5 ms·

I have come to realize that not everything in our lives can be modeled as a monetary value after reading Varoufakis' book «Talking to My Daughter About the Econ

I have come to realize that not everything in our lives can be modeled as a monetary value after reading Varoufakis' book «Talking to My Daughter About the Economy». One example is the work done by parents to raise children. If we really were fixated on the monetary value of things, then parents would only raise children if they got a salary for the work. It seems we have two worlds: first the world of the well-known monetary value but also the perhaps even more important world of the — let me entertain this notion — reverential value. After this insight I understand many weird things a lot better and also why many economists, business people and leaders fail if they don't consider the second world.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 7y ago
You can quantify any value in monetary terms, but that doesn’t mean that only cash is value. Indeed, economics inherently involves trading cash for things of quantifiable but intangible value. It’s not like economists can’t explain why people buy roller coaster rides. But with respect to raising children you can see economics in action. In first world countries, the opportunity cost of raising kids has gone way up. Kids cost more, and having kids requires you to give up more consumption. So people have many fewer kids.
- _nalply 7y ago
  This doesn't explain everything. That's the economical fallacy: that everything can be exchanged for money, even things which have intangible value. I believed that, too. In the book there is a story about a girl helping a man (diving for a lost anchor in a Greek harbour), and when the man offered payment, the girl was offended. This gives trouble to people who believe that everything can be traded.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    It’s not the economical fallacy. It doesn’t presuppose everything can be traded for money. It presupposes that money can be a common measure for exchange between in-kind things.
  - sushid 7y ago
    What? That’s true for many thing. People gladly volunteer, sleep with others, hang out with friends, etc for free but paying them $1 would be a negative for all of those activities. One could simply argue that you’re lowering the value by setting a dollar amount because it lowers the value you were getting from feeling warm and fuzzy from helping the needy since now that’s been voided with a transactional payment for your service.
FooHentai 7y ago
"Capitalism's goals sit orthogonal to the enrichment of individual lives"
dustinmoris 7y ago
> One example is the work done by parents to raise children. If we really were fixated on the monetary value of things, then parents would only raise children if they got a salary for the work. This is not far off from reality for the majority of the world (outside the industrialised bubble): Parents raise children as a means to retire one day and have someone look after them. It's very common in many countries that the son will live with his wife and children in his parents' house, together with the parents. The parents have not only raised their own children, but will also help raise the grandchildren. In return the son's wife cooks for the entire family and the son will look after his parents long after they've retired until the end of days. It's ingrained in our human nature and therefore we don't think this way, but it's essentially just a form of business transaction.
test6554 7y ago
Parents could just charge their children for the security services, housing, financial assistance, meal preparation, vacation planning, party planning services, etc. Then when the child came of age it could make student debt look like a rounding error.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  In the traditional model of society, that's exactly what happened. A major reason people raised children was that children were obligated to support their parents when the parents grew old. In the 夷堅志, a collection of fables from 12th-century China, there is a whole large genre of stories like the following: - A man was wealthy, but refused to support his parents in their old age. The man was struck by lightning and died. - A man who didn't listen to his mother or support her in her old age died, and he was sentenced to hell. - An official who was traveling home to pick up his mother to bring her with him to the city was attacked by a tiger. He begged with the tiger for his life, saying he needed to support his mother. The tiger knew that his intentions were good, and left without eating him. Later, when the man's mother died [no longer needing support], the tiger came back and ate him. A lot of the stories in that book are alien to us, but the message in these is pretty clear.
jacobwilliamroy 7y ago
I really do think we're brainwashed in the U.S. to think with money to the point that we can't make rational decisions about resource allocation, because everything has to somehow involve money and money-gains. After a lot of thinking I came up with some non-money values: >healthspan or health-outcomes >access to edible food and drinkable water >literacy >net pollution >net resources (e.g. soils, forests, drinking water, etc.) I think it's important to optimize all these factors and I have noticed that under capitalism it is very easy to mask the massive failure to do so. Capitalists just point at their increasing capital and say "Look! All is well! We're gaining capital!"

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 7y ago

You can quantify any value in monetary terms, but that doesn’t mean that only cash is value. Indeed, economics inherently involves trading cash for things of quantifiable but intangible value. It’s not like economists can’t explain why people buy roller coaster rides. But with respect to raising children you can see economics in action. In first world countries, the opportunity cost of raising kids has gone way up. Kids cost more, and having kids requires you to give up more consumption. So people have many fewer kids.

_nalply 7y ago
This doesn't explain everything. That's the economical fallacy: that everything can be exchanged for money, even things which have intangible value. I believed that, too. In the book there is a story about a girl helping a man (diving for a lost anchor in a Greek harbour), and when the man offered payment, the girl was offended. This gives trouble to people who believe that everything can be traded.
- rayiner 7y ago
  It’s not the economical fallacy. It doesn’t presuppose everything can be traded for money. It presupposes that money can be a common measure for exchange between in-kind things.
- sushid 7y ago
  What? That’s true for many thing. People gladly volunteer, sleep with others, hang out with friends, etc for free but paying them $1 would be a negative for all of those activities. One could simply argue that you’re lowering the value by setting a dollar amount because it lowers the value you were getting from feeling warm and fuzzy from helping the needy since now that’s been voided with a transactional payment for your service.

FooHentai 7y ago

"Capitalism's goals sit orthogonal to the enrichment of individual lives"

dustinmoris 7y ago

> One example is the work done by parents to raise children. If we really were fixated on the monetary value of things, then parents would only raise children if they got a salary for the work. This is not far off from reality for the majority of the world (outside the industrialised bubble): Parents raise children as a means to retire one day and have someone look after them. It's very common in many countries that the son will live with his wife and children in his parents' house, together with the parents. The parents have not only raised their own children, but will also help raise the grandchildren. In return the son's wife cooks for the entire family and the son will look after his parents long after they've retired until the end of days. It's ingrained in our human nature and therefore we don't think this way, but it's essentially just a form of business transaction.

test6554 7y ago

Parents could just charge their children for the security services, housing, financial assistance, meal preparation, vacation planning, party planning services, etc. Then when the child came of age it could make student debt look like a rounding error.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
In the traditional model of society, that's exactly what happened. A major reason people raised children was that children were obligated to support their parents when the parents grew old. In the 夷堅志, a collection of fables from 12th-century China, there is a whole large genre of stories like the following: - A man was wealthy, but refused to support his parents in their old age. The man was struck by lightning and died. - A man who didn't listen to his mother or support her in her old age died, and he was sentenced to hell. - An official who was traveling home to pick up his mother to bring her with him to the city was attacked by a tiger. He begged with the tiger for his life, saying he needed to support his mother. The tiger knew that his intentions were good, and left without eating him. Later, when the man's mother died [no longer needing support], the tiger came back and ate him. A lot of the stories in that book are alien to us, but the message in these is pretty clear.

jacobwilliamroy 7y ago

I really do think we're brainwashed in the U.S. to think with money to the point that we can't make rational decisions about resource allocation, because everything has to somehow involve money and money-gains. After a lot of thinking I came up with some non-money values: >healthspan or health-outcomes >access to edible food and drinkable water >literacy >net pollution >net resources (e.g. soils, forests, drinking water, etc.) I think it's important to optimize all these factors and I have noticed that under capitalism it is very easy to mask the massive failure to do so. Capitalists just point at their increasing capital and say "Look! All is well! We're gaining capital!"