5 ms·

> It's a consequence of any insufficiently regulated industry where the penalty for fraud is less than the profit of fraud. It's a fundamental feature of capita

> It's a consequence of any insufficiently regulated industry where the penalty for fraud is less than the profit of fraud. It's a fundamental feature of capitalism when untethered from objective assessments of value. That is not a feature or consequence of capitalism. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for fraud are independent of the economic system itself. > I hope people understand that this is actually a religious point, not a scientific one. The science says quite the opposite. Science can say whatever it wants, if you look at our world objectively, it's quite plain to see people are motivateed primarily by economic forces. For instance, in the following article [1] (top relevant, second overall google search result for 'why buy an electric car'): >Q: Why should someone should go out and buy an electric car right now? > A: They can make a huge contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions—that's the most important reason. There are advantages in terms of going into the carpool lane. Electric vehicles are becoming (price) competitive with internal combustion engines. In our report we looked at the life-cycle cost of ... electric cars, hybrid electric cars, gas-powered cars and we found that, for example, the Nissan Leaf and the Smart car are competitive right now even without (government) incentives. What's driving down the cost of EVs is the reduction in the cost of the battery. Another important point is that the maintenance is minimal. There are several reasons given. All but the first are clearly economic reasons meant to persuade people into buy an electric car. I believe this to be because, in the opinion of the answer, buying an electric vehicle has positive economic incentives that the reader might not recognize immediately, and they are providing a case for overall economic benefit to the purchaser. The first point is not immediately about economics, but I argue that it is indirectly. The best way to decrease your carbon footprint is to not have a car and to sleep outdoors. Of course, that is not an economically viable or desirable option for most people. These people have made a self-interested economic decision to own a personal conveyance that operates on public highways at the expense of carbon emissions. There will always be a cross section of personal motivations (tastes, preferences) and economic self interest. The wealthy can afford to pursue the former at the expense of the latter; the average person will be more adherent to economic self interest in for the future or marginal pursuance of the former. [1] https://phys.org/news/2018-02-shouldand-shouldntbuy-electric-car.html#jCp https://phys.org/news/2018-02-shouldand-shouldntbuy-electric...

KirinDave 8y ago
> That is not a feature or consequence of capitalism. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for fraud are independent of the economic system itself. This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?" > For instance, in the following article [1] (top relevant, second overall google search result for 'why buy an electric car'): The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize.
- linuxftw 8y ago
  > This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?" The statement which I responded to, that capitalism begets fraud as a feature of capitalism, is wholly untrue. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for any crime, whether economic or otherwise, have nothing to do with an economic system. There isn't any other rational response to your claim. > The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize. My stance is that economic self-interest is broadly irrefutable, it doesn't require perfect rationality or all (perfect) information. To a consumer uninterested in something other than price (ie, all motivations in which they care about being equal), power company A (nuclear) selling power for $0.01/kwh vs company B (coal) selling power for $0.005/kwh, the consumer is likely going to choose power company B, due to cheaper price, unless they have some pathological reason for choosing A (it could be that a higher price in itself is perceived as being higher quality, which is the case for many products).
  - KirinDave 8y ago
    > The statement which I responded to, that capitalism begets fraud as a feature of capitalism, is wholly untrue. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for any crime, whether economic or otherwise, have nothing to do with an economic system. There isn't any other rational response to your claim. You're projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make nor claim to have. I didn't suggest or imply that all forms of capitalism uniquely generate fraud. They do exist in every system. You're angry with my phrasing not sufficiently hedging your concerns. You're also strictly wrong about how legal and regulatory systems impact economic systems. It's neither true nor true of how the literature evaluates said systems. > My stance is that economic self-interest is broadly irrefutable, it doesn't require perfect rationality or all (perfect) information. I think you're wrong, and overreaching with econ-101. This is like saying "Supply and demand is never violated." It's violated all the time. If we're in the league where "I cite a magazine article" is considered to be a useful citation proving your point, then I cite all of Dan Ariely's work meant for consumption by lay-folk.

KirinDave 8y ago

> That is not a feature or consequence of capitalism. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for fraud are independent of the economic system itself. This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?" > For instance, in the following article [1] (top relevant, second overall google search result for 'why buy an electric car'): The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize.

linuxftw 8y ago
> This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?" The statement which I responded to, that capitalism begets fraud as a feature of capitalism, is wholly untrue. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for any crime, whether economic or otherwise, have nothing to do with an economic system. There isn't any other rational response to your claim. > The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize. My stance is that economic self-interest is broadly irrefutable, it doesn't require perfect rationality or all (perfect) information. To a consumer uninterested in something other than price (ie, all motivations in which they care about being equal), power company A (nuclear) selling power for $0.01/kwh vs company B (coal) selling power for $0.005/kwh, the consumer is likely going to choose power company B, due to cheaper price, unless they have some pathological reason for choosing A (it could be that a higher price in itself is perceived as being higher quality, which is the case for many products).
- KirinDave 8y ago
  > The statement which I responded to, that capitalism begets fraud as a feature of capitalism, is wholly untrue. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for any crime, whether economic or otherwise, have nothing to do with an economic system. There isn't any other rational response to your claim. You're projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make nor claim to have. I didn't suggest or imply that all forms of capitalism uniquely generate fraud. They do exist in every system. You're angry with my phrasing not sufficiently hedging your concerns. You're also strictly wrong about how legal and regulatory systems impact economic systems. It's neither true nor true of how the literature evaluates said systems. > My stance is that economic self-interest is broadly irrefutable, it doesn't require perfect rationality or all (perfect) information. I think you're wrong, and overreaching with econ-101. This is like saying "Supply and demand is never violated." It's violated all the time. If we're in the league where "I cite a magazine article" is considered to be a useful citation proving your point, then I cite all of Dan Ariely's work meant for consumption by lay-folk.