Is everything an MLM • Hacker News Board

Re: Is everything an MLM

#181

Post by seibelj » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

ddingus wrote: post #172

seibelj wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wh…

The video has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, it is about short and longterm debt cycles. That was my comment.

Markets aren't killing anybody, markets don't hold a gun. They are a tool to efficiently allocate resources via price discovery.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#182

Post by seibelj » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:54 PM UTC

wool_gather wrote: post #170

seibelj wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are coming from the socialist angle, which is a loaded word that will probably derail the conversation, but essentially you see the free market and competition as a waste of resources that harms society. The base argument is that we don’t need 80 brands of deodorant, and the fact we have so many is a colossal waste of resources, duplication, and moral failure of society. Whereas I see 80 brands of deodorant and t…

> I see 80 brands of deodorant [...] satisfy[ing] all manner of wants and needs I'm not exactly in favor of a command economy, but seriously, how many of these 80 types of deodorant -- or any comparable consumer product -- are fundamentally different from one another, as opposed to being distinguished only by their branding and marketing?

It's not up to me or you to determine why there are so many brands of consumer products. There is not a moment after which we ban all further competition and new entrants. I hope competitors continue to innovate, so we have the best possible choice on a multitude of variables including price, quality, ingredients, etc.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#183

Post by grawprog » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:58 PM UTC

philipkglass wrote: post #164

grawprog wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying they're wrong to have them. I'm pointing out spending $20,000 on some piece of stone for you to prepare your food on is fairly non-essential. Though again, they remove mountains for this, the shop produces a bunch of toxic, fish killing dust and sediment every day that's slowly killing me and my coworkers and destroying the planet. But my main point was, the things I create every day are not essential.…

If you were supplying things that less affluent people can afford, you might have different but equally strong regrets about the unsustainable ways that business operates. For what it's worth, the full life cycle environmental impact of cheap plastic laminate counters is likely worse than that of polished natural stone.

Yeah probably. I mean pretty much any manufacturing is really at odds with the ecological restoration and ecosystem management degrees I have. I've come to reconcile this dissonance as the non-essential, environment destroying job pays enough money for me to live and have these non-essential things, while trying to help the planet did not. So...there's that. Turns out it's really difficult to live on sparse couple month contracts that are paid with grant money that typically only occur during spring-fall.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#184

Post by AnthonyMouse » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

hexane360 wrote: post #156

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why has the 40 hour week persisted? Market forces. Mostly zoning laws, burdensome regulations and government subsidies, really. If housing, education and healthcare still cost in real terms what they did in 1950 then people could afford to work 20 hours a week if they wanted to, but they're stuck working 40 hours because of government policies that cause price inflation and cost disease. > Climate change? Market fo…

>Mostly zoning laws, burdensome regulations and government subsidies, really. If housing, education and healthcare still cost in real terms what they did in 1950 then people could afford to work 20 hours a week if they wanted to, but they're stuck working 40 hours because of government policies that cause price inflation and cost disease. You arguing this is really ironic because the only reason they're working only…

Labor regulation has historically followed market trends rather than driving them.

If you tried to pass a 40 hour work week in 1790 you would have been laughed out of the statehouse because it would have caused mass starvation since people had to work longer hours than that just to grow enough food to feed everyone.

Then industrialization rolls around and we slowly get to the point that labor supply starts to outstrip demand, and then we don't need everyone to work 80 hours anymore. Moreover, it doesn't cost much more to pay twice as many people for 40 hours as half as many people for 80 hours, but then you have built in slack if someone is sick or quits or dies because you have someone else to work a double shift temporarily. And research starts to show that not working people as long leads to more productivity. And there is less unrest and more consumption when you have everyone working 40 hours than when you have half of everyone working 80 hours and the other half unemployed. And the people who still prefer to work 80 hours instead of 40 just take two jobs.

Meanwhile you've had labor activists demanding a 40 hour work week for years, and once most businesses were either already doing it or getting ready to, opposition to the law becomes weak enough that they can finally pass it. Then for a hundred years they take credit for the thing that was already happening regardless.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#185

Post by sametmax » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 5:59 PM UTC

YjSe2GMQ wrote: post #101

sametmax wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since money represent human work and earth ressources, both finite, yes, when you make money, somebody becomes poorer. Because the total amount of human work and resources and the actual leverage they got on the world becomes diluted.

It may be hard to believe but labor productivity has been increasing! For example (and bear with me, because this is incredibly hard to believe) it is more efficient in terms of amount of food collected per hour to use a farming machine over a field of wheat than it is to chase a guanaco or some other rabbit with a bow.

