6 ms·

Always funny how people argue these things as if we're discussing kinematics or some other natural law. The economy is 100% contrived and what we declare it to

Always funny how people argue these things as if we're discussing kinematics or some other natural law. The economy is 100% contrived and what we declare it to be. Even "The Invisible Hand" operates within the parameters we define. Approaching this discussion through the lens of Adam Smith itself loads it with a set of fairly narrow restrictions and assumptions that limit what we define as possible. In truth, there are very few actual constants. If we want rich economies without inequality, we can have them.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>The economy is 100% contrived and what we declare it to be. The economy is an system that emerges from human behaviour. We can partially regulate it, but can't control it fully.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >The economy is an system that emerges from human behaviour Thanks for your reply. An economy doesn't simply "emerge" organically from behavior. This is most simply evidenced by the fact that we've devised a variety of economic systems.
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    I meant "emerges" in the sense of "displays properties of emergence". There are limits on what an economic system can and can't look like, as it's an emergent property of individual human behaviour, which is itself limited by (immutable) human biology. You can't, for example, have an economic system where farmers simultaneously have all of their output seized by the state and also work hard to optimise their operations and greatly exceed expectations.
    - unclebucknasty 5y ago
      >There are limits on what an economic system can and can't look like There really aren't. Part of why people believe this goes to my point: that there is a certain set of preconceived ideas about what an economy must be, as if based on something natural or immutable. For instance, your farming example assumes a very narrowly defined economic structure of incentives, etc. that simply begs the question. So, North American slavery might be a counterexample to your farmers. All of the slaves' output was seized, yet they worked with an industry well beyond what any modern economic optimization incentive could evoke. There may be a temptation to dismiss this example for obvious reasons, but the point is that was very much part of an economic system that was decided upon; along with incentives to include survival and avoiding brutality. Incentives in other systems include social status and other non-monetary remuneration. Again, it's all manufactured.
      - rytill 5y ago
        Okay, if it’s completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control, please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it. What, it’s really difficult? Those are the constraints.
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >if it's completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control... I'm not asserting that there are no constraints as in suggesting there are, say, unlimited natural resources. I'm guessing you weren't interpreting my statement so pedantically, but then I don't see how my assertion is even controversial otherwise. That is, of course I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice which would be outside of our control. >please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it That's not the standard here. It's possible that such a thing doesn't exist AND my assertion is true. Why do you think your "challenge" is dispositive?
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        >I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice that is outside of our control. How about you run an experiment? Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself, and give nothing to your wife. I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints.
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself...I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints. Ha! I take your point, but I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Even that example assumes that my wife would be deprived of resources. But, to your larger point, I'm not asserting that we can just rip up the current economic system and no one will care. I'm saying that these debates frequently take a form that suggests that there are other factors that prohibit change, beyond the fact that people will care.
machiaweliczny 5y ago
Time to learn about Stalin and communism. People who were forced to work destroyed machines for example, you shoot them and lose both labor and assets. So succesful economy has some natural constraints based on human motivation. I think capitalism works good on pricing these motivations although there's too much economy capture by financial class (as they define rules). Once home ownership is fixed I supect there might be some rebalancing of power.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Time to learn about Stalin and communism I'm not sure why people assume naivete when others raise the possibility of different economic models or take any issue with current modes of resource distribution. I actually find it naive that they seem to believe that there are exactly and only two possible economic paradigms, prescribed by natural law and existing at polar extremes. In this view, our only options are somehow unfettered laissez-faire capitalism or rank communism.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>The economy is 100% contrived and what we declare it to be. The economy is an system that emerges from human behaviour. We can partially regulate it, but can't control it fully.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>The economy is an system that emerges from human behaviour Thanks for your reply. An economy doesn't simply "emerge" organically from behavior. This is most simply evidenced by the fact that we've devised a variety of economic systems.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I meant "emerges" in the sense of "displays properties of emergence". There are limits on what an economic system can and can't look like, as it's an emergent property of individual human behaviour, which is itself limited by (immutable) human biology. You can't, for example, have an economic system where farmers simultaneously have all of their output seized by the state and also work hard to optimise their operations and greatly exceed expectations.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >There are limits on what an economic system can and can't look like There really aren't. Part of why people believe this goes to my point: that there is a certain set of preconceived ideas about what an economy must be, as if based on something natural or immutable. For instance, your farming example assumes a very narrowly defined economic structure of incentives, etc. that simply begs the question. So, North American slavery might be a counterexample to your farmers. All of the slaves' output was seized, yet they worked with an industry well beyond what any modern economic optimization incentive could evoke. There may be a temptation to dismiss this example for obvious reasons, but the point is that was very much part of an economic system that was decided upon; along with incentives to include survival and avoiding brutality. Incentives in other systems include social status and other non-monetary remuneration. Again, it's all manufactured.
    - rytill 5y ago
      Okay, if it’s completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control, please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it. What, it’s really difficult? Those are the constraints.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >if it's completely manufactured, with no constraints that are outside of our control... I'm not asserting that there are no constraints as in suggesting there are, say, unlimited natural resources. I'm guessing you weren't interpreting my statement so pedantically, but then I don't see how my assertion is even controversial otherwise. That is, of course I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice which would be outside of our control. >please describe a completely utopic economy where every human is satisfied with every aspect of it That's not the standard here. It's possible that such a thing doesn't exist AND my assertion is true. Why do you think your "challenge" is dispositive?
        AussieWog93 5y ago
        >I am referring to how we choose to distribute those natural resources, and of course there are no natural constraints on that choice that is outside of our control. How about you run an experiment? Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself, and give nothing to your wife. I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints.
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >Spend every single dollar of income that comes into the house on yourself...I think you'll learn very quickly that resource allocation in real world groups has constraints. Ha! I take your point, but I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Even that example assumes that my wife would be deprived of resources. But, to your larger point, I'm not asserting that we can just rip up the current economic system and no one will care. I'm saying that these debates frequently take a form that suggests that there are other factors that prohibit change, beyond the fact that people will care.

machiaweliczny 5y ago

Time to learn about Stalin and communism. People who were forced to work destroyed machines for example, you shoot them and lose both labor and assets. So succesful economy has some natural constraints based on human motivation. I think capitalism works good on pricing these motivations although there's too much economy capture by financial class (as they define rules). Once home ownership is fixed I supect there might be some rebalancing of power.

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Time to learn about Stalin and communism I'm not sure why people assume naivete when others raise the possibility of different economic models or take any issue with current modes of resource distribution. I actually find it naive that they seem to believe that there are exactly and only two possible economic paradigms, prescribed by natural law and existing at polar extremes. In this view, our only options are somehow unfettered laissez-faire capitalism or rank communism.