BitShares Forum
Other => Random Discussion => Topic started by: Permie on July 20, 2015, 11:41:10 pm
-
I was talking to a Health Economics PHD student and we had a lengthy discussion about the nature of society and how I believe that the Free Market will solve all problems better than a centralized entity (the state).
One point she raised that I hadn't considered is that even if the average health of the population improved, a large wealth disparity will still cause resentment and bitterness which results in higher stress levels and worse illnesses. She thinks wealth disparity will be just as bad or worse in a free market, as the people are not 'guaranteed' an education and a baseline level of healthcare.
I'm sticking to my guns, or rather, sticking to my non-violent principles and still think the Free Market can solve this problem better.
I can't come up with a specific answer as a rebuttal but I do think that lower barriers to entry will allow more people to make profit solving problems.
Can somebody articulate why a free market will produce a better-off society and reduce wealth disparity to the 'optimum' level?
If every system to run a country was tested, I'm confident that Free Market Anarchy would be the best but I can't always explain why.
"Innovation" and "because a swarm of intelligent and free humans will do it better than an exclusive group (government)" don't always cut it as good enough answers for her.
Help me show her the way
-
Part of the libertarian appeal is that one doesn't pretend to have some specific solution in mind, as that would already be to presuppose a monolithic imposition. In practice though the statists tend to reverse the dialectic to a situation where you have to give positive proof that freedom will produce results, by giving a constructivist demonstration that this or that problem will be dealt with. If you turn the table you can ask them to prove that a given solution is the optimal one - perhaps they will say majority rule is the "least worst" option. It then comes down to a matter of principles and rights on the one hand, and how pessimistic/optimistic one is in seeking out better solutions on the other.
-
I think she's right. Monopolies were forming naturally in the late 1800s shortly after industrialization had begun, until a centralized entity stepped in to break them up. TPTB will always act in their own best interests regardless of the situation, regardless of what it takes to ensure the continued prosperity of them and their family; having a desperate labor force is in their own best interests.
A little ways down the road from the late 1800s comes the roaring twenties. Look how that panned out. The rich didn't give a fuck, it took a whole new deal to get that shit straightened out.
Look at the plutonomy that's forming today, those people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire (unless you're one of them). If you disagree take a sabbatical and work any job that doesn't require a bachelor's or higher (and live off only that). Unless you live in a country that really has their shit together that should drive the point home.
It comes down to a matter of liberty vs. rights and some rights, which wouldn't be enforced in a 100% free market, need to be enforced. Those pitchforks are important. My fear is that technology will give them an upper hand they didn't have in previous generations.
-
I was going to say all of this, but then I found out this guy said it first ...
https://mises.org/library/market-and-distribution-wealth (https://mises.org/library/market-and-distribution-wealth)
;)
-
Dude here's your problem... U say she is a PhD student. This means her opinions have already been formed (most likely by her centralized instructors)... Unless you say something that is in line with what she has been taught, it will be disregarded. Anything that you say that disagrees with her education that she has overpaid thousands of dollars for will make her feel insecure and minute, therefore she will reject anything you say unless it was already her preconceived opinion.
-
I think she's right. Monopolies were forming naturally in the late 1800s shortly after industrialization had begun, until a centralized entity stepped in to break them up. TPTB will always act in their own best interests regardless of the situation, regardless of what it takes to ensure the continued prosperity of them and their family; having a desperate labor force is in their own best interests.
A little ways down the road from the late 1800s comes the roaring twenties. Look how that panned out. The rich didn't give a fuck, it took a whole new deal to get that shit straightened out.
Look at the plutonomy that's forming today, those people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire (unless you're one of them). If you disagree take a sabbatical and work any job that doesn't require a bachelor's or higher (and live off only that). Unless you live in a country that really has their shit together that should drive the point home.
It comes down to a matter of liberty vs. rights and some rights, which wouldn't be enforced in a 100% free market, need to be enforced. Those pitchforks are important. My fear is that technology will give them an upper hand they didn't have in previous generations.
