Hacker News Reader

Comment by Arson9416 | Hacker News Reader

No, which is why I'm asking.

The current economic system where (in the US) bribes are “speech” and corporations are people unavoidably leads to things like this project getting neutered.

“The invisible hand” Adam Smith refers to are the unintended consequences from merchants’ want to keep their capital: increasing the domestic capital stock and enhancing military power for the state, i.e. protectionism etc.

More broadly and lately it refers to any unintended societal consequences from the free market.

Consequently it never means “finding a good price” which 99% of everyone using the term seems to believe.

Bribery exists in every economic system, even before economic systems existed, and is not uniquely connected to the free market. Nor are they connected to "unintended societal consequences", since bribes very clearly have a specific goal. So it doesn't make any sense.

Just wanted to say that you're completely correct and making a very reasonable statement which is not controversial. I would love to hear about an economic system in which bribery did not exist or have influence, but I have not seen any examples of that yet, in the present day or in history.

I don't agree that bribes can't have unintended social consequences. They do have specific goals, yes. But some unintended consequences of bribery would be things like discouraging honest participants, or encouraging the most corrupt people (rather than the best, on merit) to place themselves in positions of authority, so as to get bribes. All of these are unintended in the sense that neither the person giving the bribe nor the person taking the bribe are trying to bring them about per se, they're only thinking about the immediate consequences (I get what I want).

I agree that they can have unintended consequences, but I wouldn't say any more or less than anything else. This is why I'm struggling with the "invisible hand" analogy, which focuses on a connection to unintended (positive) consequences.

Uhh, Singapore? Not everywhere is corrupt you know!

Singapore's not an economic system, but rather a country. In any case, it's still got corruption. Bribery is one form of corruption, and I have no doubt whatsoever that you can bribe someone in Singapore.

https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022/index/sgp

Illegally bribing someone is different from legally and secretly using money to influence the actions of institutions

The point is that this type of corruption is inevitable when the "invisible hand" is completely unrestrained.

Bribery is a corruption that happens in every single economic system, so it has nothing to do with the "invisible hand" of capitalism. In fact, arguments could be made as to why it happens less in free markets (where an economy flows more freely) than in non-free markets (where there are artificial barriers, making bribery more effective/needed).

> In fact, arguments could be made as to why it happens less in free markets

Arguments "can be made" for anything. That is the worst possible justification for any position.

Corruption cannot be stopped without effort. The rules and institutions that regulate and control the market are that "effort".

Bribery is not connected to capitalism any more than it is connected to any other economic system, that's the point that you seem to be missing. People seem to want to dunk on capitalism, but it doesn't make any sense here.

"Bribery exists in every economic system" is not an argument for being okay with bribery in this system.

Good thing I didn't make that argument anywhere. My point with that statement is that bribery is in no way connected to capitalism or free markets because it exists independent of the market type.

When bribery happens in a country with a command economy, do you still say "there's that invisible hand of capitalism again"?

? Of course not that question doesn't even parse. Your strategy of acting like your conversational partners are idiots doesn't win you any points; it just makes you sound difficult and wrong.

Bribery is not connected to a free market per se, but bribery in a free market is still a problem to be solved in the context of that free market.

>but bribery in a free market is still a problem to be solved in the context of that free market.

Yes of course. I don't know why you keep suggesting I am against that. My issue is with the nonsensical attempts to tie bribery to capitalism, as if one is the result of the other.

Well if you need it spelled out: the "invisible hand" refers to indirect social impacts of free markets which are typically meant to be good things. So any example of market-ish behavior causing things that seem incontrovertibly bad, like buying a department chair under the guise of targeted donations to influence policy to (presumably) protect a certain class of actors, is an example of the "invisible hand" doing a bad thing, hence an example of how this "feature" of free markets, often used to defend them, is actually a bad quality.

This is totally unsurprising to most people who aren't directly benefitting from an unchallenged free market and it usually seems like the "invisible hand" is brought up as a bullshit argument by those already in power to justify accumulating more power, so it's a point of bitterness, hence the OP's sarcasm.

Bribery is not "market-ish" behavior in the sense that it is connected to capitalism and free markets. But you also mention bitterness, which explains the reactions to my question. I think that means people want to be bitter at the idea of capitalism and free markets, whether or not it actually makes sense in this instance of bribery.

They are naturally and righteously bitter about the annoying status of secretive manipulations in our version of free-market capitalism. Their reaction to you, however, is simply because you are being an obstreperous asshole.

This reaction is uncalled for, especially for hackernews. I've been nothing but level-headed and fair, even though I disagree on the topic.

If you're looking for someone to criticize, you should look at your own behavior: "Fairly obvious, right?" an unsubstantive, smug, miserable response to my question, setting the tone for our interactions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com