4 ms·

>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 cer

>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.
      - AussieWog93 5y ago
        >I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Honestly, no. I'm mostly just reacting to the things you're saying under the assumption that you seem to be advocating Maoist principles.
        unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >you seem to be advocating Maoist principles I've actually tried to avoid advocating specific principles (although I'll allow that some may have leaked through). But, FWIW, I don't think the choices are between unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown Maoism. IMO that common framing is part of the notion of immutable laws and fixed, mutually exclusive systems, etc. In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>there is a certain set of preconceived ideas about what an economy must be, as if based on something natural or immutable. Because it is. Human biological impulses are the basis of all economic activity, and they are natural and immutable. Yes, they're malleable to a point, but only to a point. Until we start either genetically/pharmacalogically engineering the human mind or replacing all humans with AIs, you simply can't have an economy where, say, socially isolated meth heads are a dominant political and economic elite. >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. Really? How many of the slaves developed new agricultural technology, reduced waste through novel management techniques or selectively bred new forms of plants and animals in order to make their masters' farms more productive? The only one I've heard of was Edmond Albius, and from all accounts he had a very unusual relationship with his master (more master-apprentice than master-slave).
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >Human biological impulses are the basis of all economic activity, and they are natural and immutable. I think you may be missing my point here. For instance, what people need to subsist (food, shelter, water, etc.) is immutable. However, what is mutable is how we choose to distribute the resources that satisfy those subsistence "impulses". >socially isolated meth heads are a dominant political and economic elite. This essentially reduces my assertion to one of "nothing means anything". Of course, that's not what I'm arguing. >How many of the slaves developed new agricultural technology... You said farmers wouldn't seek to optimize if the state seized all of their output (i.e. removed their incentive). I countered that they absolutely would if forced to do so with the threat of death or brutality (i.e. this certainly motivated slaves). My point was that we choose the incentives. Your farmer example is just the product of such a mutable choice. In general, you're emphasizing the value of an "optimized economy" per our current economic system. So, again, your argument begs the question. But, the benefits of productivity optimizations generally accrue disproportionately to profit-takers, because that's what we've selected. Irrespective of your opinion of that decision, the point is that we could've equally as well optimized for general welfare, lesser productivity, and a more even distribution. Would some be upset about a sudden shift to such an economy? Of course, because they will be relative net-losers. But that doesn't represent some immutable law which precludes it.

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.
    - AussieWog93 5y ago
      >I think you're having trouble breaking out of the current economic frame. Honestly, no. I'm mostly just reacting to the things you're saying under the assumption that you seem to be advocating Maoist principles.
      - unclebucknasty 5y ago
        >you seem to be advocating Maoist principles I've actually tried to avoid advocating specific principles (although I'll allow that some may have leaked through). But, FWIW, I don't think the choices are between unfettered, laissez-faire capitalism and full-blown Maoism. IMO that common framing is part of the notion of immutable laws and fixed, mutually exclusive systems, etc. In practical terms: I'm a capitalist. But, I also believe we need moderating forces to tame inequality; some level of which is untenable to the point of actually being anti-capitalist.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>there is a certain set of preconceived ideas about what an economy must be, as if based on something natural or immutable. Because it is. Human biological impulses are the basis of all economic activity, and they are natural and immutable. Yes, they're malleable to a point, but only to a point. Until we start either genetically/pharmacalogically engineering the human mind or replacing all humans with AIs, you simply can't have an economy where, say, socially isolated meth heads are a dominant political and economic elite. >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. Really? How many of the slaves developed new agricultural technology, reduced waste through novel management techniques or selectively bred new forms of plants and animals in order to make their masters' farms more productive? The only one I've heard of was Edmond Albius, and from all accounts he had a very unusual relationship with his master (more master-apprentice than master-slave).

unclebucknasty 5y ago
>Human biological impulses are the basis of all economic activity, and they are natural and immutable. I think you may be missing my point here. For instance, what people need to subsist (food, shelter, water, etc.) is immutable. However, what is mutable is how we choose to distribute the resources that satisfy those subsistence "impulses". >socially isolated meth heads are a dominant political and economic elite. This essentially reduces my assertion to one of "nothing means anything". Of course, that's not what I'm arguing. >How many of the slaves developed new agricultural technology... You said farmers wouldn't seek to optimize if the state seized all of their output (i.e. removed their incentive). I countered that they absolutely would if forced to do so with the threat of death or brutality (i.e. this certainly motivated slaves). My point was that we choose the incentives. Your farmer example is just the product of such a mutable choice. In general, you're emphasizing the value of an "optimized economy" per our current economic system. So, again, your argument begs the question. But, the benefits of productivity optimizations generally accrue disproportionately to profit-takers, because that's what we've selected. Irrespective of your opinion of that decision, the point is that we could've equally as well optimized for general welfare, lesser productivity, and a more even distribution. Would some be upset about a sudden shift to such an economy? Of course, because they will be relative net-losers. But that doesn't represent some immutable law which precludes it.