"every attempted solution, regardless of its sophistication (or lack thereof), only makes the problem worse." That's not true. The Affordable Care Act is actually a great example of legislation that improved an enormously complex, broken system in significant ways; even if you think it made some things worse, which it definitely did. See https://baselinescenario.com/2016/05/09/the-problem-with-obamacare/ for some info about the basic concept. (The full legislation would merit a discussion much longer than a substack comment allows.)
I'm happy to admit I may have been too cavalier in my effort to make a point. Perhaps a more defensible point would be that the ACA made the system even more *complicated,* and possibly even harder to fix.
I should also mention that I'm agnostic on the legislation itself. It's entirely possible that more people have been and are better off as a consequence, at least for a while. It's even possible that some objective evaluation could determine that it's overall impact was net positive. I'd be happy to cede that point.
I'm also fully willing to admit that to claim that *every* effort to fix a broken system is a complete waste of time is provably untrue. It is, in some ways, the position of an extremist. Even still, I think it's a useful claim to consider, and a useful lens through which to look at past and current efforts to fix entrenched and corrupted systems. I think our track record, as human beings, powerfully suggests that we are a lot more successful when we try to build better alternatives than when we try to fix broken ones. How many politicians start off with earnest aspirations toward systemic improvements? How many of them find themselves succumbing to the very systems they hoped to improve? If we want better governments, I think we're going to have to build new ones. (Have you read Balaji's "The Network State"? (thenetworkstate.com))
Or, in the case of, for instance, huge social media empires: how likely is it that Facebook, et al, will completely restructure their business model to stop perpetuating the abuses of the attention economy? I think it's more likely that there is a gradual groundswell of alternatives that are built on entirely different economic models.
I do appreciate your pushback. I don't like reductionism, and it's helpful to be called out when I'm guilty of it.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply - I'll make an exception to my Trump-era rule that I'm done talking about big-picture topics to just add that I think you're conflating totally different types of systems.
If you're talking about new companies (especially ones with new technology) changing behaviors or markets or society in ways that older companies can't, I completely agree.
If you're talking about governments and public policies, then I completely disagree with your thesis.
(I'd add that I studied international relations and obsessed about politics and policy for nearly two decades before ceasing to care based on voter's preferences in 2020.)
Maybe you can provide some examples for me, but I can't think of any point in history in which "building a better alternative" to a complex existing government or policy ever ushered in a new system. That's not how change in political power occurs. It either occurs 1. relatively incrementally within existing bounds, or 2. suddenly in relation to major conflict/crisis, usually violent. Powerful entities protect their power. When it comes to political power, the people at the top aren't going to just make way for better ideas.
If you think Balaji's ideas can change that pattern, write us a summary of exactly how that works instead!
I don't think we're actually in disagreement at all. Your fatigue after two decades of effort seems like an oblique confirmation of my point. In any case, Balaji's book more than deserves its own essay, so I suppose I'll have to get down to writing that at some point, even if only for the sake of more strongy evangelizing it.
Very interesting and thoughtful read. I wanted to check some privilege at the beginning and it seems like the order of systems you mentioned that I personally feel are most broken or it seems it would be great if they could be fixed are in the following order:
-Healthcare system
-Public education system
-Criminal justice system
-Financial regulatory system
Maybe with more pondering this order will change. For that last one, I can’t help but think “Don’t hate the player, hate the game” ... Am I a bad person?
Anyway, I agree that on one hand it seems absolutely unfixable without some sort of hard reset. It seems obvious that EVERYTHING is a little bit privatized, mingled with a little bit socialized. Whatever was most convenient for the people in power at the time, and then over time layer upon layer of chaotic-y goodness.
This in mind, I feel like your listed Postures #1 and #3 are naturally related, but perhaps in your mind too many people seek to do 1 in a blind fury with no idea or even consideration of #3? Maybe the ideal is to create/build something better so that we can effectively burn it once established and ready to adopt?
Or, I like the idea that in most cases, “Eventually, the old system will collapse under its own bloated weight of irrelevance” especially if we truly are progressing as a people.
Again, fun way to end emphasizing that our whole lifecycle has lifecycles within, constantly learning, iterating, growing, etcetera.
