4 ms·

> What you have written is in fact a circular argument that confirms what I wrote about value. It is not a circular argument, it is a connection between cause

> What you have written is in fact a circular argument that confirms what I wrote about value. It is not a circular argument, it is a connection between cause and distal effect. > There is no extrinsic value in the economically orthodox description of value that you describe in the first line. I'm not sure what to make of this statement. > So when the Aussies get their tax system, they must have asked for it. Why? Because they got it. This is a misrepresentation. By demanding a more just system of taxation, they asked for laws, which ask for bureaucracy, which ask for labor resources, which consume tax revenue. All of these are logical implications, there is no circularity at all. Similarly, if I ask you to serve me a hamburger, there's the implication that someone somewhere has slaughtered an innocent cow. I don't want the innocent cow slaughtered, I just want to eat the hamburger. Yet, it would be fair to say that I asked for the cow to be slaughtered. > This is an absurdity. Not at all. Usually there's a plausible rational explanation for why things had to end up the way they did, but such explanations might be uncomfortable. > Have you ever complained about the proliferation of utterly terrible reality TV shows? I don't watch TV. > Very few people think it's anything but mindless garbage. But it's there, so it must be wanted, because it's there. Very few people think McDonald's serves good food, yet a lot of people buy it. Similarly, nobody would continue to spend money to produce more and more TV shows that nobody wants to watch. Being "mindless garbage" clearly isn't an impediment to success with the right audience. Consider the pareto principle. > Plenty of other examples in society of things that exist but nobody appreciates them. Just because it isn't "appreciated" doesn't mean there isn't demand for it. > Anyway, been reading Mazzucato recently. Doesn't seem to have done you any good.

afarrell 6y ago
> Similarly, if I ask you to serve me a hamburger, there's the implication that someone somewhere has slaughtered an innocent cow. I don't want the innocent cow slaughtered, I just want to eat the hamburger. Yet, it would be fair to say that I asked for the cow to be slaughtered. I really wish there was a 1-3 word phrase for this concept, because I keep needing one. I am hopeful that the field of AI Safety will give us one.
lordnacho 6y ago
This just confirms what I said above. The cognitive dissonance of not having a real theory is causing you to lash out at me, for no reason other than pointing out your missing theory. It's pretty simple really, if there's a way to determine value then there must be a way to say that it's correct in one way or another. If things are always just worth whatever someone will pay for them "because of the market" then you aren't saying anything at all. Plus you can't explain a number of common observations.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > This just confirms what I said above. Why? Because you said so? > The cognitive dissonance of not having a real theory is causing you to lash out at me, for no reason other than pointing out your missing theory. I wasn't aware that you're a mind reader. > It's pretty simple really, if there's a way to determine value then there must be a way to say that it's correct in one way or another. There's a shortcut: I simply define value in terms of supply and demand, the exchange of goods and services, based on subjective disposition. If you are clamoring for some other theory of value, feel free to do so. I think that's a waste of time. > If things are always just worth whatever someone will pay for them "because of the market" then you aren't saying anything at all. If you believe that, then any further discussion must be fruitless. > Plus you can't explain a number of common observations. I probably can, but you won't like the explanation.

afarrell 6y ago

> Similarly, if I ask you to serve me a hamburger, there's the implication that someone somewhere has slaughtered an innocent cow. I don't want the innocent cow slaughtered, I just want to eat the hamburger. Yet, it would be fair to say that I asked for the cow to be slaughtered. I really wish there was a 1-3 word phrase for this concept, because I keep needing one. I am hopeful that the field of AI Safety will give us one.

lordnacho 6y ago

This just confirms what I said above. The cognitive dissonance of not having a real theory is causing you to lash out at me, for no reason other than pointing out your missing theory. It's pretty simple really, if there's a way to determine value then there must be a way to say that it's correct in one way or another. If things are always just worth whatever someone will pay for them "because of the market" then you aren't saying anything at all. Plus you can't explain a number of common observations.

gridlockd 6y ago
> This just confirms what I said above. Why? Because you said so? > The cognitive dissonance of not having a real theory is causing you to lash out at me, for no reason other than pointing out your missing theory. I wasn't aware that you're a mind reader. > It's pretty simple really, if there's a way to determine value then there must be a way to say that it's correct in one way or another. There's a shortcut: I simply define value in terms of supply and demand, the exchange of goods and services, based on subjective disposition. If you are clamoring for some other theory of value, feel free to do so. I think that's a waste of time. > If things are always just worth whatever someone will pay for them "because of the market" then you aren't saying anything at all. If you believe that, then any further discussion must be fruitless. > Plus you can't explain a number of common observations. I probably can, but you won't like the explanation.