8 ms·

> Why hasn't the market solved this problem? Maybe "the market" is not a good tool to solve inequality.

by ojii 8y ago

throwaway8879 8y ago
Solving inequality goes against everything in nature. The market is as close to an evolutionary natural state as we can get.
- ddnb 8y ago
  If anything, nature strives for balance and equality. If the market is as you claim it should be working towards an equilibrium.
  - Noughmad 8y ago
    Equilibrium does not mean equality, far from it. It just means the situation is stable. The predator-prey relationship is in an equilibrium, but they are in no way equal.
  - ericd 8y ago
    Not at all. In nature, the strongest lion has all the mates, while the second strongest has none.
    - ionised 8y ago
      Humans aren't lions, and our society doesn't work the same way, even in more primitive times. I'm assuming you were referring to survival of the fittest, which is commonly misunderstood to be survival of the strongest. What survival of the fittest actually means is survival of those most adaptive to change, which is not at all what you are describing.
      - ericd 8y ago
        Obviously humans aren't lions. I was just saying that the idea that nature tends toward equillibrium between individuals doesn't stand up to even the most cursory look at real nature. And if you think he meant human nature, I would say that generally, by nature, humans are kind and share with those they see as their people, but the complete opposite with anyone outside that group. Since the market is made up of people only in the abstract to most people, I would say that that nature doesn't tend toward equillibrium between individuals either.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      This is actually untrue. The resultant daughter cannot mate with her own father, so she will mate with the next most suitable male. Furthermore, lions function in pride groups with territories. The daughters would need to break off into their own territories eventually, where they would need males. Furthermore, it’s pretty common for brothers to join together to be stronger than the lone strongest male. Your example makes no actual sense in lion society, muchess human society.
      - ericd 8y ago
        Is it not true that there's only one mating male in each pride, and that the others are exiled into bachelor groups? In any case, there are many examples in nature where a small percentage of the males do a very disproportionate amount of the mating.
        SolaceQuantum 8y ago
        Indeed. It isn’t uncommon for brothers to handle a pride and share the mates. I’m not making any claims about nature trends in general, merely that your lion example is inaccurate and therefore takes away from the argument.
        ericd 8y ago
        Interesting, didn't know that, thanks.
- peterwwillis 8y ago
  We develop drugs and medical practices to artificially extend our lives. We build gigantic civilizations and trade goods around the globe. We take the coffee beans from a farmer in a poor nation undergoing drought, pay that farmer between $0.07-$0.50 per kilo of coffee, and then sell that kilo in a coffee shop (after roasting and brewing) for about $70. We aren't natural. We don't need natural evolutionary states. We need unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states.
  - throwaway8879 8y ago
    None of that is my responsibility. I'm not obligated to help anyone but myself. Nobody asked me for consent before flinging me into existence, and now I have to follow all these rules that people make up? I don't need "unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states". I'm perfectly happy with a state where I can acquire as many resources as possible, even if that incurs a significant cost to others.
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      Would I be incorrect in saying you don’t feel empathy very often?
      - throwaway8879 8y ago
        No, you'd be correct.
        vertex-four 8y ago
        I’m sorry to hear that. I’m sure you’re aware, but for most people that isn’t really the case. I hope that you can access help in the event that you need it to understand and deal with the society you’re part of.
    - Rapzid 8y ago
      Yes, you have to follow all these rules people make up.
dnautics 8y ago
You can flip it: > Why hasnt the government solved this problem? Maybe the government is not a good tool to solve inequality? After all, what percentage of your salary before taxes goes to directly help the less fortunate with no middleman? Before you answer: You could probably do more.
- stressbone 8y ago
  The government abides by the rules of the market, banks and corporations. A truly independent government could be different.
  - dnautics 8y ago
    The market abides by the confiscatory currency regime the government creates - print money, give it to banks cronies, over time make things disproportionately expensive for the little guy.

