Hacker News Reader

Comment by tacheiordache | Hacker News Reader

Basically profitable is akin to something that has value but extractable. If value cannot be extracted then it'll be ignored.

View on HN

I think this is a total misunderstanding of how value is created in relationships. The value created can be greater than the sum of its parts.

That’s their point - what can’t be easily quantified and extracted in the short term is ignored - environment, relationships etc can’t be directly deposited in one’s bank account and thus are ignored in the world view that’s being criticized here.

What if the thing in question is something that a majority of humans would agree is worth doing, but there is no way to extract profit? Which is to say, that the loop of capital goods -> apply labor -> extract value from labor -> accumulate more capital goods, does not map well to solving the problem / doing the work, etc?

You will end up in the Tragedy of the Commons situation. Everyone wants good schools; no one wants to pay for it. Everyone wants good roads; no one wants to fund it. Everyone wants to stop climate change; no one wants to change.

More or less, but the solution to the tragedy of the commons is quite simple: collective action which ensures that the burden of providing for the desired resource / behavior / service, is apportioned fairly. Then, in exchange for the collective demands, each individual's needs are met.

The reason we can't do that anymore is that it requires something like an equitable distribution of political power. Our current system is so top-heavy in terms of who determines policy and political direction, that even simple problems with easily-mitigated failure modes are beyond us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com