[cassianoleal]

> net-net it's probably better to live in economies where capital is abundant and malinvestment is possible, than to live economies where the opposite is true.

This is a false dichotomy. Not everything needs to exist at the extremes.

> boom and bust cycles have existed for a very long time. This isn't a new thing today, and it wasn't new then either.

Murder and domestic violence have existed for a very long time. Racism existed for a long time. Slavery existed for a long time.

Things can be fixed, or at least improved to reduce the human cost associated with what's essentially a governance choice.

[ElProlactin]

> Things can be fixed, or at least improved to reduce the human cost associated with what's essentially a governance choice.

So you think there's a way to outlaw possible malinvestment?

[cassianoleal]

You think there isn't? Or in fact that this is all that's happening, _possible malinvestment_?

Neolibs have the most rigid, binary and least creative minds I've ever encountered...

[ElProlactin]

> Or in fact that this is all that's happening, _possible malinvestment_?

Speaking of rigid and binary thinking: do you think there's absolutely no value to LLMs and that every investment in them is malinvestment?

> Neolibs have the most rigid, binary and least creative minds I've ever encountered...

If it's so simple, why don't you explain how The Government is going to prevent private individuals and enterprises from investing in things that some people (who may or not be right) believe are worthless?

[cassianoleal]

> Speaking of rigid and binary thinking: do you think there's absolutely no value to LLMs and that every investment in them is malinvestment?

No, I think there is tremendous potential value in some areas.

> If it's so simple, why don't you explain how The Government is going to prevent private individuals and enterprises from investing in things that some people (who may or not be right) believe are worthless?

Honestly, I don't know.

How does The Government (which one?) prevent monopolies from forming? How does The Government prevent anti-competitive commercial practices such as dumping? How does The Government prevent any practices that are against the best interest of the people whom it's supposed to be representing?

[ElProlactin]

> No, I think there is tremendous potential value in some areas.

So who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't? And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to realize the value but not excessive so as to cause malinvestment?

[cassianoleal]

At this point I honestly think you're not even trying to have a good faith discussion, but I'll bite this last one.

> who is going to decide what has tremendous (real) value and what doesn't?

No one has to.

> And how are they going to force private individuals and enterprises to invest only in what has (in their estimation) value while at the same time ensuring that the level of investment permitted is sufficient to realize the value but not excessive so as to cause malinvestment?

They don't have to do that either.

Government is (or at least should be) in the business of ensuring better outcomes for the population that constitutes it, whilst reducing harm to as many of those people as possible.

Look for symptoms of things that are threatening either of those, and figure out a way to find balance.

Your argument reads a lot like "who is going to decide what a monopoly is and isn't? And how are they going to force private enterprises to break up when they are past that threshold?"