>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

>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.