[cookiecaper]

There's a natural power law distribution to many things. Economics is a natural force. We can't change it just by dictating that we'd like some things to change, just like we can't change other natural elements by fiat.

There's a process, a technology, a science that has to be applied to shape and command natural forces. Human psychology is no exception. Things must be done within workable, realistic parameters. We can't just say "everyone will share and be happy and nice now" and expect it to work like that.

"Corporations as people" is a massive politically-charged misnomer that doesn't mean anything by itself. The entire point of incorporation is to create a separate, independent legal entity divorced from its principals. This is what is meant when "legal personhood" is discussed. You have to be specific about what you'd like changed.

[pintxo]

We can absolutely change economics. We - our societies by the means of our governments - have set rules for the economy for centuries. Think taxes and regulations.

[cookiecaper]

Right, let me be clear. I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't attempt to change anything about our economy. I'm just saying that we can't do this by dictum, because an economy is a natural force that emerges based on extant factors, like weather.

There are rules and laws, like taxes and regulations. These are meant to effect the underlying economy; they are not the underlying economy itself. The economy naturally emerges as people make trades based on what they believe their local optima.

We can (and probably should) do things to try to change peoples' perceptions of their local optima to better align with what we believe to better approximate global optima, but people won't simply accept the dictation of a new optimum if it doesn't align or compute internally. It has to make sense to them or they won't make the trades we want to incentivize.

The tax code is such a complex disaster for precisely this reason. It's the most direct way the government has to bias or influence the economy toward certain trades and away from others, so they adjust the tax system to try to affect the calculation of one's local optimum for a given trade.

The debate over which rules, regulations, incentives, and disincentives work best, as well as the holistic systemic approaches that tend to result in the best overall outcomes, is an entire field of academic study called "economics".

Economies cannot be trivially changed by fiat any more than the weather can. Yes, we have governmental standards around meteorology, but making a law that all thermometers must now read 74 degrees F does not magically modify the underlying system. It does not change the actual factors that occurring in the physical world. It just creates a credibility-destroying facade.

The same is true in economics. Pretending otherwise is simple naivete.

[pintxo]

Agreed. Thx for the clarification.

[rectang]

> Economics is a natural force.

The extent to which "natural" inequality is amplified by institutions varies. Dictatorship is a very "natural" way to distribute rewards.

We don't have to accept dictatorship as our destiny just because it is "natural", nor do we have to accept current levels of economic inequality as immutable.

[cookiecaper]

First, dictatorships are anything but "natural". They require a massive amount of effort and savagery to maintain and enforce effectively.

Second, I'm not saying that we should treat economic inequality as something that's static or immutable any more than any other natural force. I'm saying that we have to recognize that natural forces dictate behavior and economics, and that you can't change natural forces by decree alone (e.g., passing a law that says "everyone now must share"). We have to really appreciate and understand the processes and motivations that drive the behaviors if we want to address them in a meaningful way.

We have to be honest about how changeable certain things are. For example, we have not, as yet, found a way to control the weather explicitly, but we have coping mechanisms like air conditioning that mitigate some of the negative effects. This didn't happen by saying "It shall always be 74 degrees indoors at all times" and then laying down stringent ideological enforcement to ensure that everyone accepted and believed that it was always 74 degrees. It happened by experimentation, tinkering, and respect for the constraints of the reality that allowed us to discover a non-ideal but workable solution that mostly handled the problem of uncomfortable heat.

There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable. American free-market enterprise may not be perfect, and I'm not saying that there are no systemic issues or that things aren't worsening, but our economic system is historically workable and reasonably well-tuned. It has proven much better than many competing systems. We have to be honest about where we are and what's possible.

We can't simply change "the rules" and expect a good outcome, as the comment I replied to implied. There is no magic wand and no overnight perfection.

[rectang]

> There is not necessarily any reason to believe that the current mix of inequality conditions are particularly cruel or unfavorable.

This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept. You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.

[cookiecaper]

> This is precisely the arbitrary value judgement that we do not have to accept.

