Hacker News Reader

Comment by vasco | Hacker News Reader

I used to believe very hard in technocratic governments where experts lead instead of politicians merely consulting with them as most countries do (or pretend to do to give cover to whatever they'd do anyway). Supposedly very technocatric governments end up being more corrupt than average but I can't even remember sources, just that after reading about I became less of a believer. I really want to believe it has to be better than having old people who's whole career is politics but who knows.

View on HN

Any system no matter how well intentioned will outlast its usefulness and eventually dies. I think the key is to see it in the moment and immediate future — Serbia's Gen Z's GDP/GINI/what-have-you is a good yardstick to measure that. So its kind of weird to say we believe because every time something like this is tried it really is different and whatever you/I believe in _never_ lasts even our lifespans.

In a muddled political system(democratic or otherwise) today its about power and how is it balanced. When Nandan Nilekani was creating India's UIDAI(the national aadhar system), he insisted that he would only do the project if he was given a cabinet level post[1]. His is one of the few technology examples to succeed in India when most large government run projects are a disaster. ISRO is probably another decent example of success. I think Nilekani succeeded because he had a clear moral compass and a defined goal.

But there is a problem with kings, soon they have an asshole child. Metaphorically speaking at least. UIDAI is being used stupidly enough like an SSN now and in ways it was never meant to be.

[1] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/03/the-i-d-man

the most prominent long-term technocratic/meritocratic cases (especially Singapore) rank among the least corrupt countries

I mean Singapore is also a dictatorship which muddies a useful comparison, but I didn't realise it was so strong on corruption.

I'd imagine not having to deal with PR to your voters would make going by merit easier, not harder

What makes you think Singaporean politicians don't have to deal with voters?

International observers have never found flaw with Singapore's elections, have they?

> but I didn't realise it was so strong on corruption.

That's literally a core part of the brand, isn't it?

Politicians are very well compensated there. And part of their pay is linked to how well they perform. Prime minister gets 3 million per year for example.

3 million of what?

Maybe low corruption is a prerequisite for successful technocratic government.

Edit: which makes sense, because technocracy leans heavily on trust (in the experts).

Singapore is the opposite of the ivory tower rule. Most high-ranking officials hold either a master's or a professional degree. You wouldn’t find many PhDs with no prior executive experience.

Mugabe had seven academic degrees.

thing with Mugabe n his government - those guys were mostly just lawyers and other PHDs in things social studies etc

they grew up on communist rhetoric, got support from communist countries - so their main ideology had already failed in the real world. so accumulating degrees without practical experience is a recipe for failure as seen in most african countries.

The current president of Romania, Nicușor Dan, is apparently an exceptional mathematician[0] and quite useless as a politician.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vieta_jumping#History

Rationality has to be guided by common sense. I’m sure Nazi Germany had many extraordinarily capable technocratic leaders but we have those in ample supply and with the computers now reasoning with us I don’t think we need more of those. Rationality is a solved problem as far as I’m concerned. We have other issues. We lack a coherent moral vision, societal cohesion, stability, sanity. Once you lose those it doesn’t really matter what system you implement, it’s just delaying the inevitable.

Seeing the billions of people who believe in the imaginary, and a few millions of these fight and kill others over these imaginary things, I would say, rationality is not a solved problem.

> I’m sure Nazi Germany had many extraordinarily capable technocratic leaders [...]

Actually, not. They had a few left-over from when Germany had a functioning state, but the Nazis were overall fairly incompetent at actually running the country.

They were very competent at genocide and propaganda.

The latter, maybe? The former, I'm not so sure. However we don't have many examples of competent organisations trying to enact genocide to compare against. (Fortunately.)

Fascism favors loyalty over competence.

How were the Nazis technocrats? The core of the Nazi party were weirdo political extremists and violently nationalistic army veterans. The only example I can think of which matches your idea of an 'extraordinarily capable technocratic leader' is Speer, and like his military counterpart Rommel, his reputation has been somewhat laundered and propagandised both during and after the war.

Speer was an academic failure. Also as architect, except the Nuremberg lightshow.

But he was extremely successful as manager then. Just like the ex-NAZI NASA leader then a bit later.

That was the golden time of German management.

I mean its just a practicality.

Lots of governments just end up with career lawyers and politicians.

They can choose their advisors and their advice.

The more varied experts you can get into parliament, the more likely you have an on the record disagreement from an expert preventing a politician from choosing the incorrect advice that suits them better.

Thats not to say they are going to be any better for corruption, but in todays world there are so many deep silos that governments just completely step over and disregard.

> Supposedly very technocatric governments end up being more corrupt than average

Hardly. But it depends on who is on board.

Corruption exists everywhere. Do you think that Vukic was less corrupt? I am pretty certain you will find many people in Serbia who want to fix the country. Other Europeans would ask: why let only poor countries join? They drain money from richer countries. Switzerland and Norway will never join and they know why. Hint: there is a reason they are rich. Second hint: they got rich without the EU.

Which country got rich with the EU? I don't know of a single one. Germany was already wealthy before the EU was founded. France is now in debt crisis from which it can not escape, so it will drag the whole EU down.

>Which country got rich with the EU?

Poland? >250 billion Euros received in subsidies since joining the EU; almost any construction you walk by has the "Funded by EU" poster next to it.

I think the massive service and outsourcing industry would also not have been possible (at the current scale) without EU membership.

Estonia and Poland. I’m going to France and Estonia every year, and Estonia seems more developed and comfortable, I’m now seriously thinking of retiring there so good it is

Yes for Estonia, they were 3rd largest recipient per capita of EU aid in 2023:

https://www.euronews.com/2024/12/09/eu-budget-who-pays-the-m...

Hint: Norway has oil and Switzerland has been fairly rich for a while. No country got rich with the EU and that's a good sign, otherwise it would probably also imply that many got much poorer. But the living standards for a lot of people certainly went up in comparison to what they had before.

Spain, Ireland, Portugal, Poland, Lithuania.

Poland? Baltics?

> Which country got rich with the EU?

Poland and the other new members in the East, probably?

Although I suspect they would have got richer anyway just being able to trade with the EU and not being controlled by Russia,

Well, being in the EU makes it a lot easier to trade with the EU.

However I broadly agree otherwise.

Being able to freely and easily trade with the EU, and not wanting to be controlled by Russia, are probably the most important two reasons to join the EU!

"the most important two reasons to join the EU"

You misspelled NATO

NATO ain't a free trade pact.

Greece for sure. It is easy to forget how poor they were just 30 years ago.

Great Britain are feeling the pain of leaving so they are living the alternate reality.

It would have been interesting to have seen a counterfactual where Greece joined the EU but not the Euro.

Switzerland is a member in EU treaties, pays into the EU budget, temporarily pegs its currency to the Euro when it has to, is surrounded by the EU.

Switzerland is the opposite of a state being "without the EU".

It does not pay into EU budget - it contributes to and participates in specific programs and projects. The treaties are rather sectoral agreements which are always under the threat of swiss direct democracy. Bilaterals III has not yet been approved neither by the referendum nor the parliament - while it will likely pass the opposition is every significant.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com