3 ms·

I'm not sure I understand the point about economics being about utility vs. wealth. If its free market then aren't people free to choose between utility vs. wea

by tmd83 11y ago

I'm not sure I understand the point about economics being about utility vs. wealth. If its free market then aren't people free to choose between utility vs. wealth and in such case pure free market don't have much defense against a few sciopaths trampling all over the not so sociopaths?

ken47 11y ago
It's almost never pointed out that Adam Smith, in his free market theory, was arguing for the efficacy of "enlightened" self-interest. I encourage readers to research this aspect of his theory, and how it contrasts with "unenlightened" self-interest. I think most reasonable people would agree that Adam Smith would categorize this CEO's behavior as unenlightened.
Frondo 11y ago
Since all markets are human inventions--there's no "free market" particle--what you're getting at is: Let's invent a system that makes explicit the choice of dollars over human lives, and let's call that "the free market". And of course, since freedom is one of those ideas that, in popular use, has been oversimplified to uselessness (e.g. freedom is good, more freedom is more good, without nuance), this "free market" thing sounds like inevitably good--the more freedom, the better, right? Even if it makes us uncomfortable, how can you say no to the "free market"? Even if, as you yourself seem to acknowledge is vulnerable to sociopathic manipulation, if (some, maybe only a few, maybe even those sociopaths) people want to build a system that normalizes choosing dollars over lives, how can you resist the "free market"? Easy: it's all human inventions, and I for one don't want sociopaths telling me how to build an economy.
- varelse 11y ago
  I hate to agree that this sort of manipulation is inevitable in a free market, but I do. It's either that, or broadly, no more cheap #$%^ on Amazon. So what do you pick? Occasional sociopaths or social good at the expense of everything else getting more expensive? Because assuming the majority loves buying cheap #$@!, this seems like an absolute poster child for the US government to step in and countergame him by directly funding and fast-forwarding new generics. Just announcing such intent ought to be be enough to ruin Martin Shkreli's career, no?
  - Frondo 11y ago
    That's easy, I'd pick social good. If I had my way in building a system, I'd absolutely work to make it as least vulnerable to manipulation by sociopaths as possible. Not being a sociopath (and I'm not saying that you are, either), I really can't see a downside to picking social good over lower-cost shit from Amazon. Building those sociopathic levers in by design? No way.
- tmd83 11y ago
  Ohh I prefer regulation with the hope for honest regulators. I was trying to understand the parents angle. As for the enlightened self interest its really tricky. Enlightenment isn't easy and if that directly conflicts with his primary job (for business earning money) its much more difficult to address that. Also it forces enormous amount of co-ordination on the side of the customers which is difficult to achieve in every little matter. On the other hand a regulars primary job at least is to think the overall good. Now whether we can choose a proper regular or regulator having a second interest (corruption) is a different matter. The fact that we choose wrong regulator (aka the customers of regular cannot wisely choose even that) only makes me think free market can never be as rosy as some paints it to be.

by tmd83 11y ago

ken47 11y ago

It's almost never pointed out that Adam Smith, in his free market theory, was arguing for the efficacy of "enlightened" self-interest. I encourage readers to research this aspect of his theory, and how it contrasts with "unenlightened" self-interest. I think most reasonable people would agree that Adam Smith would categorize this CEO's behavior as unenlightened.

Frondo 11y ago

Since all markets are human inventions--there's no "free market" particle--what you're getting at is: Let's invent a system that makes explicit the choice of dollars over human lives, and let's call that "the free market". And of course, since freedom is one of those ideas that, in popular use, has been oversimplified to uselessness (e.g. freedom is good, more freedom is more good, without nuance), this "free market" thing sounds like inevitably good--the more freedom, the better, right? Even if it makes us uncomfortable, how can you say no to the "free market"? Even if, as you yourself seem to acknowledge is vulnerable to sociopathic manipulation, if (some, maybe only a few, maybe even those sociopaths) people want to build a system that normalizes choosing dollars over lives, how can you resist the "free market"? Easy: it's all human inventions, and I for one don't want sociopaths telling me how to build an economy.

varelse 11y ago
I hate to agree that this sort of manipulation is inevitable in a free market, but I do. It's either that, or broadly, no more cheap #$%^ on Amazon. So what do you pick? Occasional sociopaths or social good at the expense of everything else getting more expensive? Because assuming the majority loves buying cheap #$@!, this seems like an absolute poster child for the US government to step in and countergame him by directly funding and fast-forwarding new generics. Just announcing such intent ought to be be enough to ruin Martin Shkreli's career, no?
- Frondo 11y ago
  That's easy, I'd pick social good. If I had my way in building a system, I'd absolutely work to make it as least vulnerable to manipulation by sociopaths as possible. Not being a sociopath (and I'm not saying that you are, either), I really can't see a downside to picking social good over lower-cost shit from Amazon. Building those sociopathic levers in by design? No way.
tmd83 11y ago
Ohh I prefer regulation with the hope for honest regulators. I was trying to understand the parents angle. As for the enlightened self interest its really tricky. Enlightenment isn't easy and if that directly conflicts with his primary job (for business earning money) its much more difficult to address that. Also it forces enormous amount of co-ordination on the side of the customers which is difficult to achieve in every little matter. On the other hand a regulars primary job at least is to think the overall good. Now whether we can choose a proper regular or regulator having a second interest (corruption) is a different matter. The fact that we choose wrong regulator (aka the customers of regular cannot wisely choose even that) only makes me think free market can never be as rosy as some paints it to be.