Sure, I agree. Neither of us made the case for particular cruelty / non-cruelty because it's not really the point. My intention was only to broaden the scope and perspective of the reader to view the economic system in its macro-level historical and global context, and compare in reference to the natural forces and conditions that cause economies to emerge. I personally think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now, but I certainly don't want to stop people from trying if they are adequately informed and really believe that.

The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum. It doesn't bode well that you've apparently dismissed the whole crux of the argument because you believe that we may have a different ultimate value judgment.

>You (and others) don't believe that it's particularly cruel or unfavorable, and you're just wrapping that judgement in a mantle of inevitability.

I mean, like I said above, whether I believe that or not, it's neither here nor there. You still have to identify specific things that you want to change and the mechanisms by which that supposed change would operate, because "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything.

You and I may have different opinions about a certain piece of software and its subsystems, and that's all well and good, but neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file". That's not how any of this works!

[rectang]

> The point is that whether you think our system is great or terrible, you can't change it by dictum.

> "We'll just demand things change" is not a serious approach to anything.

> ...neither of us would take someone seriously who showed up and said "We have to just write 'STOP CRASHING' at the top of each file".

You're arguing (at great length) with straw men.

(I think you feel like you're being reasonable, but having words put in my mouth like that is infuriating.)

> I think it's hard to argue that things are particularly bad right now

That's the crux. It's your value judgement, and it is not legitimized by the rest of your rhetoric.

[cookiecaper]

>You're arguing (at great length) with straw men.

Here's the original comment I replied to:

> That's a choice that society has made, through laws and institutions which benefit the wealthy -- such as treating corporations as people. It doesn't have to be that way. [from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16619025 ]

The implication I took away from this is that economic conditions are the direct result of "a choice that society has made". This is, IMO, far too simplistic. That's what I'm arguing against.

Because economies are living natural systems, policies, dicta, and regulations may be issued with the intent to cause a direct economic outcome, and in fact cause the exact opposite response. The reason economics is an independent field of study is because it is not at all simple to determine how individual choices, let alone far-reaching policy decisions, will ultimately impact economic conditions. No one disagrees that social values and choices can influence economies. It's just not a simple matter to make sure you're getting the desired result, or to establish reliable causal links.

Just as in all but the most dramatic instances, you can't definitively say one way or the other "I have cancer today because I accidentally swallowed a piece of astroturf 21 years ago", you can't definitively say "Policy X resulted in the [prosperity/bankruptcy] of the relevant economy".

The work of trying to model, understand, and yes, ultimately learn how to influence, the operation of this complex system is economics. It cannot be trivially dismissed.

Let me note here that I am not claiming any specific thing is an inevitable outcome of any economic system, nor have I made that claim elsewhere in this thread. In principle, you and I could be in complete agreement about the things that need to be fixed and corrected. But because I made a tangential comment that I don't think we're in such a bad way at the macro scale, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, including forgoing any opportunity to expound on the specifics that underlie your POV.

I also addressed your assertion that "corporations as people" is an example of such a choice. Corporate personhood is a technical legal topic and it's what allows, e.g., corporations to enter into contracts, and to have their assets protected by due process. There is not really a separate legal conception of corporate non-personhood as far as I know (I'm not a lawyer). So saying this is an example of a social choice that creates economic inequality and leaving it at that is tantamount to simply saying we shouldn't have corporations at all. More exposition is needed for that statement to have any value.

You are correct that you've never said verbatim "the economy can be changed by dicta", but the implication I took from your post is that you believe it can, by, e.g., saying "corporations are no longer people" and expecting this to mean something.

> That's the crux.

No, I've spent about two lines expressing my personal sentiments about that. You are dismissing everything else I'm saying based on what you assume is a difference in judgment. That's not how substantive disagreements work -- it's how blind tribalism works.

Why should we trust someone who claims an interest in making society more equal when they're so flippant with someone whom they believe may have a different conclusion than themselves? That doesn't portend equality, it portends fascism.

> It's your value judgement, and it is not legitimized by the rest of your rhetoric.

Correct. I just said this in my last post. This isn't an argument about the relative fairness of the system as it stands. I'm merely making the case that changing economies is not just a matter of issuing dicta and expecting everyone to willingly comply or conditions to magically shift (e.g., corporations are no longer people anymore, and therefore ... ???). That is a highly simplistic view.