> net-net it's probably better to live in economies where capital is abundant and malinvestment is possible, than to live economies where the opposite is true.

This is a false dichotomy. Not everything needs to exist at the extremes.

> boom and bust cycles have existed for a very long time. This isn't a new thing today, and it wasn't new then either.

Murder and domestic violence have existed for a very long time. Racism existed for a long time. Slavery existed for a long time.

Things can be fixed, or at least improved to reduce the human cost associated with what's essentially a governance choice.

▲

ElProlactin 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> Things can be fixed, or at least improved to reduce the human cost associated with what's essentially a governance choice.

So you think there's a way to outlaw possible malinvestment?

▲

cassianoleal 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You think there isn't? Or in fact that this is all that's happening, _possible malinvestment_?

Neolibs have the most rigid, binary and least creative minds I've ever encountered...

	▲	ElProlactin an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Or in fact that this is all that's happening, _possible malinvestment_? Speaking of rigid and binary thinking: do you think there's absolutely no value to LLMs and that every investment in them is malinvestment? > Neolibs have the most rigid, binary and least creative minds I've ever encountered... If it's so simple, why don't you explain how The Government is going to prevent private individuals and enterprises from investing in things that some people (who may or not be right) believe are worthless?