[xvilka]

> Can you imagine human potential if it was somehow applied to crop harvesting efficiency, new medicines, etc?

If these sectors offered competitive salaries - sure, talent would flock to them. As a former chemist, I struggled to find a job that didn't pay scraps, no matter the industry - from big pharma to advanced materials. Eventually, I just gave up and went into the IT, which is 3x-10x better paid (at the very least).

[thiagoharry]

We let the market dictate how society's resources are allocated. And we see, as a result, how the market is actually not at all interested in the satisfaction and well-being of the people in society.

[vladms]

I always wonder if people do not look for external reasons to avoid doing work or taking decisions themselves.

Most of the people I know do not spend their free time doing research into the satisfaction of society, and do not donate (even what they could!) to great causes. It is not the "market dictates" is "most of people dictate".

And still. I am writing this in an open-source browser, on an open-source operating system. The existence of this tools helps society no matter how you put it. So in fact, if you think of it, there are many people that do not "obey" the market. And this is only one way, there are others.

So maybe rather than "blame the market" be positive and tell us what way did you find to make a difference.

[js8]

"The market" here is just a convenient substitute for "people weighted by the disposable income", which today roughly approximates to "rich people".

[janalsncm]

Businesses and governments spend money as well.

For example, the US government is pretty interested in having really good weapons. So the market responds by developing weapons for the government.

[js8]

These people, who make purchasing decisons, also make them on behalf of someone's preferences, mixed with their own, to the extent they have a say. Like the market, government represents certain weighted subset of people. With the market, the people in the government are under influence just as much as anybody else. You can't really say that preferences flow a certain way, from government to business.

[robotpepi]

what's your point?

[soulofmischief]

"Market" is a proxy for other things, and different people mean different things when they say it. So when we talk about the "market" wanting or doing something, we aren't always talking about the same thing. This is important to realize, so that we don't conflate separate concepts and talk past each other.

[js8]

I wasn't really sure how to respond, it seemed obvious to me, so I put your question with the two comments into Claude. I genuinely think it gave a great response. I encourage you (or anybody) to try yourself next time, but here it is:

The second person was essentially unpacking the phrase "the market" to reveal who it actually represents. Here are the top 3 interpretations of their point:

1. The market isn't a neutral arbiter — it's a voting system where money is the vote. When we say "the market decides," we're really saying that people with more money have more say. A billionaire's preference for a luxury yacht counts for vastly more than a poor person's need for affordable housing. So "market outcomes" aren't some objective measure of what society wants — they reflect what wealthy people want.

2. The first person's critique is correct, but misdirected. By saying "the market" is indifferent to people's well-being, the first commenter was almost treating the market like an external, autonomous force. The second person is saying: it's not some mysterious system — it's just rich people's preferences given structural power. The problem isn't the abstraction called "the market"; the problem is inequality in who gets to participate meaningfully in it.

3. The language of "the market" obscures a political reality. Calling something a "market outcome" makes it sound natural, inevitable, and impersonal. But framing it as "rich people's preferences dominate resource allocation" makes it sound like what it actually is — a political and social choice about whose interests get prioritized. The second person is essentially calling out the ideological function of the word "market" as a way to launder what is really a power structure.

The three interpretations overlap, but they emphasize different things: the mechanics of how markets work, the validity of the first person's critique, and the rhetorical/political role of market language respectively.

[robotpepi]

Yes, it was clear that you wanted to refocus this as a moral problem of people. But that's irrelevant. The point of the guy above is that there is a system (the market) that creates certain incentives, and as a result, we have what we have. That's why I ask: what's your point? We still have all these problems.

[js8]

So are you asking how to change it? I think that's pretty obvious once people understand it's a collective social choice - organize to change it. The point is "the market" is not some mysterious unreachable force.

For example, this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47181837 is wrong; even if you had large amount of people acting like that person does, you would still likely have a system that doesn't work in the interest of society.

[somenameforme]

There was a huge inflection point in basically everything around 1971. [1] That was US pulled out of Bretton Woods and the USD became completely unbacked by anything, enabling the government to 'print' infinite money. How can market forces be the one deciding anything when literally trillions of imaginary dollars keeps being dumped into it, in a highly prejudiced fashion, by the government and their preferred institutions?

At that point the historical correlations between money and basically everything, which had sustained for centuries - even though the industrial revolution, began completely breaking down, and infinitely began skyrocketing to levels never seen before, in the US at least.

[1] - https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

[logicchains]

>the market is actually not at all interested in the satisfaction and well-being of the people in society.

The biochem industry is extremely bad at creating things that increase the satisfaction and well-being of society; the vast majority of products are failures with few users. The reason tech companies make money is because they make things people actually want to use.

[sigwinch]

Would you count Borlaug’s work as biotech?

[SiempreViernes]

Most ad-blockers are non-profits, how does that fit in your picture?

[logicchains]

Sorry, what have ad-blockers got to do with biotech?

[esafak]

> The reason tech companies make money is because they make things people actually want to use.

Ad blockers are not products of tech companies but enthusiasts, as I understand it.

[Collectivism]

>The biochem industry is extremely bad at creating things that increase the satisfaction and well-being of society

I'd argue the "satisfaction" of society has been hijacked. We cannot even, as a society, understand the impact on medicine, nutrition, agriculture and the well-being we could harness from focusing on the long term, rather than seeking dopamine hits through screens.

I blame Moloch. https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

[hnlmorg]

If that were the case then public services would be paid better.

Wages simply go to the industries that make the most money. There’s nothing more insightful than that.

[idiotsecant]

At least you're honest enough to admit ignorant tech bro status out loud.