Well said. I admire the libertarian viewpoint and think society and economics can learn a lot from it. But being one of the only non-libertarians on this board, I have argued often that a complete lack of regulation would lead to inequity. If no one were greedy or power hungry, then presumably it would work, but human nature gets in the way. If there's no government that can meaningfully enforce basic rights and equity, then we simply have mafias and drug cartels and billionaires substituting their own wisdom and muscle. Give me democracy with all its flaws and we'll work to improve it. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
-
I think she's right. Monopolies were forming naturally in the late 1800s shortly after industrialization had begun, until a centralized entity stepped in to break them up. TPTB will always act in their own best interests regardless of the situation, regardless of what it takes to ensure the continued prosperity of them and their family; having a desperate labor force is in their own best interests.
A little ways down the road from the late 1800s comes the roaring twenties. Look how that panned out. The rich didn't give a fuck, it took a whole new deal to get that shit straightened out.
Look at the plutonomy that's forming today, those people wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire (unless you're one of them). If you disagree take a sabbatical and work any job that doesn't require a bachelor's or higher (and live off only that). Unless you live in a country that really has their shit together that should drive the point home.
It comes down to a matter of liberty vs. rights and some rights, which wouldn't be enforced in a 100% free market, need to be enforced. Those pitchforks are important. My fear is that technology will give them an upper hand they didn't have in previous generations.
Well said. I admire the libertarian viewpoint and think society and economics can learn a lot from it. But being one of the only non-libertarians on this board, I have argued often that a complete lack of regulation would lead to inequity. If no one were greedy or power hungry, then presumably it would work, but human nature gets in the way. If there's no government that can meaningfully enforce basic rights and equity, then we simply have mafias and drug cartels and billionaires substituting their own wisdom and muscle. Give me democracy with all its flaws and we'll work to improve it. As Winston Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
Yeah, I hate big governments, but on the other hand I haven't come up with a way to do away with government alltogether. Unless we go back to the the hunter gatherer livestyle.
But I also share the fear for monopolies and have been unable to come up with a way to prevent them forming in a true free market. Maybe there can be law or principles enforced on the blockchain, where when a company gets too big and powerful it's forcibly broken up. But I don't believe that would actually work in real life as the power of the blockchain doesn't extend outside of the blockchain in the physical world. So for now I don't believe a true free market solution is viable without some form of government. Governments are not the inventors of slavery not by a long shot and getting rid of government will not solve enslavement and force, quite the opposite from what I've seen from history and market reactions. Companies like Apple and Ikea benefit quite a bit from the modern version of slavery.
One very poignant example I heard is that the factory workers for Apple-products are now monitored to restrain them from being able to commit suicide. Wow, you can't even kill yourself to get away from that.
-
Theft and violence are always wrong. Being the State does not magically free you from this.
“If something is wrong for you or me, it is also wrong for the cop, the soldier, the mayor, the governor, the general, the Fed chairman, the president. Theft does not become acceptable when they call it taxation, counterfeiting when they call it monetary policy, kidnapping when they call it the draft, mass murder when they call it foreign policy. We understand that it is never acceptable to wield violence nor the threat of violence against the innocent, whether by the mugger or the politician.” ― Lew Rockwell
Monopolies are not always to be feared. If someone is providing the best services at the best prices and no one can do better, what is there to complain about. Its only an issue if they are preventing others from competing, or you are forced to by their garbage product because no one else provides it. The best way to do that is through state power, regulations etc. In order for a monopoly to sustain itself in a free market they have to out compete everyone else with the value and efficacy of their product. With a state, all they need do is pass a law that makes it difficult of terribly expensive for competition to comply with all the red tape.
"If you can't trust people with freedom, you can't trust people with power" If people are ultimately corruptible, power hungry, greedy, SOB's. Why would we want to give a organization full of people the ability to govern our lives. Give them the ability to burn down our house, kill our children, wreck our business, confiscate our wealth. They'll tell you its for equality, and fairness; for the greater good.
