6 ms·

> Economists like to talk about "utility" and the common good with their theories, but they tend to only measure money Yeah, that's the problem. The economic n

> Economists like to talk about "utility" and the common good with their theories, but they tend to only measure money Yeah, that's the problem. The economic notion of value weights according to wealth while the moral notion of value does not. It's absolutely scandalous that we let economists conflate the two. Feed a starving kid in Africa? Zero economic value. The kid doesn't have money. Figure out how to merge together a bunch of megacorps to build a monopoly, raise prices, reduce quality, and make the lives of millions strictly worse? The market will ejaculate capital all over your value-creating endeavor.

QuesnayJr 6y ago
I am an economist, and I have no idea what you're talking about.
- ajb 6y ago
  It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    It is also difficult to get a man to understand something when you are not familiar enough with the subject. I suspect that is the more common failure mode.
  - SantalBlush 6y ago
    This HN cliché notwithstanding, economists actually do understand a lot more about the study of economics.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      It's just the general strawman. People only see economists when they fail so they think all economists fail even though it is only a subset.
- nmfisher 6y ago
  I think parent is saying there's no economic incentive to save starving kids in Africa.
  - astrange 6y ago
    Note that Nigerian-Americans are one of the highest earning and most successful immigrant groups in America, and I'm sure some more countries will follow. So there probably is one if you're selfish, because their kids can be your doctor in a few decades.
  - QuesnayJr 6y ago
    But it doesn't make sense to blame economists for this. Economists take economic development in Africa seriously. The 2019 econ Nobel was for research in how to fight poverty in Africa.
renewiltord 6y ago
This is nonsense. It's not The Market™ or The System™. It turns out starving kids in Africa are of no value to anyone except to their parents, who have no means to provide commensurate to the child's value to them. The blunt truth is that arbitrary lives are probably nearly valueless and certainly worth less than $1000. I have tested this hypothesis by describing GiveWell's mathematics to people at varying stages before they would spend money similar to that: in every case, people choose to spend the money rather than save arbitrary life. I have tested this hypothesis on myself and it turns out that a pair of Zipp 606 carbon fibre wheels are worth way more to me than two African children. The "moral notion of value" is a nonsensical concept invented to reinforce the notion of self-worth while not contributing to anything. Test it on yourself each time you spend: is a human life worth more to you than a hundred burritos? a set of car tyres? the higher trim on your car? The magic of this method is that it's memoryless. Irrespective of whether you give a million dollars a year or ten, the question applies to the next one thousand. Your spending habits will prove it. No. Arbitrary life is valueless to you. And if you disagree, it should be easy to prove since GiveWell can save one arbitrary life per thousand dollars. Show me your spending and I will construct a way you could save a life by giving up non-essential parts of life.
- gowld 6y ago
  You are pushing a bit too far. GiveWell does raise many millions of dollars for those lives. It just doesn't raise all (or even nearly all) the money it would if people actually held the Communist or Utilitarian ideals they may half-profess.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    The fact that they do raise money but not as much as they would if people adhered to these ideals indicates to me that the utility function is different. i.e. that it isn't just the life that is being paid for. And that's fine. I think people should spend their money as they see fit. It's the bit where people make arguments from fictional moral authority that needs some push back. It's just nonsensical outrage - the opium of the partly-informed.

QuesnayJr 6y ago

I am an economist, and I have no idea what you're talking about.

ajb 6y ago
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  It is also difficult to get a man to understand something when you are not familiar enough with the subject. I suspect that is the more common failure mode.
- SantalBlush 6y ago
  This HN cliché notwithstanding, economists actually do understand a lot more about the study of economics.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    It's just the general strawman. People only see economists when they fail so they think all economists fail even though it is only a subset.
nmfisher 6y ago
I think parent is saying there's no economic incentive to save starving kids in Africa.
- astrange 6y ago
  Note that Nigerian-Americans are one of the highest earning and most successful immigrant groups in America, and I'm sure some more countries will follow. So there probably is one if you're selfish, because their kids can be your doctor in a few decades.
- QuesnayJr 6y ago
  But it doesn't make sense to blame economists for this. Economists take economic development in Africa seriously. The 2019 econ Nobel was for research in how to fight poverty in Africa.

renewiltord 6y ago

This is nonsense. It's not The Market™ or The System™. It turns out starving kids in Africa are of no value to anyone except to their parents, who have no means to provide commensurate to the child's value to them. The blunt truth is that arbitrary lives are probably nearly valueless and certainly worth less than $1000. I have tested this hypothesis by describing GiveWell's mathematics to people at varying stages before they would spend money similar to that: in every case, people choose to spend the money rather than save arbitrary life. I have tested this hypothesis on myself and it turns out that a pair of Zipp 606 carbon fibre wheels are worth way more to me than two African children. The "moral notion of value" is a nonsensical concept invented to reinforce the notion of self-worth while not contributing to anything. Test it on yourself each time you spend: is a human life worth more to you than a hundred burritos? a set of car tyres? the higher trim on your car? The magic of this method is that it's memoryless. Irrespective of whether you give a million dollars a year or ten, the question applies to the next one thousand. Your spending habits will prove it. No. Arbitrary life is valueless to you. And if you disagree, it should be easy to prove since GiveWell can save one arbitrary life per thousand dollars. Show me your spending and I will construct a way you could save a life by giving up non-essential parts of life.

gowld 6y ago
You are pushing a bit too far. GiveWell does raise many millions of dollars for those lives. It just doesn't raise all (or even nearly all) the money it would if people actually held the Communist or Utilitarian ideals they may half-profess.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  The fact that they do raise money but not as much as they would if people adhered to these ideals indicates to me that the utility function is different. i.e. that it isn't just the life that is being paid for. And that's fine. I think people should spend their money as they see fit. It's the bit where people make arguments from fictional moral authority that needs some push back. It's just nonsensical outrage - the opium of the partly-informed.