Timeline
Post
Remote status
Context
10
@WandererUber The state ultimately has the final say. The free market is an illusion it maintains, but it can just boss people around if it feels like it.
@Griffith it's not an illusion if de facto you have more room to maneuver as a company without state interference. The foundation of white society is agreeing to some chivalrous principle and not breaking it.
Decaying states inevitably DO break the principles, but this only accelerates their demise.
There is a very real practical difference between "well in theory they could pass laws and elect judges and ignore rulings and do whatever they wanted, if such a faction has control of the government, so this might all go away" and "they just demonstrated that they are actively sabotaging a free market company because it didn't give them what they wanted. It all went away." The latter is a strong top signal
Decaying states inevitably DO break the principles, but this only accelerates their demise.
There is a very real practical difference between "well in theory they could pass laws and elect judges and ignore rulings and do whatever they wanted, if such a faction has control of the government, so this might all go away" and "they just demonstrated that they are actively sabotaging a free market company because it didn't give them what they wanted. It all went away." The latter is a strong top signal
@WandererUber There’s nowhere on Earth a government couldn’t crush the free market, and there’s nowhere on Earth where the state has withered away. Force > money.
@Griffith >There’s nowhere on Earth a government couldn’t crush the free market
there are plenty of different places with different levels of state crushing the market and the ones that do it less were always whiter and more successful so idk what you want from me here.
My reply was literally an explanation of the difference between the theoretical possibility and the practical execution.
guy in a quiet, peaceful kingdom without crime, pointing to patrolling knights in shining armor:
"Erm, you guys know that the king might just send these guys to crush baby skulls at any moment, right? We're no different from the orcish war tribes!"
there are plenty of different places with different levels of state crushing the market and the ones that do it less were always whiter and more successful so idk what you want from me here.
My reply was literally an explanation of the difference between the theoretical possibility and the practical execution.
guy in a quiet, peaceful kingdom without crime, pointing to patrolling knights in shining armor:
"Erm, you guys know that the king might just send these guys to crush baby skulls at any moment, right? We're no different from the orcish war tribes!"
@WandererUber Western Europe is known for their welfare states, and the US quietly is one too. Same with Japan, which is a better example of a white country.
@Griffith welfare state is a total goalpost move in this regard that's really not what I was talking about
My train of thought was people in power self-imposing limitations on themselves. That's why I said chivalry. Brown people don't do that. If you do well in such a country, some guy will just come and take it.
My train of thought was people in power self-imposing limitations on themselves. That's why I said chivalry. Brown people don't do that. If you do well in such a country, some guy will just come and take it.
@WandererUber Why would it be a goalpost move? Governments raise taxes to spend on welfare, it’s an imposition on the free market.
@Griffith we went from discussing why strongarming free enterprise into giving into your demands by violating the guardrails you expect them to operate within to "states spend on welfare" and you're asking why this is a goalpost move?
@WandererUber Changing the subject isn’t a goalpost move, it’s just reiterating the same point with another example. I’ve been saying the state is sovereign, not the market, and I don’t understand what the disagreement is.
@Griffith That was never even my point.
My point is that there is a material difference between setting and keeping the bounds that enterprise is allowed to operate within, and breaking your promise. You disputed this and now you had to retreat to the very obvious point that technically they can't stop the state because it is the sovereign.
My point is that there is a material difference between setting and keeping the bounds that enterprise is allowed to operate within, and breaking your promise. You disputed this and now you had to retreat to the very obvious point that technically they can't stop the state because it is the sovereign.
Replies
18
@WandererUber Did the government ever promise to not interfere in the market? They make the rules. The market operates on the condition of their endorsement.
@Griffith >promise to not interfere in the market?
bit broad, don't you think? You shouldn't avoid the specifics. The idea of laws having applicability boundaries is that people under the entity that makes them can rely on those boundaries. If you use any law for any purpose you want, that de facto signals that you are willing to break the guardrails you set yourself.
Even putting aside the fact I explained before, which is that states that have less direct interventions in the markets do better economically (which most of them want), this also creates uncertainty and signals unreliability.
bit broad, don't you think? You shouldn't avoid the specifics. The idea of laws having applicability boundaries is that people under the entity that makes them can rely on those boundaries. If you use any law for any purpose you want, that de facto signals that you are willing to break the guardrails you set yourself.