"If men are good, you don't need government; If men are evil, you don't dare have one" -Robert Lefarve
Equality is not the goal. Its not even desirable. If it doesn't matter what I do, how hard I try, how much effort I put into a thing; If at the end of it all we are all to be made equal by the force and power of the state. What reason is there to do anything.
One point she raised that I hadn't considered is that even if the average health of the population improved, a large wealth disparity will still cause resentment and bitterness which results in higher stress levels and worse illnesses. She thinks wealth disparity will be just as bad or worse in a free market, as the people are not 'guaranteed' an education and a baseline level of healthcare.
This sounds like she might be at odds with herself. You can't have improved average health and worse health at the same time. "will still cause resentment and bitterness" if people can't manage their own emotions, the solution is not to have other people manage them for you. People will always be envious of their neighbor. As I said before equality especially where by force, is not a desirable goal. At least in a free market you have every opportunity to make things better for yourself. Lemonade stands and all.
I don't agree at all with the assertion that wealth disparity would be worse. Without a state, you would not have a printing press. Think of how much wealth is created today simply via proximity to this eternal spring.
-
Dude here's your problem... U say she is a PhD student. This means her opinions have already been formed (most likely by her centralized instructors)... Unless you say something that is in line with what she has been taught, it will be disregarded. Anything that you say that disagrees with her education that she has overpaid thousands of dollars for will make her feel insecure and minute, therefore she will reject anything you say unless it was already her preconceived opinion.
ha, hey as a PhD i resent that :)
it's too bad that all of academia gets a bad rap from the vocal minorities that get published in the NYTimes and other rags. honest academic economists are scientists and understand the limitations of applying these tools to human society. the charlatans amongst us use their credentials to ignore this and pretend they have all the answers for society and the only thing keeping us from utopia is insufficient power to act on their omniscience. unfortunately, the libertarian/ancap community has latched onto its own extrapolation bias in treating all academics like the charlatans.
-
Part of the libertarian appeal is that one doesn't pretend to have some specific solution in mind, as that would already be to presuppose a monolithic imposition. In practice though the statists tend to reverse the dialectic to a situation where you have to give positive proof that freedom will produce results, by giving a constructivist demonstration that this or that problem will be dealt with. If you turn the table you can ask them to prove that a given solution is the optimal one - perhaps they will say majority rule is the "least worst" option. It then comes down to a matter of principles and rights on the one hand, and how pessimistic/optimistic one is in seeking out better solutions on the other.
Best article i've read recently supporting this idea:
In this article we examine a wide range of behavioral failures, such as those linked to misperception of risks, unwarranted aversion to risk ambiguity, inordinate aversion to losses, and inconsistencies in the tradeoffs reflected in individual decisions. Although such shortcomings have been documented in the behavioral literature, they are also reflected in government policies, both because policymakers are also human and because public pressures incorporate these biases. The result is that government policies often institutionalize rather than overcome behavioral anomalies.
http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2015/07/behavioral-public-choice.html
The defense of freedom never was that freedom is perfect, merely that government control is worse.
-
Wow @BitcoinJesus2.O, I thought we wouldn't see you around here anymore! :o
Good to see you still have some very pertinent comments to share with us, glad you're back! ;)
-
Theft and violence are always wrong. Being the State does not magically free you from this.
“If something is wrong for you or me, it is also wrong for the cop, the soldier, the mayor, the governor, the general, the Fed chairman, the president. Theft does not become acceptable when they call it taxation, counterfeiting when they call it monetary policy, kidnapping when they call it the draft, mass murder when they call it foreign policy. We understand that it is never acceptable to wield violence nor the threat of violence against the innocent, whether by the mugger or the politician.” ― Lew Rockwell
Monopolies are not always to be feared. If someone is providing the best services at the best prices and no one can do better, what is there to complain about. Its only an issue if they are preventing others from competing, or you are forced to by their garbage product because no one else provides it. The best way to do that is through state power, regulations etc. In order for a monopoly to sustain itself in a free market they have to out compete everyone else with the value and efficacy of their product. With a state, all they need do is pass a law that makes it difficult of terribly expensive for competition to comply with all the red tape.