But so have resources consumption and money concentration.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#186

Post by sametmax » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 6:06 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #102

sametmax wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since money represent human work and earth ressources, both finite, yes, when you make money, somebody becomes poorer. Because the total amount of human work and resources and the actual leverage they got on the world becomes diluted.

Suppose I'm a plumber and you're an electrician. You need your pipes fixed, so you pay me $100. I need my wires fixed, so I pay you $100. At the end we both have the same amount of money we started with, but now your pipes are fixed and my wires are fixed. You come out ahead as long as the value of the thing you paid for is worth more to you than what you paid for it. And if it isn't then why did you pay that much fo…

This is the regular economy, which is not the topic of this thread. We are talking about wealthy people becoming rich without contributing. Renting has diminushing return for the society. Some things like automatic trading have none.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#187

Post by ddingus » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 6:10 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #181

ddingus wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Wh…

The video has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, it is about short and longterm debt cycles. That was my comment. Markets aren't killing anybody, markets don't hold a gun. They are a tool to efficiently allocate resources via price discovery.

Yes they are.

They are a very poor tool in some use cases and are a great tool in others.

Denying that is literally pulling triggers.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#188

Post by ls612 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 6:14 PM UTC

iheartpotatoes wrote: post #137

seibelj wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m sorry that this is your world view, because it is deeply flawed and focusing on such cynicism leads to depression. Most of HN lives in a tech bubble where everyone is focused on building semi-useless software like you describe. However the majority of society still does “normal” things like construction, manufacturing, sales, etc. and some sort of fundamental reorganizing of society on non-market principles doesn…

"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.

Yet somehow there are more (real) dollars worth of stuff in the economy today than 20, 50, or 100 years ago.

Re: Is everything an MLM

#189

Post by tomc1985 » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 6:16 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #68

bluetomcat wrote: post #53

Most of the economy in the so called "developed countries" is nowadays a zero-sum game between winners and losers. Seen from a macro perspective, it resembles a multi-agent system where independent agents compete to provide inessential products and services in exchange for being able to afford basic necessities like housing, food and child care. The finite resource that such companies are fighting for is people's att…

I’m sorry that this is your world view, because it is deeply flawed and focusing on such cynicism leads to depression. Most of HN lives in a tech bubble where everyone is focused on building semi-useless software like you describe. However the majority of society still does “normal” things like construction, manufacturing, sales, etc. and some sort of fundamental reorganizing of society on non-market principles doesn…

> It’s not on someone else to tell me what I should and should not want. If I desire it and a company provides it for a price, it doesn’t matter that the smart refrigerator is a waste in your vision. The market demands, and entrepreneurs provide.

There needs to be a middle ground between; "the market demands and enterpreneurs provide" means that things society needs don't get done, because there is only incentive to focus on what people want. Some of us would like to live in a world with less crap ideas and products flooding our minds, with more problem-solving with an eye towards social and societal good

Re: Is everything an MLM

#190

Post by MR4D » Sun, Apr 21, 2019, 6:22 PM UTC

bluetomcat wrote: post #53

Most of the economy in the so called "developed countries" is nowadays a zero-sum game between winners and losers. Seen from a macro perspective, it resembles a multi-agent system where independent agents compete to provide inessential products and services in exchange for being able to afford basic necessities like housing, food and child care. The finite resource that such companies are fighting for is people's att…

You’re correct, but for reasons different than you may think.

Economies tend not to be zero sum, but they do float thru it. Here’s what I mean:

As a whole, economies either need capital (countries like Mexico) or produce excess capital (the US). Ignore that hey are neighbors here, that’s just a coincidence.

Countries that produce excess capital are not zero-sum. Countries that need capital can actually be zero or negative sum.

However, what you’ve seen over the last couple decades is an aging demographic curve that had shifted the population for producers to spenders over time. When you retire, you become a spender (you are no longer producing capital, but are spending it). As a result of this shift, many of the countries we think about as developed, are stagnating, and that looks like a zero sum situation. It may be, but it is only temporary- although temporary might last up to 3 or 4 decades.

For a quick reference, Japan is the most obvious example here, dealing with fundamental stagnation. Germany is about to hit that too (they probably already have, but it usually takes a few years for the everyday economist to have the documentation to call it as such). China will follow a couple years later.

The US has some of the same. Gen X is smaller than the baby boomers. As such, it’s hard for the generation to pay for the retirement of the previous generation. Hopefully Millenials will be productive enough soon enough to offset this.