That sounds very nice in the abstract. The devil is in the details of implementation. A movement to create that end goal through short sighted means could easily create an even worse situation. People who are driven by resentment, oppression narratives, disdain for objective truths, and ideology can be blind to semi-predictable real wo…
That sounds very nice in the abstract. The devil is in the details of implementation. A movement to create that end goal through short sighted means could easily create an even worse situation. People who are driven by resentment, oppression narratives, disdain for objective truths, and ideology can be blind to semi-predictable real world effects. It is very much NOT true that things couldn't be any worse so any change made with good intentions must result in a better world; there are many more ways to mess things up than to improve them, and it's an easier task. Thing can get FAR worse than they are.
Rational solutions, with open debate and flexibility to reconsider and change course based on real world effects, are needed.
For example, policies which build net worth through increasing equity in housing, also have the effect of pricing many people out of housing. A policy of raising wages can have the effect of stimulating more automation and supporting fewer, but better paid, jobs. There are tradeoffs to choose from, rarely simple wins without costs (obvious or hidden).
So propose policies which you think would lead to a more humane world, and let's talk. I agree we need that, but I am wary of jumping into some scheme which is based more on superficial promises than serious analysis. The net impact is more critical than originally good intentions (much less catering to & amplifying resentments for short term votes).
That sounds very nice in the abstract. The devil is in the details of implementation. A movement to create that end goal through short sighted means could easily create an even worse situation. People who are driven by resentment, oppression narratives, disdain for objective truths, and ideology can be blind to semi-predictable real world effects. It is very much NOT true that things couldn't be any worse so any change made with good intentions must result in a better world; there are many more ways to mess things up than to improve them, and it's an easier task. Thing can get FAR worse than they are.
Rational solutions, with open debate and flexibility to reconsider and change course based on real world effects, are needed.
For example, policies which build net worth through increasing equity in housing, also have the effect of pricing many people out of housing. A policy of raising wages can have the effect of stimulating more automation and supporting fewer, but better paid, jobs. There are tradeoffs to choose from, rarely simple wins without costs (obvious or hidden).
So propose policies which you think would lead to a more humane world, and let's talk. I agree we need that, but I am wary of jumping into some scheme which is based more on superficial promises than serious analysis. The net impact is more critical than originally good intentions (much less catering to & amplifying resentments for short term votes).