> Why hasn't the market solved this problem? Maybe "the market" is not a good tool to solve inequality.

by ojii 8y ago

> Why hasn't the market solved this problem? Maybe "the market" is not a good tool to solve inequality.

Solving inequality goes against everything in nature. The market is as close to an evolutionary natural state as we can get.

ddnb 8y ago
If anything, nature strives for balance and equality. If the market is as you claim it should be working towards an equilibrium.
- Noughmad 8y ago
  Equilibrium does not mean equality, far from it. It just means the situation is stable. The predator-prey relationship is in an equilibrium, but they are in no way equal.
- ericd 8y ago
  Not at all. In nature, the strongest lion has all the mates, while the second strongest has none.
  - ionised 8y ago
    Humans aren't lions, and our society doesn't work the same way, even in more primitive times. I'm assuming you were referring to survival of the fittest, which is commonly misunderstood to be survival of the strongest. What survival of the fittest actually means is survival of those most adaptive to change, which is not at all what you are describing.
    - ericd 8y ago
      Obviously humans aren't lions. I was just saying that the idea that nature tends toward equillibrium between individuals doesn't stand up to even the most cursory look at real nature. And if you think he meant human nature, I would say that generally, by nature, humans are kind and share with those they see as their people, but the complete opposite with anyone outside that group. Since the market is made up of people only in the abstract to most people, I would say that that nature doesn't tend toward equillibrium between individuals either.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    This is actually untrue. The resultant daughter cannot mate with her own father, so she will mate with the next most suitable male. Furthermore, lions function in pride groups with territories. The daughters would need to break off into their own territories eventually, where they would need males. Furthermore, it’s pretty common for brothers to join together to be stronger than the lone strongest male. Your example makes no actual sense in lion society, muchess human society.
    - ericd 8y ago
      Is it not true that there's only one mating male in each pride, and that the others are exiled into bachelor groups? In any case, there are many examples in nature where a small percentage of the males do a very disproportionate amount of the mating.
      - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
        Indeed. It isn’t uncommon for brothers to handle a pride and share the mates. I’m not making any claims about nature trends in general, merely that your lion example is inaccurate and therefore takes away from the argument.
        ericd 8y ago
        Interesting, didn't know that, thanks.
peterwwillis 8y ago
We develop drugs and medical practices to artificially extend our lives. We build gigantic civilizations and trade goods around the globe. We take the coffee beans from a farmer in a poor nation undergoing drought, pay that farmer between $0.07-$0.50 per kilo of coffee, and then sell that kilo in a coffee shop (after roasting and brewing) for about $70. We aren't natural. We don't need natural evolutionary states. We need unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states.
- throwaway8879 8y ago
  None of that is my responsibility. I'm not obligated to help anyone but myself. Nobody asked me for consent before flinging me into existence, and now I have to follow all these rules that people make up? I don't need "unnatural, human-oriented, ethical states". I'm perfectly happy with a state where I can acquire as many resources as possible, even if that incurs a significant cost to others.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    Would I be incorrect in saying you don’t feel empathy very often?
    - throwaway8879 8y ago
      No, you'd be correct.
      - vertex-four 8y ago
        I’m sorry to hear that. I’m sure you’re aware, but for most people that isn’t really the case. I hope that you can access help in the event that you need it to understand and deal with the society you’re part of.
  - Rapzid 8y ago
    Yes, you have to follow all these rules people make up.

dnautics 8y ago

You can flip it: > Why hasnt the government solved this problem? Maybe the government is not a good tool to solve inequality? After all, what percentage of your salary before taxes goes to directly help the less fortunate with no middleman? Before you answer: You could probably do more.

stressbone 8y ago
The government abides by the rules of the market, banks and corporations. A truly independent government could be different.
- dnautics 8y ago
  The market abides by the confiscatory currency regime the government creates - print money, give it to banks cronies, over time make things disproportionately expensive for the little guy.