here’s how i’d eli5 capitalism/socialism: 1/ in order for everyone to work together people who are better at doing something need to be able to tell other people how and what to do
7/ with “what you have” the proof is more objective. if someone HAS a lot of gold or cars or legos then they very likely are very good at getting that stuff. you can directly ask “hey, can u help me get some gold too?”
-
-
8/ the downside of course is that maybe they STOLE that gold and their advice to you will be “no problem, come steal with me”
Show this thread -
9/ when everyone lived in small communities “who you know” was preferred. just like you just know which of your friends is good at what video games a small community just “knows” who is best at what
Show this thread -
10/ however as we built cities and increased ability to travel and communicate over long distances we started interacting with STRANGERS more than friends. in some cities you’d see hundreds or even thousands of strangers for each friend. there was just no way to “know” everyone
Show this thread -
11/ some places decided to decree and Iron Law. they said “everyone is your Brother and Sister, we are all Comrades” but just like sometimes you’ll say someone is your friend, deep down you’re faking it bc he or she just isn’t nice and you don’t want to share your cookie
Show this thread -
12/ so you lie and say that you don’t have a cookie or hand over a plastic cookie. because everyone is FORCED to be friends what happens is there are no cookies anymore because no one can tell the truth
Show this thread -
13/ other places did the opposite. they embraced “what you have” the havers would tell the non-havers what to do. sometimes they’d lie of course just because as you know, being Boss can be pretty fun!
Show this thread -
14/ but because you could just leave and say “i think you’re lying!” people who wanted to STAY boss had to keep coming up with useful things for their followers to do. overall this incentivized better “leaders” b/c otherwise no one would follow them
Show this thread -
15/ this actually worked a lot better than forcing everyone to be friends even when they didn’t want to be. remember when you were so mad at your friend that you didn’t speak to him? that passive aggressiveness brought the whole community down bc noone could communicate
Show this thread -
16/ vs with “what you have” you could say “that guy is showing a better way of getting lots of gold, i’m going there” and there’s be no hard feelings. everyone could speak their mind and ask for what they wanted
Show this thread -
17/ there is a downside though. remember how “who you know” is the basis of small communities? when everyone shifts to “what you have” then the only thing being communicated is “what i WANT!”
Show this thread -
18/ just like sometimes parents will say that you need to go to bed or can’t eat too many cookies what you want isn’t always what’s best for you. sometimes you won’t understand why but you trust that they love you and want the best for you right?
Show this thread -
19/ with “who you know” the inability to KNOW for sure if someone will give you what you want is a feature. you have to make that leap of faith and build a relationship that is not purely about getting what each other wants.
Show this thread -
20/ imagine if you said “want to play with me?” and a friend replies “only if you pay me 1 cookie ” that would feel pretty bad right?
Show this thread -
21/ right now, all the adults in the world are trying to figure out the right combination of “who you know” and “what you have” so that everyone is happy.
Show this thread -
22/ it’s not going very well. everyone is arguing over whether or not “who you know” is better or “what you have” is better. they forget that the original question was figuring out “what you can DO” maybe you can think of a better way?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.