As a child, my model of "the economy" was basically just a moral war, with some good people (with small-ish companies) making good jobs exist & some bad people running big companies & making bad jobs exist. For a while I understood "being a good person" to mean "making good jobs"
-
Show this thread
-
Obviously my model was more nuanced by the time I took micro/macroeconomics, but it was still sort of a bizarre experience to see a real-world system presented with no "moral facts" whatsoever. It felt very abrupt & unexpected.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I can sorta hold both layers now — neutral cause-and-effect systems exist, but collections of people & some individuals can move various morally relevant needles. Over time, those needles seem increasingly tiny & sticky, but the systems also seem less predictable than I'd expect
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
I'm just noticing my confusion. Hard to hash this out with most people, since they tend to think one layer or the other is essentially irrelevant, or somehow see the whole system as simultaneously utterly predictable & completely governed by moral actors, which, like, whaaaat
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @webdevMason
Do you have updated view on role of big companies? If preventing hunger and curing disease are “moral goods”, I’d argue big companies have produced incredible amounts of them
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh yeah, totally. First tweet was my model at 7 or 8 years old. Genuine value creation for profit can very definitely be considered a moral good, IMO
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.