> "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.
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.
This argument you have ascribed to me is beyond simplistic. It's economically illiterate. Cartoonish.
> 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.
This other argument which I am supposedly advancing is likewise, idiocy.
> That's not how substantive disagreements work -- it's how blind tribalism works.
> That doesn't portend equality, it portends fascism.
You were never having a substantive disagreement with me, but with some fictional fascist out to change the world through immoral means to achieve unrealistic goals for preposterous reasons.
Responding point-by-point to all the caricatures in those voluminous posts is a fool's game. I have faith that readers worth reaching will interpret the exchange correctly without needing me to straighten things out.
> 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.
That's all so obvious it doesn't need to be said.
Strip away all that, and the value judgment is what's left. It's commonly held and consequential -- so worth engaging.