Even putting aside the fact I explained before, which is that states that have less direct interventions in the markets do better economically (which most of them want), this also creates uncertainty and signals unreliability.
@WandererUber France has a less free market than almost anywhere on the globe and they’re the closest to inventing fusion power. The Western world has gigantic states that are extremely powerful.
The greater point is that you’re not counteracting my argument, you’re just saying it’s wrong when the sovereign does certain things, which is a different argument entirely.
The greater point is that you’re not counteracting my argument, you’re just saying it’s wrong when the sovereign does certain things, which is a different argument entirely.
@Griffith >you’re not counteracting my argument
I don't have to. You were trying to dispute the point made in op.
All you're doing is posting barely related broad-strokes (and now blatantly incorrect) assessments about state power at this point.
France has no fusion project. Europe as a whole has one. I will not dive into the minutiae of fusion power just to get even further away from the actual argument that was made.
I don't have to. You were trying to dispute the point made in op.
All you're doing is posting barely related broad-strokes (and now blatantly incorrect) assessments about state power at this point.
France has no fusion project. Europe as a whole has one. I will not dive into the minutiae of fusion power just to get even further away from the actual argument that was made.
@Griffith Looked further into this in the meantime.
I'm actually the one who said something incorrect here because looks like since 2016 they ARE operating their own reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WEST_(formerly_Tore_Supra)
tokamak though, so like I said we would have to dive into the minutiae to substantiate your conclusion there, but I'm not doing that, sorry.
I'm actually the one who said something incorrect here because looks like since 2016 they ARE operating their own reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WEST_(formerly_Tore_Supra)
tokamak though, so like I said we would have to dive into the minutiae to substantiate your conclusion there, but I'm not doing that, sorry.
@WandererUber “I took the L but actually I DIDN’T take the L!” Alright.
@Griffith idk why you are treating me this way
I admitted that I was wrong on this, which is more than you can expect in internet discussions.
That the fact that they set some very specific record on a tokamak reactor, which, as I'm sure you well know since you are apparently so well-versed in fusion physics, has multiple unsolved, by many top scientists even considered unsolveable, problems in achieving energy-positive power output, does not automatically substantiate that they are "the closest to achieving fusion power" should be obvious.
And once again, let's get back on track please. Even if they were ahead in one very specific metric by using state-planned science, that does nothing for your overall argument, which still seems to be "there is no difference between interference magnitude in the markets, nor is there damage being done when they change this magnitude"
I admitted that I was wrong on this, which is more than you can expect in internet discussions.
That the fact that they set some very specific record on a tokamak reactor, which, as I'm sure you well know since you are apparently so well-versed in fusion physics, has multiple unsolved, by many top scientists even considered unsolveable, problems in achieving energy-positive power output, does not automatically substantiate that they are "the closest to achieving fusion power" should be obvious.
And once again, let's get back on track please. Even if they were ahead in one very specific metric by using state-planned science, that does nothing for your overall argument, which still seems to be "there is no difference between interference magnitude in the markets, nor is there damage being done when they change this magnitude"
@WandererUber I find it very annoying that you focused in on whether or not the French have the right type of fusion reactor and missed the greater point that all western countries have large and very powerful states. That was the important point. Not the exact progress of fusion reactors in France.
@Griffith okay I was actually trying to do the opposite of focusing in on all this because I was not quite sure where you were going with this, but anyway. Let's do that now then.
>all western countries have large and very powerful states. That was the important point.
I don't see how this relates directly to the behavior criticized in OP.
Probably we are misunderstanding each other. You took my argument as being that intervention in the free market is per se bad/ even immoral. I do believe the former but this is not the argument right now.
What I agree with from OP and so am arguing for is that the state of course sets the guardrails within which its subjects operate. "The state is the sovereign", of course.
BUT, there is a difference between setting and keeping them, and arbitrarily changing them in very short time frames. That's the first thing.
The second, more specific than "market intervention bad" but related to that, is that if you set your economy up to depend on free enterprise, these enterprises start to operate under the concepts you laid out for them. If you then signal that these guardrails are no longer applicable, this damages the economy. It creates uncertainty, and it creates a new boundary which is "we not only can but WILL take your shit and sabotage you for any reason we may deem fit". This is an obvious detriment to market activity, results in reduced investment, increased hedging behaviors, and plenty others.
Reiterating that the state is sovereign does nothing to dispel this
>all western countries have large and very powerful states. That was the important point.
