be starting shit, don't you?

Look at the impact near free college, the GI bill had on tech. People all over the place started shit.

It can and needs to happen again.

That perfect deodorant is denied us because the person who could produce it is extremely likely to be trapped econonically.

What you are getting is endless variations of the same shit from competing board rooms.

What is worth what to you?

Re: Is everything an MLM

#178

Post by cheerlessbog »

seibelj wrote: post #121
cheerlessbog wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Did I say that? I like living in a predominantly capitalist society. I would like us to pay more attention to the consequences of consumption. One way to do that is to build it into prices (such as a carbon tax, or upstreaming disposal cost) or by regulation. Building cost into price is actually a very capitalist and arguably libertarian approach as it enables the market to reallocate resources to minimize what w…

Great, so we are in agreement. I was confused because: > Often the choices made by "the individual" don't account for externalities that aren't built into the price... You put "the individual" in quotes as if to critique some sort of free-market system based on individuals, and I wanted to emphasize that the system we have can solve those problems.

Ah I see - that wasn't my intent.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#179

Post by jhbadger »

javajosh wrote: post #69
tomrod wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US I saw engineering labs using PhDs from abroad as almost slave labor. A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but the students were not allowed to progress without the advisor's say so, and the advisors would not allow them to top-author papers they were basically sole contributing. On top of that, between their own work and lab work, they were expected to put in 60 to 80 hours a week. The point is, the power dynamics wer…

>advisors would not allow them to top-author papers they were basically sole contributing As an aside, how is this possible, or legal? Can't a student (can't anyone) submit a paper to a journal on their own? IIRC Einstein was a free-agent when he submitted all those papers in 1905.

Modern science isn't a one-person affair. Few papers have single authorships nowadays because science is done in teams rather than by lone geniuses (and even in the case of Einstein it looks like his first wife, the mathematician Mileva Marić, should probably have been given co-authorships on some of those early papers). While some fields simply have authors listed in alphabetical order, many have special meaning to the first and last authors -- the first author is given to the person who supposedly contributed the most (which can be contentious; typically a grad student or post-doc) and the last author is given to the mentor of the first author.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#180

Post by ryandrake »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #141
iheartpotatoes wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If I make more money there is not someone else losing." Actually, that's exactly how it works: we can't both own the same dollar. Duh.

No. But if both persons are productive then the Fed is more likely to inject another dollar or two into circulation.

When the money supply increases, the pie isn't growing: There are just more, smaller slices available.
Post reply on HN