I have posted about a number of problems in society, economy, and politics, and I have suspended a number of posts along those lines. In this meta-post I try to do a pragmatic analysis.
tl;dr or take-home message:
- Writing about the problems that you see is useful, but it may not be the most useful way to spend your time.
- Experts (e.g. PhDs in economy) should do more divulgation and less propaganda, showing consensus. From some not-completely-unreasonable perspectives (I hope) some things seem to be failing big time. Explaining the truth, be it good or bad, honestly and understandably, should be a deterrent for truthers.
With respect to the posted problems, there are several possibilities: (1) The problems may not be such, “it is not a bug, it is a feature”. (2) If the problems are such, then (2.1) they may be well known (can I have some references?). If (2.2) these problems had not been detected earlier, which is a very unlikely possibility, as I am a
layman complete ignorant in these topics, then they should be studied, to check if these are (2.2.1) not problems, (2.2.2) solvable problems, or (2.2.3) unsolvable problems.
Of course I already pointed that most likely (3) a negligible amount of people (possibly zero) would read the blog. And that is fine, I needed to make personal decisions and (i) explaining helps to think. BTW: to anyone reading, this is the best theme I could find, but I am not very happy about it, sorry. There are apps and plugins to clean the style that work very fine for webpages, let me know if you cannot find a suitable one.
Explaining is also useful for (ii) raising awareness, and certainly there were a few things that I wanted to summarize to (iii) link to them, avoiding repetitions in conversations, and bypassing the 280 character limit in Twitter. In the next post I write a summary of the suspended posts as a (iv) reminder for myself, if plans from A to ~F fail. The reminder might be useful to (iv.i) resume them, (iv.ii) research seriously about them, or (iv.iii) pursue a PhD in economics (plan ~K).
In general all is part of a simple process to solve problems:
- Indicate the symptoms, as in code when opening issues or asking the duck.
- Check if there is some problem to solve, diagnose where it is.
- Find solutions and alternatives, evaluate them and choose one.
- Implement the solution, and patch the system.
This works very well in GitHub projects, but it does not work so well for economy, law, politics and other systems, for obvious reasons, including their complexity, or number of stakeholders. Building such a system will take time. BTW: sorry for insisting in posting issues everywhere.
Pull requests would be more constructive, but that is going to take even longer, assuming there are actual solvable problems (2.2.2). The problem is particularly challenging due to the many different granularities that may be considered, from: “my salary is very low, please help”, to: “rewarding value capture produces negative sum games, while value creation produces positive sum games, and we are doing the former”.
Until then, if you find an issue, try to post it somewhere. I usually like reading about them more than writing about them, as it takes less time and effort, and links are about as useful.
PS: About patches: Many other things could be patched too, but for centuries we will only be able to dream about downloading from the Internet a patch for our genes, synthesize a virus with it, and inject the virus in our bloodstream to patch every cell. Some things take time.