3 ms·

Only if you define local interest as purely financially motivated. I am not even talking about the ethics, but even social status is not only dependent on wealt

Only if you define local interest as purely financially motivated. I am not even talking about the ethics, but even social status is not only dependent on wealth. We are much more than a bank account number, thinking that we are is more or less a pathological disease, because rationally it makes no sense.

roughly 6y ago
> Only if you define local interest as purely financially motivated <...> social status is not only dependent on wealth For an awful lot of people, it basically is - I mean, practically the entire field of finance and professional management would look at the example I gave and say, "that's exactly the right thing to do." Mitt Romney's entire professional career follows that principle, and it's largely seen as a net positive to his political career (as a Republican). I agree with you, I think it's an enormously damaging philosophy, both to the bearer and to the rest of us, but again, it may be locally optimal.
- xncl 6y ago
  Could you help me understand this a little better and define what you mean by local interest?
  - roughly 6y ago
    I'm not using a rigorous definition, but essentially, consider two outcomes, each affecting 100 people: 1. Every person accrues $10 2. One person, "Bob", accrues $100, everyone else accrues $1 Generally speaking, outcome 1 has higher overall benefits, but outcome 2 is better for Bob. If Bob is the decision-maker, it's in Bob's interest to pick outcome 2, even if it's globally worse. This is what I mean by local vs global interest - roughly, "in the interest of a given individual" vs "the best outcome across all individuals."
- dependsontheq 6y ago
  I don‘t know, I am not a fan of Mitt Romney but his social status seemed to be more dependent on being a successful governor and managing the olympics. Both are net positives for society, his business record actually was his weakness.

roughly 6y ago

> Only if you define local interest as purely financially motivated <...> social status is not only dependent on wealth For an awful lot of people, it basically is - I mean, practically the entire field of finance and professional management would look at the example I gave and say, "that's exactly the right thing to do." Mitt Romney's entire professional career follows that principle, and it's largely seen as a net positive to his political career (as a Republican). I agree with you, I think it's an enormously damaging philosophy, both to the bearer and to the rest of us, but again, it may be locally optimal.

xncl 6y ago
Could you help me understand this a little better and define what you mean by local interest?
- roughly 6y ago
  I'm not using a rigorous definition, but essentially, consider two outcomes, each affecting 100 people: 1. Every person accrues $10 2. One person, "Bob", accrues $100, everyone else accrues $1 Generally speaking, outcome 1 has higher overall benefits, but outcome 2 is better for Bob. If Bob is the decision-maker, it's in Bob's interest to pick outcome 2, even if it's globally worse. This is what I mean by local vs global interest - roughly, "in the interest of a given individual" vs "the best outcome across all individuals."
dependsontheq 6y ago
I don‘t know, I am not a fan of Mitt Romney but his social status seemed to be more dependent on being a successful governor and managing the olympics. Both are net positives for society, his business record actually was his weakness.