"If you can't trust people with freedom, you can't trust people with power" If people are ultimately corruptible, power hungry, greedy, SOB's. Why would we want to give a organization full of people the ability to govern our lives. Give them the ability to burn down our house, kill our children, wreck our business, confiscate our wealth. They'll tell you its for equality, and fairness; for the greater good.
"If men are good, you don't need government; If men are evil, you don't dare have one" -Robert Lefarve
Equality is not the goal. Its not even desirable. If it doesn't matter what I do, how hard I try, how much effort I put into a thing; If at the end of it all we are all to be made equal by the force and power of the state. What reason is there to do anything.
One point she raised that I hadn't considered is that even if the average health of the population improved, a large wealth disparity will still cause resentment and bitterness which results in higher stress levels and worse illnesses. She thinks wealth disparity will be just as bad or worse in a free market, as the people are not 'guaranteed' an education and a baseline level of healthcare.
This sounds like she might be at odds with herself. You can't have improved average health and worse health at the same time. "will still cause resentment and bitterness" if people can't manage their own emotions, the solution is not to have other people manage them for you. People will always be envious of their neighbor. As I said before equality especially where by force, is not a desirable goal. At least in a free market you have every opportunity to make things better for yourself. Lemonade stands and all.
I don't agree at all with the assertion that wealth disparity would be worse. Without a state, you would not have a printing press. Think of how much wealth is created today simply via proximity to this eternal spring.
All this ^
It's really hard for people to imagine a world where unencumbered innovation & ingenuity was allowed to solve problems. What might the world be like after 100 yrs of accumulated & compounding innovation effect?
The true character of humanity has been stifled. With true freedom, perhaps the darker aspects of humanity will find less purchase and more resistance within our hearts.
-
This has been a shout out to my Lemonfucker
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-xemBDMEf564/U7IFBwtmh-I/AAAAAAAAB-s/5J2QENtfwRw/s1600/DSC00442.JPG)
my desires are ... unconventional.
-
Wow @BitcoinJesus2.O, I thought we wouldn't see you around here anymore! :o
Good to see you still have some very pertinent comments to share with us, glad you're back! ;)
HE IS RESURRECTED!!
BEHOLD THE CRYPTO MIRACLE THAT IS BITCOINJESUS!
CAN I GET A #AMEN?!
-
Monopolies are not always to be feared. If someone is providing the best services at the best prices and no one can do better, what is there to complain about. Its only an issue if they are preventing others from competing, or you are forced to by their garbage product because no one else provides it. The best way to do that is through state power, regulations etc. In order for a monopoly to sustain itself in a free market they have to out compete everyone else with the value and efficacy of their product. With a state, all they need do is pass a law that makes it difficult of terribly expensive for competition to comply with all the red tape.
There might have been a day where this was true, when people were divided and businesses small, but with the megacorps today I no longer believe that. If governments get corrupted then what mechanic would prevent any monopoly from being corrupted? I fail to see the logic in that. Take a look at some of the tactics employed in the electronics industry that have nothing to do with exploiting government nor with outcompeting. Look at some of the tactics used by Microsoft, Intel and NVIDIA (among others) who can spend more time, money and manpower on destroying and sabotaging their potential competitors than those competitors can ever hope to spend on marketing or simply getting off the ground. Or in the financial field with shit like leveraged buyouts and naked-shortselling that have nothing to do with proper competing or doing business.
While I do admit governments are terrible solutions, I don't see how giving control to megacorps run by sociopaths would be any better even though that particular strand of human tends to flourish in management. Best dystopian reference that comes to mind is the one in the movie Bladerunner, where megacorps run the world and slavery is big business.
