I think one of the advantages of reading very old material is a) it's not bogged down by modern ideology, b) imparting the realization that some human issues and ideas have been around a very long time (see for instance dialogues in Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War), b) some ideas and insights have a timelessness to them. Take for instance the Tao Te Ching. I found it retains influential power, despite my not being completely on board.
One might argue that everything we produce lends itself to some kind of consumption. Moreover, not all actions lead to tangible "products", but they can lead to useful results and experiences. Sports and games are an example.
Perhaps production tends towards consumption but not the opposite. If I make music I'll probably listen to it. But I can easily listen to music without making it.
And agree sports are an interesting example. It kind of fits my mental model of consumption in many ways: something you do that's primary effect transforms you. Watching TV, playing a game, etc. The effect being something chemical that is satisfying. I guess with sports or exercise the internal change is more physical (muscle, endurance, etc) vs chemical. Although I suppose you are acting on the world as well - you are scoring a point or advancing a position. It's just more ephemeral (ends when game ends) and arbitrary.
Im sure even just in terms of chemical reactions there is going to be a clean split between stuff like playing video games or watching TV vs. sports, building something, etc. Dopamine vs... ?
I agree. Knowledge-seeking can become a defense or excuse not to take action. I think it can be enriching, particularly when young, but there's a balance in everything.
Or more: what ideology says I and my heirs deserve to continue to be wealthy and in control? Funny how we’re in a Social Darwinist moment as wealth inequality rises again. But I’m sure people couldn’t possibly be working backwards to justify their position. Certainly the wealthy, who fund research, wouldn’t twist a science as pure as economics like they did the soft science biology.
Meanwhile extreme poverty levels have been steadily diminishing and quality-of-life broadly improving. But you're concerned with some people having more money. That is to say, equality of outcome. No safety net would ever be enough for communist ideologues, because results and well-being don't matter. Only ideology, and punishment.
There's a reason would-be socialist states have back-tracked from central control of economy and allowed competition (Lenin did this so quickly in spite of his zeal it would make your head spin). They kept the authoritarianism though. Once those tendrils get in, they're tough to get out. Only a few countries shed that in the 20th century, one of them being South Korea; places that embraced Liberalism, because they had the good fortune to have leaders with sense.
Liberty qua Liberalism is good, and the checks-and-balances are meant to evolve over time. The alternatives are abject failures, and you'll propose nothing that hasn't been one.
What does that have to do with whether or not economists are serving a useful role day-to-day? For instance, most economists now agree most economists were wrong about the way to respond to 2008, and the austerity measures actually caused more pain for most people. Seems like exactly the sort of recent failure which should make us question their current advice. Especially if the current advice benefits the folks paying their salary.
Regardless, I stand by my derogatory comments about social Darwinists.
Because yours was just a thinly veiled comment on Capitalism, dressed up as one about Economists.
> the austerity measures actually caused more pain for most people
You're thinking of the Great Depression, not the Great Recession. Have you looked up just how much the U.S. government spent in that time? The bailouts, etc? This was not austerity.
My criticism is most definitely of economics as a field and is a common topic among economists today as they reckon with their failures post-2008. Economists do not all agree on everything.
I am most definitely thinking of the Great Recession which I lived through. I encourage you to research the low growth era that followed and what economists think now. You won't have to go far back because five years ago when the pandemic started there was a lot of writing about the failings of that era. In fact, the consensus seems to be we over-corrected this time, but still better than what we did in 2008. But yes, we made the investors who created the mess whole while making the American citizens eat the costs. It's a bit baffling to have something so widely written about dismissed so confidently by someone who doesn't seem to understand what we are even discussing.
What throws me off about this, is it's not difficult to use perfectly. Condoms are the only method I trust. Pull-out? Can screw it up. With birth control you're (until now) relying on your partner to use it perfectly.
It isn't, to anyone except far-left progressives. They want social housing. Depending on the day it will be argued that supply-and-demand doesn't play, or it does but successfully increasing housing elasticity and lowering costs would not help their broader push for socialism of some stripe. Abundance has to fail to satisfy their worldview, housing is completely secondary.
I'm not against social housing either. It can play a role, and like Klein and other proponents, I think we should be pragmatic and do what works out politically to meet goals.
The West isn't China and Korea. They can't opt out of authoritarian-state surveillance and great firewall, whereas we have options more amenable to privacy, even if you want to quibble that they aren't perfect.
Also the fact that UK and Australia are kind of backwards on online privacy.
That aside, this is targeted. The fediverse and vbulletin forums of old, even reddit, are all social media but will never require facial recognition. If they do, then far worse things are happening to freedom.
Korea is a democratic Western nation, they host US military bases and fly F-35. Korean made phones are trusted enough that American special forces use it for some parachute jumpings.
Among the many definitions of "Western" is the original sense of "First World", encompassing members of the geopolitical bloc centered historically on the US.
I don't think it would kill social media, but it'd make it more similar to Chinese social media. Essentially impossible to use for protests or criticism of things the government doesn't critiques on.
It ties real world ultraviolence with social media. It won't kill social media, just make it materially toxic. IIUC South Korea in 2000s had exactly this, online dispute stories coming from there were much worse than anything I had heard locally.
reply