[rnabel]

This is a good point - what strikes me about these arguments, however, is that the biggest problem (IMHO) stems from the fact that the economy often relies on local optimization, not global optimization.

If we optimized human life quality globally everyone would get better healthcare etc., but since everyone makes the decisions that benefit them (+family and immediate surrounding), then we end up with worse healthcare for the vast majority of the population.

As such, it should probably be the job of governments (regulation, incentives) to make 'globally' optimized decisions more attractive (centralized healthcare). In a best case scenario at least.

[twoquestions]

That's the theory, it's just that a lot of people frankly have their heads too far up their asses to see how a global optimization is better than the local one.

I don't care to be this coarse, but I've been trying for 10 minutes to find a better way of putting it.

[the_cat_kittles]

in my own experience, one of the primary ways people with an analytical bent (looking at you HN) have their heads up their asses is that they seem to think that the market is a perfect judge of value. hard to convince people of your point when they believe such a circular, lazy thing.

[pixl97]

>see how a global optimization is better than the local one.

When the local maxima and global maxima do not align suffering occurs. This is why evoLuton picks a few broad things on a global scale, but at the local scale thing developed very differently