To answer the question about what could be worse than giving a bureaucratic inefficient government power, my answer would be: to give power to an efficient (sociopath) entity. I share the repulsion about corrupt government, but I hope that people don't lose sight of who or what is actually doing the corrupting. For example how many weapon-factories are actually owned, run and operated by the US-government itself? As far as I can tell, the weapons trade and their marketing (as in creating armed conflicts and fear mongering) is not affected all that much by any government in any form other than being just another tool. Sad thing is that most people can't look past the sock-puppets and fail to realize the powerful hands stuffed up their backsides controlling their mouths. I don't think it's just the sockpuppet that's the problem, it might even be the lesser one of the many evils.
Then again, my viewpoints might be a little skewed, because I see the majority of humankind as illustrated in "Lord of the Flies". Before I went to university and later joined the army I had a more idealistic worldview, but those two environments forced me to reconsider. I'm no longer confident about the basic nature of man and it deeply regrets me to say that I've seen situations (people) where force seems to be necessary last resort.
Although I also admit that the Dutch army is little different from what I've seen and heard from armies like for example the US, Israel and Great-Britain. The Dutch army tends to follow the principle of using force only as the last resort and only proportional to the situation. Where the armies of the nations I've mentioned before have this mantra about how it's easier to scale down violence than it is to scale up, apparently without even considering it's not a principle that fits all situations. During my officer training it was often repeated that the soldiers in an army reflect a cross-section of society in their country and I wonder if that is true about the notions about using force as well. I did notice when talking to US-residents when talking about their guns that they often talk about the need to protect themselves and needing force multipliers and such.
Sorry went a little astray there, but the point I was trying to get to was that not all perceived use of force and oppression originates from "governments" per se. Government might in fact truly reflect society and that it might be the average human perception that needs to change.
-
When we say that BitShares is an experiment, I bet you did not realize that we meant "political experiment." Because, for the first time ever, humans have a rule of law that will be upheld for every individual no matter their name, status, or net worth. We are witnessing the culmination of centuries of theoretical political discussion finally put to the test in one grand global experiment - BitShares - which form of government do humans want (when the law is unbreakable)???.
So, no, neither of you get to definitively win this argument.......today, but if you follow this experiment to its conclusion, then one of you just might... or maybe both of you will, who knows, it's all theory until the launch of 2.0 which is when the global human political/social psychology will finally be factually mapped.
(http://i.imgur.com/YK7p1y0.png)
-
1) The argument is circular: market economy improvements improve quality of life for everyone, thus improving health. But then market economy improvements cause inequality which breeds resentment, increases stress, thus decreasing health. One of those trends has to dominate the other. Are people healthier or not?
2) Free market advocates would say you're supposed to feel stress due to income inequality; that is supposed to motivate you to provide more valuable contributions to society.
3) However, free markets need to be free. Artificial barriers to entry and market players destroying free and transparent markets drive the need for regulations. Just as pure socialism leads to economic inefficiencies and corruption, pure libertarianism gives freedom to bad actors to obtain wealth and destroy transparency and market access in order to preserve their wealth. The world is evolving to a system of checks and balances between the free market and governments. Markets overrule governments (see Greece, and China's long modernization towards a market economy) and governments overrule markets (corporate bailouts) in extreme cases to preserve this balance. USA becomes more "socialist," China becomes more "capitalist," but they both have a market that will moderate changes and puts limits on what governments can and cannot do.
4) PhDs are trained to be free thinkers and critical of all evidence. Just because you have an education doesn't mean you are a mindless drone that wasted thousands of dollars. I have a PhD and didn't pay a dime for it (in fact, I got paid - as do nearly every PhD in the US). If any of my PhD students simply do what I told them only because I told them to without critically analyzing the problem, I'd fire them. As a whole, there is no academic conspiracy nor agenda (although individuals may have one, thus driving them to write blogs or op eds)
-
Monopolies are not always to be feared. If someone is providing the best services at the best prices and no one can do better, what is there to complain about. Its only an issue if they are preventing others from competing, or you are forced to by their garbage product because no one else provides it. The best way to do that is through state power, regulations etc. In order for a monopoly to sustain itself in a free market they have to out compete everyone else with the value and efficacy of their product. With a state, all they need do is pass a law that makes it difficult of terribly expensive for competition to comply with all the red tape.