I don't see how this relates directly to the behavior criticized in OP.
Probably we are misunderstanding each other. You took my argument as being that intervention in the free market is per se bad/ even immoral. I do believe the former but this is not the argument right now.
What I agree with from OP and so am arguing for is that the state of course sets the guardrails within which its subjects operate. "The state is the sovereign", of course.
BUT, there is a difference between setting and keeping them, and arbitrarily changing them in very short time frames. That's the first thing.
The second, more specific than "market intervention bad" but related to that, is that if you set your economy up to depend on free enterprise, these enterprises start to operate under the concepts you laid out for them. If you then signal that these guardrails are no longer applicable, this damages the economy. It creates uncertainty, and it creates a new boundary which is "we not only can but WILL take your shit and sabotage you for any reason we may deem fit". This is an obvious detriment to market activity, results in reduced investment, increased hedging behaviors, and plenty others.
Reiterating that the state is sovereign does nothing to dispel this
@Griffith A clearer example in the context of fusion power:
France does not have to deal with this problem in fusion research, because it has decided to do fusion research as public works.
If they relied instead on private energy research startups doing this, as the US does for example, then the threat of losing your investment because the state seizes or strongarms you into doing what they want will negatively impact the sector.
France does not have to deal with this problem in fusion research, because it has decided to do fusion research as public works.
If they relied instead on private energy research startups doing this, as the US does for example, then the threat of losing your investment because the state seizes or strongarms you into doing what they want will negatively impact the sector.
@WandererUber Excuse me Wanderer but this is the post you’ve been replying to all day. What is the problem with this post.
@Griffith I replied to that with specific explanation why that isn't the be-all-end-all, especially since that was in reply to someone being way more specific than that.
Like I said, this is so broad that it's meaningless.
A father can also kick the shit out of five year old John Darksoul, but that doesn't mean he is equivalent to a father who actually does it.
Like I said, this is so broad that it's meaningless.
A father can also kick the shit out of five year old John Darksoul, but that doesn't mean he is equivalent to a father who actually does it.
@WandererUber Like what do you mean “technically sovereign.” They’re the sovereign. They can tell you you’re paying 50% taxes tomorrow and you have to fight them, convince them to change their mind, or obey.
@Griffith I meant that it is a meaningless technicality to my argument.
I gave a few examples in this thread why this while being technically correct does nothing to address the actual problem with doing what they are doing.
I gave a few examples in this thread why this while being technically correct does nothing to address the actual problem with doing what they are doing.
@WandererUber You think it’s meaningless because you think what they’re doing is wrong, but that’s not what I’m saying.
@Griffith >you think what they’re doing is wrong
I've made no moral judgement. You tried to shift it in this direction by stating that they are the sovereign, which might imply that the corps have no right to stop them, but I was never talking about rights. The guy in op might be soy-raging a bit, granted. I really don't care about that.
Since the first point I have only argued about the functional practical differences and implications of behaving like this
I've made no moral judgement. You tried to shift it in this direction by stating that they are the sovereign, which might imply that the corps have no right to stop them, but I was never talking about rights. The guy in op might be soy-raging a bit, granted. I really don't care about that.
Since the first point I have only argued about the functional practical differences and implications of behaving like this
@Griffith @WandererUber don't the epstein files expose that the entire "free market" economy and "free speech" media is secretly centrally planned? and anthropic is no different, this spat between them and the administration is professional wrestling.
what we are observing across the board is a curtailment of our privileges/permissions from the regime as they seek to lower our standard of living (lifespan, income, free time) to compensate the cost of their military adventures. they gave us these privileges and used high-sounding rhetoric about "constitutional rights and freedoms" to pacify the home front during the cold war. now there is no need for that fiction.
what we are observing across the board is a curtailment of our privileges/permissions from the regime as they seek to lower our standard of living (lifespan, income, free time) to compensate the cost of their military adventures. they gave us these privileges and used high-sounding rhetoric about "constitutional rights and freedoms" to pacify the home front during the cold war. now there is no need for that fiction.
@exis7enz @Griffith Don't agree with the first part in any capacity, but the second one is basically the underlying reason for why they are scraping the barrel like that. They have to extract additional "value" (albeit a very vague term in this instance, I think it's still a useful concept to think about it like this) from market actors within and it's getting harder and harder to do that which is why they now resort to open attacks on the guarantees of low-interference free markets.