[sifar]

cue autonomous vehicles.

Seriously though this is a very wrong analogy. The economy is more like an ecosystem where individuals interact with themselves & the environment. It doesn't need continuous manipulation. In fact it tends to distort than aid.

[imtringued]

The economy is not like an ecosystem since there is no reciprocation. Money flows in one direction only, toward the top. I find it particularly frustrating that people don't see the economic distortion caused by monopolies in the private economy, they think it must be the government's doing when it tries to undo some of the harm caused by them.

[drdeca]

> Money flows in one direction only, toward the top.

This, taken literally, is clearly false (the wealthy do in fact buy things and pay for services / employees).

So, as you don't mean it literally, what do you mean?

[MattPalmer1086]

It's a fact that the majority of wealth increase has gone to the already wealthy over the last few decades. So while not literally true (clearly some money flows in other directions), it is broadly correct.

[throwaway290]

It's known as the "it's cheaper to be rich" paradox.

You save on buying in bulk and using better made products with longer lifespans, afford better education that makes you more difficult to fool and gets you a higher paying job, make more returns by investing more money, conserve willpower for important decisions by not having to choose between soap and bread at the store.

[sifar]

I find it useful thinking in ecosystem terms as a model. And ultimately, the economy is situated in a real ecosystem and not an abstract manifestation.

>> The economy is not like an ecosystem since there is no reciprocation If mutual beneficial trade is not reciprocation, then I don't know what is. Reciprocity is more a societal thing than an economic one. I would say historically there have always been reciprocal societies. Smaller ones tend to be more reciprocal than larger ones since their survival depends on it.

>> Money flows in one direction only, toward the top This is by design i.e intervention. It need not be so. And there is nothing preventing a species from colonizing an habitat till it exhausts the resources and it's own ultimate demise.

Monopolies, by and large are formed (and broken) by government aid/intervention. Post the industrial revolution, the government has become involved in more and more areas of the economy, so much so that now it has become the chief driver, to stimulate growth, reduce inflation, boost employment/industries. Given the complexity of interactions in the real world, I don't understand how someone can believe they can understand everything and control it.

Regarding your other comment, I agree, the notion of exponential growth is ridiculous and runs into real world limits.

[AlexandrB]

The idea that monopolies are formed due to government intervention runs counter to my lived experience of watching the Google Search and Facebook monopolies form in largely unregulated markets. The only viable competitors to Facebook were acquired before they could become a threat, Google meanwhile has used its search monopoly to fund monopolistic takeovers of other markets (web browsers come to mind).

[shagie]

You also get into the regulatory capture. Could anyone today create another YouTube with all of the necessary content controls for all the different countries in place? Or create a baby formula making company for current events?

It's possible - just it represents a significant amount of work that needs to be invested in the product before it can see the light of day (compared to other domains where there's less needed to invest).

[spiralx]

> Monopolies, by and large are formed (and broken) by government aid/intervention.

So natural monopolies and economies of scale are caused by governments?

[tablespoon]

>> Just like driving a car proves impossible without continuous manipulation by its driver.

> cue autonomous vehicles

In my analogy, the driver can be a machine.

> Seriously though this is a very wrong analogy. The economy is more like an ecosystem where individuals interact with themselves & the environment. It doesn't need continuous manipulation. In fact it tends to distort than aid.

It does if you want to to go where you want to go. Take that away, and it'll drive off a cliff. Maybe eventually it will correct itself, but that'll take too long to help us.

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

Every ecosystem needs outside input of energy, such as sunlight.

[kamray23]

The economy gathers outside energy as the production of value, which is what the vast majority of companies do, and some of it disappears out the other end as consumption of goods with value.

It's perfectly true that the system is perfectly capable of running alone without any external stimulus applies. The economy will keep being the economy no matter how much you tamper with it. The main problem people have with that is not that the economy won't "work", it's that the economy working necessarily means things like heavy business cycles, cyclical unemployment, a general tendency of wealth to move upwards, and a relatively fast accumulation to the level where those who have accumulated wealth begin to have serious power over politics and will impose meddling with the economy for their benefit.

It will work fine, it working just isn't what humans generally want to happen.

[imtringued]

That isn't working fine. Any properly working economy is able to represent negative yields and thereby solve the wealth accumulation and unemployment problem.

The idea that your wealth ought to grow exponentially regardless of whether the economy itself is growing and how much you contributed to the economy is ridiculous. What did people expect from this arrangement other than accumulation of wealth at the top?

By the way, the economy won't work, it will collapse at some point, because 3% growth over two thousand years would imply colonizing entire galaxies. People think they have a birthright to eternal 3% growth without even being aware of what it means to grow exponentially for that long.