"every attempted solution, regardless of its sophistication (or lack thereof), only makes the problem worse." That's not true. The Affordable Care Act is actually a great example of legislation that improved an enormously complex, broken system in significant ways; even if you think it made some things worse, which it definitely did. See https://baselinescenario.com/2016/05/09/the-problem-with-obamacare/ for some info about the basic concept. (The full legislation would merit a discussion much longer than a substack comment allows.)
I'm happy to admit I may have been too cavalier in my effort to make a point. Perhaps a more defensible point would be that the ACA made the system even more *complicated,* and possibly even harder to fix.
I should also mention that I'm agnostic on the legislation itself. It's entirely possible that more people have been and are better off as a consequence, at least for a while. It's even possible that some objective evaluation could determine that it's overall impact was net positive. I'd be happy to cede that point.
I'm also fully willing to admit that to claim that *every* effort to fix a broken system is a complete waste of time is provably untrue. It is, in some ways, the position of an extremist. Even still, I think it's a useful claim to consider, and a useful lens through which to look at past and current efforts to fix entrenched and corrupted systems. I think our track record, as human beings, powerfully suggests that we are a lot more successful when we try to build better alternatives than when we try to fix broken ones. How many politicians start off with earnest aspirations toward systemic improvements? How many of them find themselves succumbing to the very systems they hoped to improve? If we want better governments, I think we're going to have to build new ones. (Have you read Balaji's "The Network State"? (thenetworkstate.com))
Or, in the case of, for instance, huge social media empires: how likely is it that Facebook, et al, will completely restructure their business model to stop perpetuating the abuses of the attention economy? I think it's more likely that there is a gradual groundswell of alternatives that are built on entirely different economic models.
I do appreciate your pushback. I don't like reductionism, and it's helpful to be called out when I'm guilty of it.
Thanks for the thoughtful reply - I'll make an exception to my Trump-era rule that I'm done talking about big-picture topics to just add that I think you're conflating totally different types of systems.
If you're talking about new companies (especially ones with new technology) changing behaviors or markets or society in ways that older companies can't, I completely agree.
If you're talking about governments and public policies, then I completely disagree with your thesis.
(I'd add that I studied international relations and obsessed about politics and policy for nearly two decades before ceasing to care based on voter's preferences in 2020.)
Maybe you can provide some examples for me, but I can't think of any point in history in which "building a better alternative" to a complex existing government or policy ever ushered in a new system. That's not how change in political power occurs. It either occurs 1. relatively incrementally within existing bounds, or 2. suddenly in relation to major conflict/crisis, usually violent. Powerful entities protect their power. When it comes to political power, the people at the top aren't going to just make way for better ideas.
If you think Balaji's ideas can change that pattern, write us a summary of exactly how that works instead!
I don't think we're actually in disagreement at all. Your fatigue after two decades of effort seems like an oblique confirmation of my point. In any case, Balaji's book more than deserves its own essay, so I suppose I'll have to get down to writing that at some point, even if only for the sake of more strongy evangelizing it.
Very interesting and thoughtful read. I wanted to check some privilege at the beginning and it seems like the order of systems you mentioned that I personally feel are most broken or it seems it would be great if they could be fixed are in the following order:
-Healthcare system
-Public education system
-Criminal justice system
-Financial regulatory system
Maybe with more pondering this order will change. For that last one, I can’t help but think “Don’t hate the player, hate the game” ... Am I a bad person?
Anyway, I agree that on one hand it seems absolutely unfixable without some sort of hard reset. It seems obvious that EVERYTHING is a little bit privatized, mingled with a little bit socialized. Whatever was most convenient for the people in power at the time, and then over time layer upon layer of chaotic-y goodness.
This in mind, I feel like your listed Postures #1 and #3 are naturally related, but perhaps in your mind too many people seek to do 1 in a blind fury with no idea or even consideration of #3? Maybe the ideal is to create/build something better so that we can effectively burn it once established and ready to adopt?
Or, I like the idea that in most cases, “Eventually, the old system will collapse under its own bloated weight of irrelevance” especially if we truly are progressing as a people.
Again, fun way to end emphasizing that our whole lifecycle has lifecycles within, constantly learning, iterating, growing, etcetera.