tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post5853884089334932224..comments2024-03-28T01:12:29.954-07:00Comments on Idiosyncratic Whisk: The absurdity of blaming capitalism for inequality - Part 4.Kevin Erdmannhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-12740758232228531932015-04-01T09:58:35.220-07:002015-04-01T09:58:35.220-07:00Nathanael, I was neglectful in not responding to y...Nathanael, I was neglectful in not responding to your comments when you originally posted them. I might take some issue with your second paragraph. First, for the violence, and second, for the binary thinking. I think it is clear to most readers that I am not advocating unsustainable or damaging risk, so I think you could share these thoughts in a way that builds on natural agreements instead of rhetorically creating wedges of disagreement. With these caveats in mind, these comments are thoughtful appendixes to the post.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-91371167214121250712015-01-03T17:54:19.864-07:002015-01-03T17:54:19.864-07:00Good point. Owners vs. managers, new money vs. ol...Good point. Owners vs. managers, new money vs. old money, markets vs. businesses. So much public opinion is bound up with these confusions.Kevin Erdmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07431566729667544886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-22457762955474478972015-01-02T11:58:04.558-07:002015-01-02T11:58:04.558-07:00Change creates winners and losers. The losers are ...Change creates winners and losers. The losers are real existing people, usually current winners, often with associations and political clout. The future winners often haven't even been born, or if they have they are not yet organized. <br /><br />The current winners (and hence prospective losers) use their clout and existence and organization to suppress change. Because they can. Thus if change can be suppressed it will be.<br /><br />The key is institutions which undermine our ability to suppress change. In the 1800s this was the fragmented (yet somewhat integrated) political states of Europe and the US. Those states with what D North refers to as "open access" were less able to suppress change and protect incumbents. So economic progress wasn't killed off for the first time ever. <br /><br />Stability is the death of progress, and the short term friend of incumbents. Instant Karmahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08907882955776032199noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-3652058521854997982014-08-22T11:42:53.211-07:002014-08-22T11:42:53.211-07:00" I hope we choose risk."
We won't;..." I hope we choose risk."<br /><br />We won't; we can't. This is a principle of psychology. We also shouldn't; this is a principle of complex systems.<br /><br />People who advocate for much greater risk for everyone are generally dangerous and should arguably be shot through the head... which they often are! If you force people to take greater risk by making everything risky, they will probably take revenge on you eventually. Examples of successful advocacy for greater risk include World War I.<br /><br />This doesn't mean suppressing change. Change is great. But change should take place in an essentially safe environment. So, we can allow for businesses and sectors to collapse *if* the people involved in them are guaranteed food, clothing, and shelter regardless -- the base of the Maslow hierarchy.<br /><br />This was essentially the New Deal bargain. Greater risk of losing elite status -- good for society. Greater risk of starving or freezing -- bad for society.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1110014885778996459.post-31098067106083286242014-08-22T11:35:47.384-07:002014-08-22T11:35:47.384-07:00It's not that people like rentiers. They don&...It's not that people like rentiers. They don't. It's that people like... well, how shall we put this. *Civil servants*. <br /><br />People want someone (else!) to be paid to keep things stable.<br /><br />If rentiers can do that (the feudal landlord who lives there and manages things himself) people are fine with rentiers. <br /><br />If rentiers fail to do that (the absentee landlord who does nothing to manage but merely comes by to extract rents intermittently), then people are mad at rentiers.<br /><br />It's really something more basic than money, and you get at that: it's stability. Most people will pay a lot for stability. "Anything for a quiet life", as the saying goes.Nathanaelnoreply@blogger.com