6 ms·

> only thing that really matters is whether people advance economically. This is such an incomplete understanding of governance and state it could only appea

> only thing that really matters is whether people advance economically. This is such an incomplete understanding of governance and state it could only appear under already degenerate conditions of poor political education and non-participation.

spwa4 1y ago
I would argue it has a very great deal of historical support. And yes, it's a simplification, it's not like it's the only factor (e.g. Ukraine was rapidly improving since the fall of the Soviet union and now they're at war. We all know what happened, and I don't consider that a counterexample)
- piva00 1y ago
  It's not only a simplification, it's a bias, your bias views all governance solely on the matters of economic improvements, how do you even define what's economic improvement? If it's in terms of a singular macroeconomic metric like GDP then it will grow if you strip out all public services, privatise those and make people pay for it, it will also grow if shoddy products are made so when they inevitably break people will buy more of it: shoddy houses needing constant repairs, cars breaking down and generating economic activity when they get sorted out by mechanics, etc. What even means to improve economically? Buy more stuff? Buy bigger stuff? It's a great mirage to look at, it's absurdly simplistic to equate that being able to purchase more things will translate into a better society... It doesn't really follow, of course people want to buy stuff they think will improve their lives but there's a breaking point to that. If that was the case the USA should be the most fulfilled and happiest population to ever exist, and we know it isn't the case. > I would argue it has a very great deal of historical support. Yup, while a society is in the stages of scarcity it does have historical support, after the point of scarcity into abundance... We need new models, it's clear this model doesn't hold after this transition.
  - spwa4 1y ago
    > GDP then it will grow if you strip out all public services, privatise those and make people pay for it No it won't, because people won't pay for it. They can't, so to get ahead of your next argument: it doesn't matter how necessary those services are, they can't pay. If doing without means a city dies economically or even if it means people start actually dying then that's what it will mean, not more GDP. Read about the century before and after Irish potato famine to see an example of just how bad it can get, while still not resulting in GDP growth. > What even means to improve economically? Having the ability to do more, on a bigger scale. Think of it this way: there isn't a city on the planet that wouldn't benefit from rebuilding itself (in practice increasing the rate at which it rebuilds itself). Lots of houses, businesses, ... are old and have huge problems that need fixing. Most places could use a lot more houses. And then, there's no shortage of ideas for improvements. Wouldn't you agree it would be great if the London metro had the same density all the way to Birmingham as it has in the center of London? If the New York metro extended into the state? If medical care really was universal, cheap, fast and thorough? If there was a vaguely usable train network in Europe (by which I mean that it would be realistic, and cheap, to use European trains to go from, say, London to Rome)? To say nothing of the fact that in 90% of the world, if you brought people's living standards to Eastern European levels, that would be increasing them. That certainly seems worth doing and requires more economy. These are extreme and perhaps unrealistic examples, but, yes, that would be economic improvement. And yes, these things would improve nearly everyone's lives.
    - sifar 1y ago
      >> Having the ability to do more, on a bigger scale. Even waste , inefficiencies ? That is setting yourself up for a big collapse too. One needs to look at it from a more resilient, sustainable perspective, like a biological system.

spwa4 1y ago

I would argue it has a very great deal of historical support. And yes, it's a simplification, it's not like it's the only factor (e.g. Ukraine was rapidly improving since the fall of the Soviet union and now they're at war. We all know what happened, and I don't consider that a counterexample)

piva00 1y ago
It's not only a simplification, it's a bias, your bias views all governance solely on the matters of economic improvements, how do you even define what's economic improvement? If it's in terms of a singular macroeconomic metric like GDP then it will grow if you strip out all public services, privatise those and make people pay for it, it will also grow if shoddy products are made so when they inevitably break people will buy more of it: shoddy houses needing constant repairs, cars breaking down and generating economic activity when they get sorted out by mechanics, etc. What even means to improve economically? Buy more stuff? Buy bigger stuff? It's a great mirage to look at, it's absurdly simplistic to equate that being able to purchase more things will translate into a better society... It doesn't really follow, of course people want to buy stuff they think will improve their lives but there's a breaking point to that. If that was the case the USA should be the most fulfilled and happiest population to ever exist, and we know it isn't the case. > I would argue it has a very great deal of historical support. Yup, while a society is in the stages of scarcity it does have historical support, after the point of scarcity into abundance... We need new models, it's clear this model doesn't hold after this transition.
- spwa4 1y ago
  > GDP then it will grow if you strip out all public services, privatise those and make people pay for it No it won't, because people won't pay for it. They can't, so to get ahead of your next argument: it doesn't matter how necessary those services are, they can't pay. If doing without means a city dies economically or even if it means people start actually dying then that's what it will mean, not more GDP. Read about the century before and after Irish potato famine to see an example of just how bad it can get, while still not resulting in GDP growth. > What even means to improve economically? Having the ability to do more, on a bigger scale. Think of it this way: there isn't a city on the planet that wouldn't benefit from rebuilding itself (in practice increasing the rate at which it rebuilds itself). Lots of houses, businesses, ... are old and have huge problems that need fixing. Most places could use a lot more houses. And then, there's no shortage of ideas for improvements. Wouldn't you agree it would be great if the London metro had the same density all the way to Birmingham as it has in the center of London? If the New York metro extended into the state? If medical care really was universal, cheap, fast and thorough? If there was a vaguely usable train network in Europe (by which I mean that it would be realistic, and cheap, to use European trains to go from, say, London to Rome)? To say nothing of the fact that in 90% of the world, if you brought people's living standards to Eastern European levels, that would be increasing them. That certainly seems worth doing and requires more economy. These are extreme and perhaps unrealistic examples, but, yes, that would be economic improvement. And yes, these things would improve nearly everyone's lives.
  - sifar 1y ago
    >> Having the ability to do more, on a bigger scale. Even waste , inefficiencies ? That is setting yourself up for a big collapse too. One needs to look at it from a more resilient, sustainable perspective, like a biological system.