15 ms·

Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifyi

Generally speaking, I agree with the overall content of your post. However your first and last sentences really emphasise for me the real problem: oversimplifying and stratifying the discussion. "Nonsense" is an extreme overstatement, there are nuances to both arguments. "This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. A farmer needs to buy their tractor from a tractor manufacturer and fuel it from a fuel extractor/generator, but not everyone need be involved in this cycle and not every step need be specialised in a completely unary manner. Also, the emphasis on individual economic efficiency over efficiency of communal benefit is important: if a farmer can produce less - but sufficient - food, for less - but sufficient - material profit, while not producing negative impacts for others elsewhere in the economic system at large, that's a more "efficient" overall system. The most important word in the excerpt you quoted is "most"

sqeaky 10y ago
How do you build a system that is stable where an individual is expected to leave some personal gain on the table? That runs entirely counter to human nature. If you can solve that you may have something workable, but without it "Nonsense" is as good a word as any.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  Really? In Northern Europe I would argue we have this working decently well. To point where we have a health care system and educational system which is both less expensive than some and more productive/effective at the same time.
  - jimbokun 10y ago
    Stop rubbing it in.
  - snrplfth 10y ago
    What's notable is that Northern European economies have among the freest, most "market capitalist" economies on Earth. There's a substantial amount of tax-and-redistribute to them, but very little in the way of economic planning, or actual-socialist communalism. Mostly it's just a large welfare state.
- nico_h 10y ago
  a) is this worse than the current system? b) Is it really human nature? This is what social norms are for. Slavery is for now still mostly frowned upon, and in some circles even racism is. Even though using either usually results in huge personnal gains for some.
  - sqeaky 10y ago
    Slavery is a great example to work with. It has been made so costly to own slaves that no one in the western world can or wants to do it. In most areas just the social of ramifications of attempting to acquire slaves will cause all your customers to leave and employers to fire you. Then if you somehow do get a few slaves law enforcement or military agencies will try to stop you. Since they generally enforce their monopoly on violence they will probably succeed at stopping you. Only in the places most removed from these incentives do we see slavery. Look at North Korea, much of the population can be seen as slaves (The subsistence farmers for example). The costs of keeping the slaves can be thought of as the cost of running their propaganda machine, arming their military, controlling the border and the loss in relations with the rest of the world. As long the leaders fail to gain a sense of compassion then the only thing that matters to them is their slaves make more than they cost.
    - youdontknowtho 10y ago
      People should leave slavery out of their intellectual arguments. Its callous. Human trafficking is still organized, global, and wildly profitable. There are people in slavery near you, no matter where you are. It's real.
    - nico_h 10y ago
      A more modern and relevant example would be the foreign workers from the indian subcontinent on most of the middle east construction sites building the sky scrapers or the next FIFA cup facilities. (withheld pay, life threatening living conditions, confiscated passports). These is modern slavery. Aided and abetted by the state. You may also want to look at the few stories of "domestic workers" and "maid" abuse that make the headlines from time to time in your own country (works in any country with a free press). As said in another comment, slavery is alive and well. It is only frowned upon.
- lucideer 10y ago
  Because it doesn't run counter to human nature. If I had a dollar for every time someone rolled out that painful, tired line... It's utterly baseless. Again, it comes down to oversimplification. bjelkeman-again has a fair point re: northern Europe; some very good examples to the contrary.
- rndmize 10y ago
  > That runs entirely counter to human nature. Not so. Tribal societies inherently function on everyone in the tribe working for the overall good rather than their individual gain. Socially, this is how we function by default - people will make sacrifices, extend loans, give gifts, and generally help out those close to them (family, friends, tribe members) without an expectation of something in return.
  - robryan 10y ago
    Yes, in small groups such as tribes. There is reciprocal altruism at play, where helping other members of the group can reasonably expected to be repaid in future, so it can be a win win. In our modern world it is often going to be the case that you won't deal with the same people again, or the transaction is completed completely impersonally.
  - AndrewUnmuted 10y ago
    When I extend a loan to a friend, I do it because I value the relationship with that friend more than the timely receipt of payment. This is a selfish action on my part, is it not?
cperciva 10y ago
"This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. This makes as much sense as saying "You say that my magical spacecraft won't work due to the laws of physics, but physics is exactly the problem: We can't travel to Alpha Centauri yet. Questioning the laws of physics is precisely what's needed...". You don't get to ignore facts simply because they're inconvenient.
- thesagan 10y ago
  Begging the question; economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results. It's a social study, mostly. As someone who studied it for years, institutionally and on my own, I can tell you that economists do not agree on any basic laws except that people have a long list of wants and that not all of them can be satisfied. Many economists are questioning their 101s lately. Look closely in the various journals and you'll see evidence of that, both explicitly and implicitly.
  - cperciva 10y ago
    "Trade and exploiting comparative advantages yields greater utility" is about as hard a law as any.
    - daptaq 10y ago
      Not if you ask marxist-economists...
      - cperciva 10y ago
        And if you ask biblical literalists, they'll tell you that there was no big bang but the world was instead created in six days. There are always some people with counterfactual beliefs.
      - VodkaHaze 10y ago
landryraccoon 10y ago
> we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Can you explain this statement further? North Korea and Venezuela's economic systems aren't working. America and most of Europe simply don't allow everyone to consume as much as they would prefer to consume. It sounds like you mean "isn't working" in the sense of "an iPhone 5 isn't working as well as an iPhone 7", not "my car isn't working so I can't get to work."
- DougWebb 10y ago
  I would say "isn't working" in the sense that the vast majority are struggling to achieve or retain financial security, while a tiny minority have concentrated most of the weath for themselves. Also, the trend continues to concentrate wealth further, making it ever more difficult for the majority. This is a recurring cycle, which has happened many times throughout history. Pretty much every time it ends with the elites killed, their wealth stolen, civilization collapsed or set back significantly, and a new cycle begins. I don't understand why the elites never see this coming, or take adequate steps to prevent it. All they have to do is be somewhat less greedy.
  - Pyxl101 10y ago
    Are you implying that people have had to struggle less to achieve or retain financial security in the past? During what time period and in what country? Can you share some specific data substantiating the claim? Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years, and real family income has been rising overall since the 1950s. Wealth concentration today is lower than it was in the 1930s. Poverty has fallen since the 1960s. I excerpted these facts from (1). While it is also true that income and wealth inequality has been rising during this time as well, the fact of the rich being well off doesn't necessarily hurt the non-rich, especially if both groups are becoming richer over time, which the data shows is happening in the US. People are becoming better off over time. Why is our economic system failing us? Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. Near the official government poverty level, most Americans live quite comfortably (2), and have amenities such as housing, air conditioning, cable TV, mobile phones, etc. > government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. (2) (1) http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-... (2) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov...
geggam 10y ago
Farmer who has an Ox / horse / mule and feeds the critter with grass / grain grown on his land does not need to buy a tractor. In fact you can plant seeds with a stick and skip the critters.
- bjelkeman-again 10y ago
  It is true, but you end up struggling to even feed your family. Ask any subsistence farmer.

