As far as I know, no large-scale economic system has ever existed that made a serious attempt (to the extent that a system can “attempt” anything) to maximize human wellbeing. Every large-scale economic system hurts a lot of people in the course of its operation. Thus, asking whether EA is “compatible” with any economic system is a bit like asking whether EA is “compatible” with a particular religion — no religion has a credo that perfectly matches EA’s, and EA and religion just don’t overlap in a lot of places.
I’d think of it this way: You can reconcile EA with religion if you focus on the parts of your religion that are about doing good for other people. You can reconcile EA with being a Democrat if you support Democratic politicians whose policies seem evidence-based and highly impactful. You can reconcile EA with capitalism if you engage in business in a way that makes life better for people who deal with you. You can reconcile EA with socialism if you push for socialistic policies that have strong evidence backing their tendency to improve human welfare (or something like that). But EA is defined as “trying to do as much good as possible for other people”, and nothing else is defined in quite the same way — no religion, no political party, and no economic system.
In a practical sense, there are lots of capitalistic projects in the EA community that make use of market forces to generate good outcomes — Wave, which has vastly improved the banking system in Senegal and garnered massive popular support from the citizens of that country (who are quite happy to do business with them), may be the most prominent example.
I only have issue with the semantics of your first sentence. I would suggest no large-scale economic system has ever existed that was successful at maximizing human wellbeing; I think socialist ideals intend to maximize human welfare, but have always failed in implementation. I might say the same for the great religions, though, excellent analogy.
You may be right on the semantics. Rather than attributing intent to a system, I should have said “no large-scale system whose implementers were seriously trying to maximize wellbeing”. Even at the beginning of well-intentioned socialist revolutions, it seems like state economic control typically led to a focus on military buildup, or disastrous economic policies, or other things that weren’t done with general welfare in mind. Socialist theorists often had a lot in common with EA thinkers, but the failures of implementation/failure to take economic evidence seriously meant that the theory didn’t get very far.
(Caveat: This is a very un-nuanced take from a non-historian.)
As far as I know, no large-scale economic system has ever existed that made a serious attempt (to the extent that a system can “attempt” anything) to maximize human wellbeing. Every large-scale economic system hurts a lot of people in the course of its operation. Thus, asking whether EA is “compatible” with any economic system is a bit like asking whether EA is “compatible” with a particular religion — no religion has a credo that perfectly matches EA’s, and EA and religion just don’t overlap in a lot of places.
I’d think of it this way: You can reconcile EA with religion if you focus on the parts of your religion that are about doing good for other people. You can reconcile EA with being a Democrat if you support Democratic politicians whose policies seem evidence-based and highly impactful. You can reconcile EA with capitalism if you engage in business in a way that makes life better for people who deal with you. You can reconcile EA with socialism if you push for socialistic policies that have strong evidence backing their tendency to improve human welfare (or something like that). But EA is defined as “trying to do as much good as possible for other people”, and nothing else is defined in quite the same way — no religion, no political party, and no economic system.
In a practical sense, there are lots of capitalistic projects in the EA community that make use of market forces to generate good outcomes — Wave, which has vastly improved the banking system in Senegal and garnered massive popular support from the citizens of that country (who are quite happy to do business with them), may be the most prominent example.
Does any of this answer part of your question?
It does. I am impressed.
I only have issue with the semantics of your first sentence. I would suggest no large-scale economic system has ever existed that was successful at maximizing human wellbeing; I think socialist ideals intend to maximize human welfare, but have always failed in implementation. I might say the same for the great religions, though, excellent analogy.
Thank you for taking the time.
I’m glad this was helpful!
You may be right on the semantics. Rather than attributing intent to a system, I should have said “no large-scale system whose implementers were seriously trying to maximize wellbeing”. Even at the beginning of well-intentioned socialist revolutions, it seems like state economic control typically led to a focus on military buildup, or disastrous economic policies, or other things that weren’t done with general welfare in mind. Socialist theorists often had a lot in common with EA thinkers, but the failures of implementation/failure to take economic evidence seriously meant that the theory didn’t get very far.
(Caveat: This is a very un-nuanced take from a non-historian.)
(Appreciate you taking the time to respond so well.)