3 ms·

>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 im

>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.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >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). I didn't argue that they wouldn't. I argued that they didn't. This is not a hypothetical; history has shown that people use different, more globally optimal strategies when they have a personal stake in the outcome. Slaves worked hard, but they did not invent tractors. Salesmen sell significantly less if they don't get a commission. >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. I don't think we can equally as well optimise for arbitrary variables. Sure, we can tilt the balance one way or another in favour of total wealth vs. inequality, but if people can't compete for status by providing (economically) valuable goods and services to society, they will compete in other ways.
  - unclebucknasty 5y ago
    >history has shown that people use different, more globally optimal strategies when they have a personal stake in the outcome Seems the goalposts are moving a bit. I'll just reiterate that your notion of "globally optimal" (and the desirability you appear to assign) seems to rest on the current economic design. That is, globally optimal in what way? Produces the greatest net output? Because GDP tends to correlate well with some factors we might consider socially desirable, but poorly with others. But... >I don't think we can equally as well optimise for arbitrary variables >Slaves worked hard, but they did not invent tractors ...this discussion is getting mired in the weeds a bit. My initial point was simply that economic systems are not the product of immutable, natural forces. We chose the model we have, and we can choose others. You're countering by effectively saying those choices have consequences, primarily along the lines of productivity impacts, incentives, etc. But, I've not suggested that there would not be consequences. In fact, the point is that there would be, and this is why we're we are—not because of some physics. So, your arguments are effectively an acknowledgment that we can make changes and optimize for different variables. I think that's being confused with a discussion about the desirability of such changes--which I've tried not to engage in.

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.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>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). I didn't argue that they wouldn't. I argued that they didn't. This is not a hypothetical; history has shown that people use different, more globally optimal strategies when they have a personal stake in the outcome. Slaves worked hard, but they did not invent tractors. Salesmen sell significantly less if they don't get a commission. >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. I don't think we can equally as well optimise for arbitrary variables. Sure, we can tilt the balance one way or another in favour of total wealth vs. inequality, but if people can't compete for status by providing (economically) valuable goods and services to society, they will compete in other ways.
- unclebucknasty 5y ago
  >history has shown that people use different, more globally optimal strategies when they have a personal stake in the outcome Seems the goalposts are moving a bit. I'll just reiterate that your notion of "globally optimal" (and the desirability you appear to assign) seems to rest on the current economic design. That is, globally optimal in what way? Produces the greatest net output? Because GDP tends to correlate well with some factors we might consider socially desirable, but poorly with others. But... >I don't think we can equally as well optimise for arbitrary variables >Slaves worked hard, but they did not invent tractors ...this discussion is getting mired in the weeds a bit. My initial point was simply that economic systems are not the product of immutable, natural forces. We chose the model we have, and we can choose others. You're countering by effectively saying those choices have consequences, primarily along the lines of productivity impacts, incentives, etc. But, I've not suggested that there would not be consequences. In fact, the point is that there would be, and this is why we're we are—not because of some physics. So, your arguments are effectively an acknowledgment that we can make changes and optimize for different variables. I think that's being confused with a discussion about the desirability of such changes--which I've tried not to engage in.