sqeaky 10y ago

How do you build a system that is stable where an individual is expected to leave some personal gain on the table? That runs entirely counter to human nature. If you can solve that you may have something workable, but without it "Nonsense" is as good a word as any.

bjelkeman-again 10y ago
Really? In Northern Europe I would argue we have this working decently well. To point where we have a health care system and educational system which is both less expensive than some and more productive/effective at the same time.
- jimbokun 10y ago
  Stop rubbing it in.
- snrplfth 10y ago
  What's notable is that Northern European economies have among the freest, most "market capitalist" economies on Earth. There's a substantial amount of tax-and-redistribute to them, but very little in the way of economic planning, or actual-socialist communalism. Mostly it's just a large welfare state.
nico_h 10y ago
a) is this worse than the current system? b) Is it really human nature? This is what social norms are for. Slavery is for now still mostly frowned upon, and in some circles even racism is. Even though using either usually results in huge personnal gains for some.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  Slavery is a great example to work with. It has been made so costly to own slaves that no one in the western world can or wants to do it. In most areas just the social of ramifications of attempting to acquire slaves will cause all your customers to leave and employers to fire you. Then if you somehow do get a few slaves law enforcement or military agencies will try to stop you. Since they generally enforce their monopoly on violence they will probably succeed at stopping you. Only in the places most removed from these incentives do we see slavery. Look at North Korea, much of the population can be seen as slaves (The subsistence farmers for example). The costs of keeping the slaves can be thought of as the cost of running their propaganda machine, arming their military, controlling the border and the loss in relations with the rest of the world. As long the leaders fail to gain a sense of compassion then the only thing that matters to them is their slaves make more than they cost.
  - youdontknowtho 10y ago
    People should leave slavery out of their intellectual arguments. Its callous. Human trafficking is still organized, global, and wildly profitable. There are people in slavery near you, no matter where you are. It's real.
  - nico_h 10y ago
    A more modern and relevant example would be the foreign workers from the indian subcontinent on most of the middle east construction sites building the sky scrapers or the next FIFA cup facilities. (withheld pay, life threatening living conditions, confiscated passports). These is modern slavery. Aided and abetted by the state. You may also want to look at the few stories of "domestic workers" and "maid" abuse that make the headlines from time to time in your own country (works in any country with a free press). As said in another comment, slavery is alive and well. It is only frowned upon.
lucideer 10y ago
Because it doesn't run counter to human nature. If I had a dollar for every time someone rolled out that painful, tired line... It's utterly baseless. Again, it comes down to oversimplification. bjelkeman-again has a fair point re: northern Europe; some very good examples to the contrary.
rndmize 10y ago
> That runs entirely counter to human nature. Not so. Tribal societies inherently function on everyone in the tribe working for the overall good rather than their individual gain. Socially, this is how we function by default - people will make sacrifices, extend loans, give gifts, and generally help out those close to them (family, friends, tribe members) without an expectation of something in return.
- robryan 10y ago
  Yes, in small groups such as tribes. There is reciprocal altruism at play, where helping other members of the group can reasonably expected to be repaid in future, so it can be a win win. In our modern world it is often going to be the case that you won't deal with the same people again, or the transaction is completed completely impersonally.
- AndrewUnmuted 10y ago
  When I extend a loan to a friend, I do it because I value the relationship with that friend more than the timely receipt of payment. This is a selfish action on my part, is it not?

