
The next capitalist revolution - wolfv
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/11/15/the-next-capitalist-revolution
======
plainOldText
What we need is a revolution in how people think about complex systems.

People nowadays throw ideas around thinking they have a good understanding of
how systems operate or should operate, when in fact most are clueless and fail
to realize their ignorance.

Society, economy, biological organisms, climate, cognition, etc are all
complex systems, and no single person can claim to understand how they work,
or the types of laws/rules we should adopt to govern their behavior.

Not all is lost though, as we have slowly started to augment our cognitive
power, by means of computation, and in the process have improved our
capabilities to analyze and understand these ever evolving systems.

I for one, have began to fight my ignorance by studying more books on complex
systems. Here's a good one I've discovered recently: "Scale" by Geoffrey West.

Also, a useful collection of resources, courtesy of Santa Fe Institute:
[https://www.complexityexplorer.org/](https://www.complexityexplorer.org/)
(HINT: Go to explore -> browse section)

... and bonus, one of the most underrated channels on YouTube, _Complexity
Labs_ : [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutCcajxhR33k9UR-
DdLsAQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCutCcajxhR33k9UR-DdLsAQ)

~~~
ilaksh
I agree that people generally should realize that their broad viewpoints on
subjects that they are not familiar with are in a different category from
those that they are very familiar with or those that are about specific
situations. I disagree that the issue is just that these systems are too
complex to understand on any level or that we can avoid having worldviews that
encompass these subjects.

I mean we can just acknowledge that we have different worldviews rather than
everyone having to agree that things are too complex to understand. I agree
they are complex but that doesn't mean I can avoid having views on them.

~~~
plainOldText
> I mean we can just acknowledge that we have different worldviews rather than
> everyone having to agree that things are too complex to understand

Sure, we all have world views. When it comes to predictive power however, some
world views are superior to others. At the end of the day, and at the level of
detail we're currently capable of understanding reality, all of our models are
wrong, but some are useful, hence why we keep pushing the process of
scientific method, even though it has its limitations.

By acknowledging that something is complex, we can recognize we are limited in
our ability to understand it – at least for now – which in turn leads us to
question our current views and seek to discover and adopt better models, with
even more predictive power.

------
elvinyung
My takeaway from this article was mainly about how much competition should be
fostered within the system.

One interesting thing about the neoliberal era, it seems, is that the things
in it seem to be simultaneously very big and very small.

There are some very big things -- cyberpunk-style megacorps that literally
have free rein to make and remake entire markets and populations -- and at the
same time very small things -- gig workers, freelancers, contractors, and
other kinds of "entrepreneurs" that are out on their own in a dog-eat-dog
world of hustle.

I think the question is less about whether we should have more competition,
and more about whether this can be done safely. As it stands, you basically
have two choices, modeled after the above: to become a cog in a machine (or a
machine-in-the-making), or be completely out on your own.

Can something _sustainably_ exist in the middle, and without being consumed by
the big thing or becoming the big thing?

------
orf
None of this matters, not one iota. The world is choking in the filth we are
creating, all while people like this pontificate about the next generation of
the system that positively reinforces the creation of filth.

~~~
chrissam
This sentiment is as old as religion: it's the good old millenarian instinct.
People constantly think the world is on the precipice of something
transformational (good or bad).

We'll see. My money is on things chugging along pretty much as they have been.
I think this planet can take far more than we can throw at it.

RE: the article - seems like common-sense recommendations but no specifics.
We'd all like to see more competition. The question is how to get there with
as few side effects as possible. The specifics are the hard part.

~~~
YZF
I don't want to be around when we discover the planet can't actually take more
than we can throw at it. We are unable to deal with minor pokes of the planet
(storms, fires, earthquakes). Imagine what's gonna happen when it really pokes
at us. We're probably gonna get wiped out. This planet is more fragile than
people think and our power to control it is miniscule.

~~~
ineedasername
The planet has been around a while and taken a lot, certainly more than we can
throw at it. Now, wether we can survive is another issue. But the planet will
be just fine, especially by the standards of geological time.

~~~
YZF
I wouldn't bet we can't find a way to blow the planet up as well... But the
comment is about our survival on this planet.

------
avmich
> Ronald Reagan fostered competition across much of the American economy.

How did he do that?

------
crawfordcomeaux
Serious questions: who's working on innovating economic systems that take us
out of capitalism?

Forget competition... What about market-wide transparent collaboration?

