9 ms·

> If you had a real job and donated half your income to the cause, both you and the cause would be better off. This argument takes as an unstated axiom that th

by CPLX 6y ago

> If you had a real job and donated half your income to the cause, both you and the cause would be better off. This argument takes as an unstated axiom that the correct way to organize society is by having everyone in a role that strictly maximizes that system's assessment of their economic output. It then concludes that the correct way to effect change is to embrace that system and after the results are in, redirect those economic outputs to desired goals. As the reader may have noticed in examining that unstated premise, this presents quite a dilemma when it becomes clear that this way of organizing society is in fact itself the main cause of the human misery you're trying to eliminate.

pdonis 6y ago
> This argument takes as an unstated axiom that the correct way to organize society is by having everyone in a role that strictly maximizes that system's assessment of their economic output. No, that's not the axiom. The axiom is that scarce resources should be allocated to their most productive uses. If the scarce resource of your time and energy can be more productive at building houses if you have a real job and donate a portion of your income to house building, than if you built houses directly, then that's how that scarce resource should be allocated. Note that it is you doing the resource allocation here, not "the system". It is true that "the system" is very inefficient, but what it's inefficient at is providing people with opportunities to choose from to be more productive with the scarce resource of their time and energy. The way to make that more efficient is more free markets and less government regulation; but our society tends to be the other way around.
- eevilspock 6y ago
  > this way of organizing society is in fact itself the main cause of the human misery you're trying to eliminate. looks like this went completely over your head
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > looks like this went completely over your head The fact that I disgree with the statement you quoted doesn't mean I didn't read it.
- CPLX 6y ago
  > most productive uses The problem comes when you try to define this phrase in a way that’s not a tautology. Our current economic system defines economic productivity to be the thing that generates the highest economic returns according to the rules of the system. Without an independently derived set of values the phrase doesn’t have any descriptive value. You could just as well be describing Bostrom’s paperclip maximizer, and I would suggest, in fact, that this is exactly what you’re doing.
  - pdonis 6y ago
    > The problem comes when you try to define this phrase in a way that’s not a tautology. Economists solved that one along time ago: revealed preference. > Our current economic system defines economic productivity to be the thing that generates the highest economic returns according to the rules of the system. That's because our current economic system is not a free market, so instead of reflecting the revealed preferences of people making choices in a free market, it reflects the revealed preferences of politicians and financial institutions. There's no reason an economy has to work that way. Our does because it's driven by politics, not economics. > Without an independently derived set of values What people want is an independently derived set of values.
    - CPLX 6y ago
      > Economists solved that one along time ago: revealed preference. I'm quite certain they didn't solve the problem of determining the correct long term value system for the human race. For context I have looked into the idea, I have a degree in Economics. We don't even have a perfect optimal strategy for the completely bounded game of chess yet. But somehow we've solved the problem of determining optimal strategy for the unbounded game of social and economic interactions between millions of independent actors? It's a pleasant thought, but no, we haven't. In real life what people are doing is making economic tradeoffs within a narrowly constrained section of a complex adaptive system within which no actor can do much more than guess at the prospective outcomes of their decisions. Or put another way, in economic terms how would an economic actor express a clear preference for a sequence of events that leads to a personal connection with someone who doesn't have any money, when they are not aware that's even a thing they can do?
xyzelement 6y ago
Just so I am clear, you propose "complete reorganization of society" as the practical approach for saving the puppies? The puppies are gonna die, CPLX.
samvher 6y ago
This is such an underrated point. A lot of the lucrative “real” jobs are quite destructive and counter to the problems that many charities and NGOs try to solve. Also, if everyone thinks this way it’s going to be very hard for these charities and NGOs to find the skills they need at rates that they can manage to fund. A skilled worker can potentially generate a lot of value that might not directly flow back to the organization they work for but to other parts of society - that means the organization has no business case for hiring them (the economics don’t exactly work out) but in the bigger picture it can still be a net benefit.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
imtringued 6y ago
It actually isn't. I'll talk from "virtual" experience. It's food production in a virtual economy. I have the option of overcharging people and expanding my business faster or charging less so that even the poor players can afford it and not having enough money to expand. If I go with the "charity" route it will take much longer for the underlying problem to be solved. By doing economic charity (not to be confused with donation based charity that charges nothing to the people receiving help) you're also ruining the price signal for other people. They see that the market has been saturated with cheap products but a few weeks later there is a shortage again because the "charity dude" is not producing nearly enough. This is also one of the reason price gouging laws don't make sense. People will scalp and sell for market rate. The one who is losing out is the original manufacturer of the product. They could have used that money to fund extra production or you know, just reward them for producing the valuable product in the first place. It would still mean less money to scammers. If you think that the product should be provided at a lower price then involve the government and let it sell the product at subsidized prices. That way it can fulfill an obligation to the people but at the same time also eat it's own words. If the manufacturer is overcharging too much then cut out the middleman and produce yourself. Transfer this to someone who isn't running a business but instead just tries to get a better job. That person still has the moral "obligation" (it's obviously optional) to do effective charity or at least not make things worse.

