4 ms·

> Capitalism only works in optimizing those things it measures in the first place. Progress of society does not even enter into it, at all. If 300 million peopl

by kobeya 9y ago

> Capitalism only works in optimizing those things it measures in the first place. Progress of society does not even enter into it, at all. If 300 million people had nothing and screamed in pain all day, and one person had it it all and multiplied it by X, the GDP would be multiplied by X. So what kind of measure is that? A utilitarian would say that is a equal outcome to everyone having equal measures of happiness.

arthur_pryor 9y ago
> A utilitarian would say that is a equal outcome to everyone having equal measures of happiness. lots of people (myself included) would strongly posit that utilitarianism is a thoroughly incomplete foundation for a moral framework. to be clear, i think it's absurd and callous to treat those outcomes as equal for anything other than a back of the envelope calculation or a thought experiment. if you're going to put forward a philosophy 101 idea, at least do the philosophy 101 level work of trying to defend a controversial point of view against charitable objections.
- kobeya 9y ago
  My point is that you cannot replace GDP with a better metric of societal "goodness" without objectivity defining "good", and that is an unsolved problem.
  - musage 9y ago
    What makes the GDP "better" than any other "objective" measurement then? Why not take number of citizens multiplied with how many corners their furniture has in total? There is no easy metric for societal goodness, likely not even a complicated "objective" one. Capitalism is like a blind man demanding a painting make a sound for it to exist. Since it can only measure numbers, it doesn't even attempt to answer the question of societal goodness or any other interesting ones. That is beyond its scope, and that's that's why you shouldn't mix up things like "GDP" and "progress of society". You might say capitalism is a combustion engine, without anything additional it just eats energy and spins. The idea was, or rather is now claimed to have been, that since consumers are informed and aren't going to buy things that harm them, we'll end up with progress. Instead too many too powerful corporations are playing their clients like a piano and subvert governments, often enough in concert, and produce plenty of harm (and, to be fair, also good) that doesn't even get to enter the equation, because it's not a number or a contract etc.
qq66 9y ago
No, because actual measured happiness shows strongly decreasing marginal utility of money.

by kobeya 9y ago

arthur_pryor 9y ago

> A utilitarian would say that is a equal outcome to everyone having equal measures of happiness. lots of people (myself included) would strongly posit that utilitarianism is a thoroughly incomplete foundation for a moral framework. to be clear, i think it's absurd and callous to treat those outcomes as equal for anything other than a back of the envelope calculation or a thought experiment. if you're going to put forward a philosophy 101 idea, at least do the philosophy 101 level work of trying to defend a controversial point of view against charitable objections.

kobeya 9y ago
My point is that you cannot replace GDP with a better metric of societal "goodness" without objectivity defining "good", and that is an unsolved problem.
- musage 9y ago
  What makes the GDP "better" than any other "objective" measurement then? Why not take number of citizens multiplied with how many corners their furniture has in total? There is no easy metric for societal goodness, likely not even a complicated "objective" one. Capitalism is like a blind man demanding a painting make a sound for it to exist. Since it can only measure numbers, it doesn't even attempt to answer the question of societal goodness or any other interesting ones. That is beyond its scope, and that's that's why you shouldn't mix up things like "GDP" and "progress of society". You might say capitalism is a combustion engine, without anything additional it just eats energy and spins. The idea was, or rather is now claimed to have been, that since consumers are informed and aren't going to buy things that harm them, we'll end up with progress. Instead too many too powerful corporations are playing their clients like a piano and subvert governments, often enough in concert, and produce plenty of harm (and, to be fair, also good) that doesn't even get to enter the equation, because it's not a number or a contract etc.

qq66 9y ago

No, because actual measured happiness shows strongly decreasing marginal utility of money.