6 ms·

Profit - rather the Willingness to Pay - indicates the true preferences of society/individuals. While we may claim otherwise, at the end of the day, we sometime

Profit - rather the Willingness to Pay - indicates the true preferences of society/individuals. While we may claim otherwise, at the end of the day, we sometimes value pleasure over health. And if society truly cared about quality of life for the poorest/weakest, the market would re-align itself, and the direction of creativity would be self corrected. I feel capitalism and profits are working just fine, we just don't want to admit what our true preferences are.

Barraketh 9y ago
That's not quite accurate. Willingness to Pay indicates the true preferences of people who have money. If you try to take it as a metric of the preferences of society you will get the preferences of individuals weighted by their net worth.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  It took me way too long to understand this. I blame the term "value," which in the common sense definition is not weighted according to wealth, but in the economic definition, is. Fudging the distinction is a fantastically pernicious way to sneak the "capitalism is enlightened altruism" assumption into your argument.
- KekDemaga 9y ago
  If that was true we would have tons of restaurants serving caviar and foie gras and very few serving fast food.
- hueving 9y ago
  That's not quite accurate, otherwise there wouldn't be a wide variety of things to choose with lower incomes. You forget that the market responds to the total volume of buyers at various levels. There are a lot more people in the 0-150k bracket than the people in the 150k+ bracket and when you count the total spending in dollars by each category as a whole, the first group is significantly more powerful. The most successful companies sell to the masses (McDonald's, Walmart, Google, Facebook). The rich have a much smaller influence on the market than you would like to think.
  - nicoburns 9y ago
    The rich surely have influence in proportion to the total amount of wealth that they have. Wealth is unevenly distributed enough (a quick google says top 1% have control of 38% of wealth) for this to be a significant skewing factor away from an ideal market.
  - Firadeoclus 9y ago
    That seems to be exactly what Barraketh is saying, "the preferences of individuals weighted by their net worth" The preferences of rich _individuals_ have a much higher influence than those of poor individuals.
jrimbault 9y ago
"Society" is a construct greater than the sum of its components. Individually we may not care, but the society cares. The market is also a construct greater than the addition of individual choices, it doesn't behave to the benefits of all who partake in it, it behaves to the benefit to those in power [who have the greatest spending power]. "Working just fine" is a moral judgment you're making, which would be "just fine" in an amoral society (this being a contradiction proving that "morality" exists, "amorality" being one of its possible states).
- jezclaremurugan 9y ago
  Hmmm, while bigger patterns might emerge in a connected network, it is still driven by individual choices and actions. Emergent behavior still depends on individual choices. I do agree that it might be skewed. But I believe there is a sufficiently large middle class that can still drive creativity in the right places if it was so inclined.
MarkPNeyer 9y ago
If there were a basic income, this would be true. In the absence of a basic income, willingness to pay represents the true preferences of "people close to the source of money creation", not people or societies in general. When some parties can conjure money out of thin air, this idea that prices reflect what people want simply doesn't work. The prices begin to reflect, more and more, the desires of people with the ability to manufacture money. What you seem to be saying is "if the large number of poor people in the world cared about _their own quality of life, they would have it".
- jezclaremurugan 9y ago
  The influence may not all be equal, but at least in the developed world, for the sake of a contrived example - the number of people who can choose to spend $2-5 on a coffee vs a non ad-supported app is pretty high - and unfortunately, people seem to be choosing the coffee most of the time. > What you seem to be saying is "if the large number of poor people in the world cared about _their own quality of life, they would have it". Definitely not - but what I won't mind saying is - if the large number of middle class people in the developed world cared about the poor people, the living condition of poor people would significantly improve.

Barraketh 9y ago

That's not quite accurate. Willingness to Pay indicates the true preferences of people who have money. If you try to take it as a metric of the preferences of society you will get the preferences of individuals weighted by their net worth.

jjoonathan 9y ago
It took me way too long to understand this. I blame the term "value," which in the common sense definition is not weighted according to wealth, but in the economic definition, is. Fudging the distinction is a fantastically pernicious way to sneak the "capitalism is enlightened altruism" assumption into your argument.
KekDemaga 9y ago
If that was true we would have tons of restaurants serving caviar and foie gras and very few serving fast food.
hueving 9y ago
That's not quite accurate, otherwise there wouldn't be a wide variety of things to choose with lower incomes. You forget that the market responds to the total volume of buyers at various levels. There are a lot more people in the 0-150k bracket than the people in the 150k+ bracket and when you count the total spending in dollars by each category as a whole, the first group is significantly more powerful. The most successful companies sell to the masses (McDonald's, Walmart, Google, Facebook). The rich have a much smaller influence on the market than you would like to think.
- nicoburns 9y ago
  The rich surely have influence in proportion to the total amount of wealth that they have. Wealth is unevenly distributed enough (a quick google says top 1% have control of 38% of wealth) for this to be a significant skewing factor away from an ideal market.
- Firadeoclus 9y ago
  That seems to be exactly what Barraketh is saying, "the preferences of individuals weighted by their net worth" The preferences of rich _individuals_ have a much higher influence than those of poor individuals.

jrimbault 9y ago

"Society" is a construct greater than the sum of its components. Individually we may not care, but the society cares. The market is also a construct greater than the addition of individual choices, it doesn't behave to the benefits of all who partake in it, it behaves to the benefit to those in power [who have the greatest spending power]. "Working just fine" is a moral judgment you're making, which would be "just fine" in an amoral society (this being a contradiction proving that "morality" exists, "amorality" being one of its possible states).

jezclaremurugan 9y ago
Hmmm, while bigger patterns might emerge in a connected network, it is still driven by individual choices and actions. Emergent behavior still depends on individual choices. I do agree that it might be skewed. But I believe there is a sufficiently large middle class that can still drive creativity in the right places if it was so inclined.

MarkPNeyer 9y ago

If there were a basic income, this would be true. In the absence of a basic income, willingness to pay represents the true preferences of "people close to the source of money creation", not people or societies in general. When some parties can conjure money out of thin air, this idea that prices reflect what people want simply doesn't work. The prices begin to reflect, more and more, the desires of people with the ability to manufacture money. What you seem to be saying is "if the large number of poor people in the world cared about _their own quality of life, they would have it".

jezclaremurugan 9y ago
The influence may not all be equal, but at least in the developed world, for the sake of a contrived example - the number of people who can choose to spend $2-5 on a coffee vs a non ad-supported app is pretty high - and unfortunately, people seem to be choosing the coffee most of the time. > What you seem to be saying is "if the large number of poor people in the world cared about _their own quality of life, they would have it". Definitely not - but what I won't mind saying is - if the large number of middle class people in the developed world cared about the poor people, the living condition of poor people would significantly improve.