by CPLX 6y ago

pdonis 6y ago

> This argument takes as an unstated axiom that the correct way to organize society is by having everyone in a role that strictly maximizes that system's assessment of their economic output. No, that's not the axiom. The axiom is that scarce resources should be allocated to their most productive uses. If the scarce resource of your time and energy can be more productive at building houses if you have a real job and donate a portion of your income to house building, than if you built houses directly, then that's how that scarce resource should be allocated. Note that it is you doing the resource allocation here, not "the system". It is true that "the system" is very inefficient, but what it's inefficient at is providing people with opportunities to choose from to be more productive with the scarce resource of their time and energy. The way to make that more efficient is more free markets and less government regulation; but our society tends to be the other way around.

eevilspock 6y ago
> this way of organizing society is in fact itself the main cause of the human misery you're trying to eliminate. looks like this went completely over your head
- pdonis 6y ago
  > looks like this went completely over your head The fact that I disgree with the statement you quoted doesn't mean I didn't read it.
CPLX 6y ago
> most productive uses The problem comes when you try to define this phrase in a way that’s not a tautology. Our current economic system defines economic productivity to be the thing that generates the highest economic returns according to the rules of the system. Without an independently derived set of values the phrase doesn’t have any descriptive value. You could just as well be describing Bostrom’s paperclip maximizer, and I would suggest, in fact, that this is exactly what you’re doing.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > The problem comes when you try to define this phrase in a way that’s not a tautology. Economists solved that one along time ago: revealed preference. > Our current economic system defines economic productivity to be the thing that generates the highest economic returns according to the rules of the system. That's because our current economic system is not a free market, so instead of reflecting the revealed preferences of people making choices in a free market, it reflects the revealed preferences of politicians and financial institutions. There's no reason an economy has to work that way. Our does because it's driven by politics, not economics. > Without an independently derived set of values What people want is an independently derived set of values.
  - CPLX 6y ago
    > Economists solved that one along time ago: revealed preference. I'm quite certain they didn't solve the problem of determining the correct long term value system for the human race. For context I have looked into the idea, I have a degree in Economics. We don't even have a perfect optimal strategy for the completely bounded game of chess yet. But somehow we've solved the problem of determining optimal strategy for the unbounded game of social and economic interactions between millions of independent actors? It's a pleasant thought, but no, we haven't. In real life what people are doing is making economic tradeoffs within a narrowly constrained section of a complex adaptive system within which no actor can do much more than guess at the prospective outcomes of their decisions. Or put another way, in economic terms how would an economic actor express a clear preference for a sequence of events that leads to a personal connection with someone who doesn't have any money, when they are not aware that's even a thing they can do?

xyzelement 6y ago

Just so I am clear, you propose "complete reorganization of society" as the practical approach for saving the puppies? The puppies are gonna die, CPLX.

samvher 6y ago

This is such an underrated point. A lot of the lucrative “real” jobs are quite destructive and counter to the problems that many charities and NGOs try to solve. Also, if everyone thinks this way it’s going to be very hard for these charities and NGOs to find the skills they need at rates that they can manage to fund. A skilled worker can potentially generate a lot of value that might not directly flow back to the organization they work for but to other parts of society - that means the organization has no business case for hiring them (the economics don’t exactly work out) but in the bigger picture it can still be a net benefit.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

imtringued 6y ago

It actually isn't. I'll talk from "virtual" experience. It's food production in a virtual economy. I have the option of overcharging people and expanding my business faster or charging less so that even the poor players can afford it and not having enough money to expand. If I go with the "charity" route it will take much longer for the underlying problem to be solved. By doing economic charity (not to be confused with donation based charity that charges nothing to the people receiving help) you're also ruining the price signal for other people. They see that the market has been saturated with cheap products but a few weeks later there is a shortage again because the "charity dude" is not producing nearly enough. This is also one of the reason price gouging laws don't make sense. People will scalp and sell for market rate. The one who is losing out is the original manufacturer of the product. They could have used that money to fund extra production or you know, just reward them for producing the valuable product in the first place. It would still mean less money to scammers. If you think that the product should be provided at a lower price then involve the government and let it sell the product at subsidized prices. That way it can fulfill an obligation to the people but at the same time also eat it's own words. If the manufacturer is overcharging too much then cut out the middleman and produce yourself. Transfer this to someone who isn't running a business but instead just tries to get a better job. That person still has the moral "obligation" (it's obviously optional) to do effective charity or at least not make things worse.