This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I can think of a few ways.
Fast and constant inflation absorbing the productivity gains of technology into asset prices.
AI making society super productive but a loaf of bread being 10 bucks and only the richest being able afford land. You'll own nothing and you'll be happy with UBI in exchange of guarantees of control, which is the model of Altman's other venture, Worldcoin.
A rising tide lifts all boats in a free market. We do not live in one.
If the current marginal cost of production for a loaf of bread is about $2 (just looked at the website of the closest grocery store to my current location), and AI makes society super productive, do you think the real marginal cost of production for a loaf of bread will be (a) Less than $2, (b) About $2, (c) Greater than $2, but less than $10, (d) About $10, or (e) Greater than $10?
If you chose one of (a-c), why do you think that the price of bread will not trend toward the marginal cost of production, as is the standard result in economics for goods like bread?
If you chose one of (b-e), why do you think that an across-the-board increase in productivity will not reduce the marginal cost of production of bread?
More options
Context Copy link
This appears to be pro-gold/pro-bitcoin. But in a lot of those graphs, you can just as easily pick ‘81, then you have the sinking interest rates as the nice correlation. The fed ordered that assets be more expensive for 40 years, and people wonder why labour isn’t getting its share.
I'm aware there's also that narrative going, just provided the Austrian side (which would actually agree with that assessment of the Fed's policy) but Marxists are also quick to point out that productivity gains don't go to the workers but to capital. They point to different causes, but they too have a possible story for capitalism not lowering inequality. With or without using surplus value as a framework.
In any case I don't think the assumption that productivity gains make everyone wealthy necessarily is warranted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link