Remember when someone would ask "how can you have bad economic outcomes if the system is man-made?" and you'd have to give a whole long explanation about a complex sequence events? Now it's just gonna be "suppose this one guy is president..."
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
That feels like a "how can someone possibly operate this complicated machinery wrong" kind of question. Like there are a lot of details, but missing the basic "people are often dumb or uneducated and sometimes malicious" explanation suggests a fundamental disconnect from the real world.
tbf i do think there's always been an answer that encompasses that, which is "some people can't imagine a world without scarcity, especially if they can gain control or power from it, and so seek to enforce it artificially if it ever disappears naturally"
Spent my whole life learning that the Great Man theory of history missed the forest for the trees only for one of the trees to somehow pick up a flamethrower and burn down the forest.
To paraphrase someone else, the Oval Office doesn't have any magical "Make Economy Good" button. But it has a lot of "Make Economy Bad" buttons and very little to prevent an angry toddler from bashing a lot of them with his squeaky hammer.
I mean, the rebuttal was always as simple as pointing out that they assume people are rational, then asking them how many people they know are all that rational.
Comments
...has always been my answer to that question.
*Monkey paw curls*
This seems to greatly underestimate the remit of the law of unintended consequences.
The inaccuracy is that a president can absolutely blow the whole thing up.