There might have been a day where this was true, when people were divided and businesses small, but with the megacorps today I no longer believe that. If governments get corrupted then what mechanic would prevent any monopoly from being corrupted? I fail to see the logic in that. Take a look at some of the tactics employed in the electronics industry that have nothing to do with exploiting government nor with outcompeting. Look at some of the tactics used by Microsoft, Intel and NVIDIA (among others) who can spend more time, money and manpower on destroying and sabotaging their potential competitors than those competitors can ever hope to spend on marketing or simply getting off the ground. Or in the financial field with shit like leveraged buyouts and naked-shortselling that have nothing to do with proper competing or doing business.
The mechanic is the free market, your competitor will provide a better service if you are corrupt. If the corporation is violating some natural law against you, than you would bring that against them, and it would be very costly for them, for all sorts of reasons.
Here's a Robert Murphy video from Mises.org. Its not entirely on point to this particular discussion(monopolies) but it does give some insight on law and security in a stateless society. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw&feature=youtu.be
As it is now, it is illegal to compete with the government, and by extension the megacorporations, that is essentially the heart of corporatism we see in government today.
The existence of the megacorps we have today are in large part due to the competitive restrictions imposed by state regulations, political kickbacks, lobbies, subsidies, legal carte blanche, etc; all manage and maintained by the use of force from the state. Using what we have today is not a fair example of what a free market would produce or allow. Yes humans are corruptible, this is all the more reason not to give them power over other humans. Give the power to force with no consequence to anyone and inevitably you will be filled to the brim with corruption. How much is a megacorp going to risk taking down a competitor knowing they have no political backstop, no lobby to regulate you out, no subsidy to prop you up, no media/reputation protection. I think now more than ever that sort of thing would be highly risky(in a free stateless society) because of the speed and breadth of information exchange. I don't have the answers of course, but I know, with certainty, which allows for greater solutions; as well as not being morally objectionable from the most basic of natural rights.
While I do admit governments are terrible solutions, I don't see how giving control to megacorps run by sociopaths would be any better even though that particular strand of human tends to flourish in management. Best dystopian reference that comes to mind is the one in the movie Bladerunner, where megacorps run the world and slavery is big business.
To answer the question about what could be worse than giving a bureaucratic inefficient government power, my answer would be: to give power to an efficient (sociopath) entity. I share the repulsion about corrupt government, but I hope that people don't lose sight of who or what is actually doing the corrupting.
I'm talking about taking all such power away from everyone. Not giving it back to this or that organization. No one has the right to wield the power of force over you.
-
The mechanic is the free market, your competitor will provide a better service if you are corrupt. If the corporation is violating some natural law against you, than you would bring that against them, and it would be very costly for them, for all sorts of reasons.
But what if that corporation used their influence to stifle competition and destroy the free market (to replace it with their controlled market)? You can take it to the extreme and say there should be an "armed revolution" against such a corporation, but if that corporation has a monopoly on essential services (food, medicines), then there is no market mechanism to correct it. Group network theory always pushes to utopia (monopoly) or distopia (free market). If market conditions create a utopia, that same market can't be expected to suddenly generate distopia. There needs to be feedback in the loop, and monopolies work to remove feedback, so the market drives further in their direction.
Right now you can say we have a government monopoly, but all governments are subject to their market economy. And market economies exist with the expectation of a stable political structure to enforce market rules and prevent players from themselves destroying the market. Thus the current situation of balance between government and market.
We also live in a market of governments. They are all similar, but if you don't like what your government is doing you can vote with your feet and move out. Cities that spend too liberally and go bankrupt lose the income centers and populations. Cities that have good policies grow. Countries with bad economic policies (Greece, Argentina, Venezuela, Soviet Union, North Korea) collapse under their own weight.
North Korea is a great example of a monopoly that has destroyed the "market of governments."
