4 ms·
The point of efficiency is that it affects the _size_ of the pie, and thus is (all else held equal) better for any set of priorities. To put it another way, wha
by wutbrodo 8y ago
The point of efficiency is that it affects the _size_ of the pie, and thus is (all else held equal) better for any set of priorities. To put it another way, whatever your goals are for society, from the most fervent anarcho-capitalist to the most ardent Communist, inefficiency makes them harder to achieve.
The parent comment's question still stands: if the benefit of inefficient businesses is redistributive, why not just explicitly redistribute the gains from efficient businesses? This is a Pareto improvement when implemented properly (or more likely Kaldor-Hicks).
This isn't a rhetorical question, and there are theories as to why am efficient economy plus explicit redistribution isn't a good thing, but a lot of them depend (explicitly or implicitly) on Dickensian views like "the lower classes need pretend work to build character". You can hardly take this for granted without making a case for it, as your low-effort comment does. Hell, even if you _do_ take the Dickensian view, there are UBIish policies that may fit it better than the decentralized inefficiency you're talking about, like "govt as employer or last resort".
- checkyoursudo 8y agoOh, no, I understand. I'm not personally arguing in favor of inefficiency. I'm fairly neutral on the topic. I'm only saying that not everyone values efficiency. And some people never will and will never be argued into valuing it. Also, > You can hardly take this for granted without making a case for it, as your low-effort comment does. You should be more charitable. I wasn't arguing for anything. > decentralized inefficiency you're talking about I never said any such thing and I'll thank you for not attributing words to me that I never said.
- friedman23 8y ago>I'm not personally arguing in favor of inefficiency. I'm fairly neutral on the topic. How can you be neutral on the topic of efficiency?Efficiency is better full stop. Might as well say you are neutral on famines and poverty too.
- shoo 8y ago> How can you be neutral on the topic of efficiency? Efficiency is better full stop. Efficiency in doing what, exactly? Efficiency might measure output of X as a function of input Y. Is having more X actually helpful or harmful? How will the overall system respond if it suddenly becomes possible to more efficiently transform Y into X? (This can lead to higher rate of consumption of Y) Does a strategy for increasing X / Y happen to damage some other valuable things A, B, C that aren't captured in the definition of the subsystem of X and Y we're trying to optimise?
- checkyoursudo 8y agoHow do you recommend that I should think about famines and poverty? I care about a lot of things. I don't care about everything. In all, I am probably neutral on way more things than I favor or oppose. I certainly don't care about efficiency for efficiency's sake. There may be some cases where I am pro-efficiency, and some where I am not. I would not agree that "Efficiency is better full stop". There is nothing that is "full stop". There is always a dark side. My grandmother's neighbor being allowed to install a 1000-head livestock operation 1 km from her house would have been more efficient than what she fought for and ended up compromising on with them. That less efficient compromise may have even contributed to greater poverty and possibly some future famine for all I know. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]