2 ms·

I don't understand why you think it implies trade shouldn't have happened. Do you assume that humans in the past were incapable of creating desires? Either way

I don't understand why you think it implies trade shouldn't have happened. Do you assume that humans in the past were incapable of creating desires? Either way, I more precisely should have said "fixed pre-existing thing". Obviously there are some needs and desires rooted in biology and probably, somewhere in the incomprehensible depth of time, these kick-started things. However, as fun as it is to speculate about pre-history, it's largely irrelevant to the conversation. There is no meaningfull way to understand why people pay many 1000$ for a pair of shoes without first establishing that humans build societies with a culture that is largely decoupled from biological imperatives. As an aside: Humans seem to have a great need to pretend that their cultural constructs, whether gods or status symbols or desires or gender roles, are objective aspects of the universe. This does seem to be a very deep need... But the fact that this is a fallacy doesn't imply that there isn't also a rich tapestry of objective truths, and a subtle interaction between the two.

goatlover 5y ago
> There is no meaningfull way to understand why people pay many 1000$ for a pair of shoes without first establishing that humans build societies with a culture that is largely decoupled from biological imperatives. Status seeking would likely be the biological imperative. Of course the specific desire is going to be culturally dependent. > Do you assume that humans in the past were incapable of creating desires? I assume that desires are not created but rather channelled or cultivated within their cultural context based on what's available. Sure, someone with a new product is going to use advertising to try and influence consumers to buy their product. But this assumes their product is something consumers would desire, or something that can be associated with something consumers desire, such as status or convenience.
- Certhas 5y ago
  So this last paragraph to me encapsulates the base fallacy that permeates our society when it comes to analyzing the economy. You exactly assume that there are fixed desires and needs and that this is merely "directed" or shifted around by culture. You think of it as a base real thing that advertisers try to influence, rather than something created from whole cloth. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. History shows otherwise. People go to die in holy war to impress, or serve their country. This is not biologically sensible. And yet they did. This is what I mean with decoupling. You can of course claim that this is just a strong version of status seeking being channelled, or you can invent another base desire that you think is biologically sensible and that the wish to die in war is just a cultivated version of. But your "base desires" don't have any explanatory value at that point. They don't survive Occam's Razor. They only serve to satisfy your psychological need that the things you care about are _real_.

goatlover 5y ago

> There is no meaningfull way to understand why people pay many 1000$ for a pair of shoes without first establishing that humans build societies with a culture that is largely decoupled from biological imperatives. Status seeking would likely be the biological imperative. Of course the specific desire is going to be culturally dependent. > Do you assume that humans in the past were incapable of creating desires? I assume that desires are not created but rather channelled or cultivated within their cultural context based on what's available. Sure, someone with a new product is going to use advertising to try and influence consumers to buy their product. But this assumes their product is something consumers would desire, or something that can be associated with something consumers desire, such as status or convenience.

Certhas 5y ago
So this last paragraph to me encapsulates the base fallacy that permeates our society when it comes to analyzing the economy. You exactly assume that there are fixed desires and needs and that this is merely "directed" or shifted around by culture. You think of it as a base real thing that advertisers try to influence, rather than something created from whole cloth. This assumption does not stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. History shows otherwise. People go to die in holy war to impress, or serve their country. This is not biologically sensible. And yet they did. This is what I mean with decoupling. You can of course claim that this is just a strong version of status seeking being channelled, or you can invent another base desire that you think is biologically sensible and that the wish to die in war is just a cultivated version of. But your "base desires" don't have any explanatory value at that point. They don't survive Occam's Razor. They only serve to satisfy your psychological need that the things you care about are _real_.