-
Free market capitalism is merely an agnostic technology that depends on the input of its participants. Problems arise when there is misalignment between the collective agenda and the balance of supply and demand.
People that condemn suppliers (ie entrepreneurs and corporations) for the wealth they've accumulated don't take into consideration the fact that suppliers are only pandering to the depraved desires of humanity, and that if we lessened the demand for trivial goods and services we would have a greater abundance of those most vital goods and services that would increase the standard of living across the board.
On the other hand, if we do not train younger generations to supply the demands of tomorrow rather then the demands of today we will inevitably find ourselves with a depressed labor market and the inability to adequately distribute income except by forceful redistributive measures.
Human demand is unbounded an as such there is always the opportunity for those without money to attain it from those that have it.
The speed of technological advancement as well as cultural inertia have made it increasingly difficult for the labor market to adjust to the changing structure of the economy. It's something that I've been thinking about lately as blockchain technology becomes more and more competitive with traditional payment systems. Prior to bitcoin, computer programs could not own property, they could not accrue revenue or pay for their expenses. The bottleneck for dramatic automation in the service sector has always been the payment infrastructure that relies entirely on financial intermediaries with very low levels of interoperability.
We've already seen the emergence disruptive applications that reduce the need for middlemen by more efficiently utilizing information to match supply with demand. The biggest hotel company in the world doesn't own its own buildings or rooms. The biggest car service doesn't own its own cars. Imagine what happens to all these entirely information based services when the programs that run them have their own bank accounts.
Just like in the early 20th century with the Great Depression we are become too efficient in the sector that is our primary means of employment and distribution of income. What we need is more training in STEM, but we have a cultural aversion toward it. Only 30% of college students major in STEM related fields. We're still training the younger generation for service sector jobs that aren't going to be there in the next 20 years.
The problem is not the free market. If anything the government has distorted the collective consensus and undermined our ability to more dynamically respond to economic changes. The real problem is that there is an imbalance of adequate supply and demand to achieve our goal of increased economic output while also equitably distributing income.
-
Just like in the early 20th century with the Great Depression we are become too efficient in the sector that is our primary means of employment and distribution of income. What we need is more training in STEM, but we have a cultural aversion toward it. Only 30% of college students major in STEM related fields. We're still training the younger generation for service sector jobs that aren't going to be there in the next 20 years.
The problem is not the free market. If anything the government has distorted the collective consensus and undermined our ability to more dynamically respond to economic changes. The real problem is that there is an imbalance of adequate supply and demand to achieve our goal of increased economic output while also equitably distributing income.
As someone on the front lines of STEM and workforce training, there is an interesting labor market phenomenon occurring. We keep hearing that there is an undersupply of engineers and scientists, and an over supply of business people - yet finance and econ majors make 10-15% more over the 10 years after graduation than scientists and engineers. Either the market undervalues scientists and engineers, or there is really a shortage of bankers and economists. [STEM majors have significantly higher job security, however]
and you're right, 30-40 years ago you just needed a college degree in anything and you were set for life. Now it completely depends on what you major in, you can't expect to get far without innovating.
-
As someone on the front lines of STEM and workforce training, there is an interesting labor market phenomenon occurring. We keep hearing that there is an undersupply of engineers and scientists, and an over supply of business people - yet finance and econ majors make 10-15% more over the 10 years after graduation than scientists and engineers. Either the market undervalues scientists and engineers, or there is really a shortage of bankers and economists. [STEM majors have significantly higher job security, however]
and you're right, 30-40 years ago you just needed a college degree in anything and you were set for life. Now it completely depends on what you major in, you can't expect to get far without innovating.
The problem is the amount of regulation in the financial sector that allows for the formation of monopolies. Employees share the rent of the monopolies that employ them. If there weren't government regulation we would have already seen the consolidation in the industry that blockchain allows for, and consequently margins would fall to zero because a large portion of the services provided by this financial sector can be automated. Its all just information and numbers and algorithms which have existed for the past 5,000 years of money.