------
Lidador
“Neither Hayek, nor Habermas”

~~~
qbaqbaqba
Nozick?

------
edoo
Capitalism is literally the private ownership of the means of production, aka
simple freedom. We in the US have never lived with anything but crony
capitalism. Capitalism is the only process so far that creates wealth for
everyone. If people are unhappy with our current form of capitalism they can
look directly to the Marxist policies our government has tilted towards the
last century that are supported by both the 'right' and the 'left'.

------
ilaksh
This is one of those really tough areas where the problems are so significant
and comprehensive that the approach people want to take immediately gets into
their worldview and belief system. And no one readily changes their worldview,
so its difficult to have productive discussions about such things.

Nevertheless I will state my worldview and hopefully mention a few specifics
that might be anchor points for an attempted discussion.

Technology _alone_ cannot solve our societal problems, but I believe that
there is great opportunity to address them by better incorporating the right
technologies into society.

And I believe that peer-to-peer distributed (and so decentralized)
technologies offer quite a lot of promise. Starting with the idea that over-
centralization, whether it stems from a more socialist traditional system or a
more capitalist traditional system, is one of the main problems, and
technologies that are inherently decentralized can address that.

Well, maybe I will just start with a few premises. I would like to suggest
that we should re-evaluate all of our societal structures in a technological
context. I think that we can usefully think of them all as types of (mostly
primitive) technologies.

For example, I suggest that money is in fact a technology. It is probably the
most fundamental technology of society. I think that although an over-reliance
on traditional money obviously causes problems, the answer is not to simply
de-emphasize its use in society, although that can help in certain contexts. I
believe that we should upgrade the technology of money and in doing so we can
improve the functioning of society.

I also believe that government is another type of fundamental technology for
society. It should also have its technology upgraded.

Another idea I have is that there is a fundamental interaction between money
and government which we normally refer to as "corruption" with the idea that
this is an abnormal state for the relationship. However I believe that the
close relation between money and government in their present primitive forms
is a core structural element, i.e. corruption is structurally guaranteed.

I realize that convincing people of these views would require quite extensive
prose. But it is unlikely that those with different worldviews would be
convinced and I am tired of writing this answer so unfortunately I am not
going to try right here. However at least I have explained some of my
viewpoint.

Anyway, I think that Ethereum and related or similar technologies are moral
causes because they allow us the possibility of upgrading core technologies
used in society. We can upgrade money with cryptocurrency. We can upgrade
government using something like Ethereum-based decentralized autonomous
organizations. I think that you need to upgrade money _and_ government at the
same time and be sure that your system considers them as closely related so
that you can handle "corruption" in a structural way.

~~~
elvinyung
Shameless plug: I wrote a blog post a while ago using your premise to argue
why decentralized technologies _wouldn 't_ be useful to society:
[https://www.notion.so/Yet-Another-Rant-About-Blockchains-
ece...](https://www.notion.so/Yet-Another-Rant-About-Blockchains-
ece6657d0a3b491bb39dd8002055a5af)

~~~
cafeoh
Interesting take on decentralized technologies. It feels to me like attacking
(or defending) decentralized technologies in general is a bit abstract though.
Just taking Bitcoin for example, where would you see this concept of racing to
the bottom and trading away your values (outside of the shortcomings of the
technology itself). Since it's a platform for holding and trading assets, I
don't think there is the competitive aspect that would drive any of those
behaviors, but maybe your article is focused on competitive scenarios more
than anything else.

But even when there is a notion of competition you say that to avoid the traps
left around by an imperfect (perhaps unavoidably) system of incentives,
coordination is necessary, questioning the need for a decentralized system in
the first place. But is that really so bad/superfluous? What if the
coordination necessary to make a decentralized system work led more easily to
a desirable and elastic result than something crafted by hand. Again, maybe
it's too abstract, but I picture a decentralized governance system where
members would have to coordinate to achieve a proper equilibrium. For example
the biggest hurdle to fighting lobbyism effectively isn't coordination from
competing interests, it's the lack of resources. Wouldn't a decentralized
system negate the power of money, networking, services, preferential treatment
(and even blackmail) even if it still ended up causing/requiring coordination?

------
fcarraldo
> Ronald Reagan fostered competition across much of the American economy. > A
> similar transformation is needed today.

Reaganomics is the cause, not solution to, today’s capitalism crisis.

~~~
knieveltech
These downvotes are unfortunate given this statement is objectively true.

~~~
ci5er
I didn't downvote the person, but I did ask for clarification and got
downvoted.

Can you explain your claim 'objectively true'? There are too many non-concrete
nouns running around for me to be able to keep track of...

~~~
knieveltech
I'm sorry but I don't think the 80s are really something that can be explained
to someone that didn't live through them, which I assume you didn't, otherwise
you wouldn't be asking for clarification on Reaganomics.

~~~
ci5er
I loved the 80s so much more than the 70s, so I'm not sure where you are
coming from.

EDIT: I did remove an insult from an earlier draft of an earlier comment that
you were probably a kid (as most people here are) that didn't remember the
80s. Since you are apparently not, my question still stands. (I don't have a
pin-up of Margaret Thatcher any more, though...)

