SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Fine print: The following are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Journal by khallow
I was trying to put together some musings I had about experimentation at the society level with an eye to eventually making society better, but suffered from serious writer's block. So here's what I have.
First, the observation that we can look at a society as a bunch of humans with infrastructure. This infrastructure appears at many levels: individual biology/psychology, culture, rules and trade, the traditional sort of infrastructure (energy generation, roads, emergency services, telecomms, internet), and education/knowledge.
Today, we bring a lot of interesting tools to the table for improving society. First, we have a better understanding and knowledge of the workings of society. Second, advancing technology allows us to do things that weren't possible before. A key one is things are becoming less scarce. We may even be on the verge of the post-scarcity society where basic human needs are "too cheap to meter".
Second, it seems a fine environmental for experimenting with a variety of possibilities that would be legally and culturally acceptable to a degree.
For example, we're already trying out non-traditional relationships like same sex marriage and internet discourse with considerable success.
I wish society was more open to economic/trade experimentation (like gig economy, high frequency trade (and other automated trade mechanisms), and cryptocurrency).
Finally, not much point to experimenting, if one doesn't pay attention to the results. For example, we have vast improvement in the human condition due to the present economic system (global trade, capitalism, plus widespread democracy), but I still see people pushing old narratives that ignore that. Similarly, the economic experiments I mentioned above all have resistance from sources that usually can't be bothered to find an actual problem (gig workers are "exploited", HFT is stealing pennies from grandma every time she trades, and cryptocurrencies are for tax evasion).
On that last point, it doesn't make sense to do experiments, if you can't perceive what works or not in those experiments.
First, the observation that we can look at a society as a bunch of humans with infrastructure. This infrastructure appears at many levels: individual biology/psychology, culture, rules and trade, the traditional sort of infrastructure (energy generation, roads, emergency services, telecomms, internet), and education/knowledge.
Today, we bring a lot of interesting tools to the table for improving society. First, we have a better understanding and knowledge of the workings of society. Second, advancing technology allows us to do things that weren't possible before. A key one is things are becoming less scarce. We may even be on the verge of the post-scarcity society where basic human needs are "too cheap to meter".
Second, it seems a fine environmental for experimenting with a variety of possibilities that would be legally and culturally acceptable to a degree.
For example, we're already trying out non-traditional relationships like same sex marriage and internet discourse with considerable success.
I wish society was more open to economic/trade experimentation (like gig economy, high frequency trade (and other automated trade mechanisms), and cryptocurrency).
Finally, not much point to experimenting, if one doesn't pay attention to the results. For example, we have vast improvement in the human condition due to the present economic system (global trade, capitalism, plus widespread democracy), but I still see people pushing old narratives that ignore that. Similarly, the economic experiments I mentioned above all have resistance from sources that usually can't be bothered to find an actual problem (gig workers are "exploited", HFT is stealing pennies from grandma every time she trades, and cryptocurrencies are for tax evasion).
On that last point, it doesn't make sense to do experiments, if you can't perceive what works or not in those experiments.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
squatcho, n.:
The button at the top of a baseball cap.
-- "Sniglets", Rich Hall & Friends
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 24 2022, @01:30PM (5 children)
Except when they don't. You can get a lot of anti-democratic and anti-trade regulation then. For example, the US back in the 1930s created an agency, the Raisin Administrative Committee (RAC) to buy excess raisins [reason.com] in order to support farmers who grew raisins. In the linked story, this had devolved to the point that the RAC took 30% of the raisin crop without compensation.
"Private capitalism" is capitalism. The other things that are labeled similarly, like "state capitalism" aren't capitalism. Much like "real diamonds" are diamonds; "fake diamonds" are not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 24 2022, @02:37PM (4 children)
It might shock you to learn that much of Europe is socialist. Or were you of the mistaken opinion that much of the European economy is moribund?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 24 2022, @03:49PM (1 child)
I'm indeed of that impression. As an example, I have already presented [soylentnews.org] the case of energy policy of Germany which hasn't decreased (rather it's increased) its reliance on fossil fuels despite 12 years of effort. Several other countries are pursuing similar, misbegotten policies.
And while this isn't a problem for Germany (which has very strong private sector employment), much of the European economy is employed [wikipedia.org] by the public sector - sometimes combined with a weak employment rate (PIGS, for example). That's a strong indicator of moribundness for me.
Finally, there's the protectionism. I'll just give numerous examples I've mentioned in the past few years: here [soylentnews.org], here, here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], here [soylentnews.org], and here [soylentnews.org]. Those industries are protected at the expense of the rest of the European economy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 24 2022, @11:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 24 2022, @03:53PM
Europe isn't, strictly speaking, socialist.
In a socialist economy, you socialise your major economic functions - it is in effect a command economy with private ownership only left as a nominal rump, if at all. None of Europe really does this.
Much of Europe counts as a mixed economy (which describes Greece's sclerotic system, as well as the so-called Nordic model) in which private ownership of capital is generally accepted, though heavily taxed and in which substantial welfare states are established.
If you haven't socialised capital, or established such a strong dirigiste system that private ownership is a mere fig leaf, you don't have socialism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 24 2022, @05:13PM
Since there are zero socialist countries in Europe, it would shock us all to learn this. The only country with any constitutional reference to Socialism and a Socialist government (since 2015) is Portugal. Despite this government reducing the high unemployment and government debt resulting from the 2008 crash, Portugal has a market economy and retains the lowest per-capita GDP in Western Europe.