cperciva 10y ago

"This is economics 101" is exactly the problem: we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Questioning economics 101 is precisely what's needed, and I'd argue that while your arguments are sound, they've been treated as absolutes, which they're not. This makes as much sense as saying "You say that my magical spacecraft won't work due to the laws of physics, but physics is exactly the problem: We can't travel to Alpha Centauri yet. Questioning the laws of physics is precisely what's needed...". You don't get to ignore facts simply because they're inconvenient.

thesagan 10y ago
Begging the question; economics is not a physical science where you can run A/B tests on an economy and find results. It's a social study, mostly. As someone who studied it for years, institutionally and on my own, I can tell you that economists do not agree on any basic laws except that people have a long list of wants and that not all of them can be satisfied. Many economists are questioning their 101s lately. Look closely in the various journals and you'll see evidence of that, both explicitly and implicitly.
- cperciva 10y ago
  "Trade and exploiting comparative advantages yields greater utility" is about as hard a law as any.
  - daptaq 10y ago
    Not if you ask marxist-economists...
    - cperciva 10y ago
      And if you ask biblical literalists, they'll tell you that there was no big bang but the world was instead created in six days. There are always some people with counterfactual beliefs.
    - VodkaHaze 10y ago

landryraccoon 10y ago

> we're dealing with an economic system that isn't working. Can you explain this statement further? North Korea and Venezuela's economic systems aren't working. America and most of Europe simply don't allow everyone to consume as much as they would prefer to consume. It sounds like you mean "isn't working" in the sense of "an iPhone 5 isn't working as well as an iPhone 7", not "my car isn't working so I can't get to work."

DougWebb 10y ago
I would say "isn't working" in the sense that the vast majority are struggling to achieve or retain financial security, while a tiny minority have concentrated most of the weath for themselves. Also, the trend continues to concentrate wealth further, making it ever more difficult for the majority. This is a recurring cycle, which has happened many times throughout history. Pretty much every time it ends with the elites killed, their wealth stolen, civilization collapsed or set back significantly, and a new cycle begins. I don't understand why the elites never see this coming, or take adequate steps to prevent it. All they have to do is be somewhat less greedy.
- Pyxl101 10y ago
  Are you implying that people have had to struggle less to achieve or retain financial security in the past? During what time period and in what country? Can you share some specific data substantiating the claim? Average wealth has increased in America over the last 50 years, and real family income has been rising overall since the 1950s. Wealth concentration today is lower than it was in the 1930s. Poverty has fallen since the 1960s. I excerpted these facts from (1). While it is also true that income and wealth inequality has been rising during this time as well, the fact of the rich being well off doesn't necessarily hurt the non-rich, especially if both groups are becoming richer over time, which the data shows is happening in the US. People are becoming better off over time. Why is our economic system failing us? Note as well that the average person today has a better quality of life than medieval kings did. Near the official government poverty level, most Americans live quite comfortably (2), and have amenities such as housing, air conditioning, cable TV, mobile phones, etc. > government surveys show that most of the persons whom the government defines as “in poverty” are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term. The overwhelming majority of the poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities. They are well housed, have an adequate and reasonably steady supply of food, and have met their other basic needs, including medical care. (2) (1) http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality http://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-... (2) http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-pov...

geggam 10y ago

Farmer who has an Ox / horse / mule and feeds the critter with grass / grain grown on his land does not need to buy a tractor. In fact you can plant seeds with a stick and skip the critters.

bjelkeman-again 10y ago
It is true, but you end up struggling to even feed your family. Ask any subsistence farmer.