5 ms·

The idea that the only, or even primary, incentive to do stuff is money is an invention of 20th century economics. It was then tragically taught to most educate

The idea that the only, or even primary, incentive to do stuff is money is an invention of 20th century economics. It was then tragically taught to most educated people, especially business leaders. That made it a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, along with the shareholder value myth (the idea that companies should be (may even be required to be) entirely short term profit motivated out of a duty to shareholders. These are among the most harmful ideas from the 20th century. To answer your original question, no money is not the only incentive to do stuff. But in Econ 101 that assumption is made to make the math easy.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
lotsofpulp 5y ago
The incentive to do work is to gain power. The power to feed and house your kids, the power to not be tortured or killed if you are a slave, the power to obtain other things you want. Money is a proxy for power. Has a better alternative proxy to power been demonstrated to exist?
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Do all people want power? Seems like Nietzsche would probably agree, but Damocles would voice objections. Seems like what most people want is something more akin to self-determination. It isn't quite power, and it isn't quite freedom, but somewhere in the middle.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    What is self determination? Having the freedom to do what you want to do is the same as having the power to do what you want to do. Having the power to attract your desired mate is also a power, and it involves showing you have power.
    - marginalia_nu 5y ago
      The nuance is in the contrast between freedom from compulsion and the ability to compel. Most care about the former but power only grants the latter. Do you want to enslave your partner? Compel them to live with you against their will?
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        The power to be free from compulsion is also power. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but it is all on one spectrum. Do I want to enslave my partner or compel them to live with me against their will? No. I am sure others in history have wanted that and still do today. But the important thing is you need power to not be enslaved by others, even if that just means living within the borders of a tribe of people who act against slavery. Since money is a proxy for power, and since resources are finite and we do not live in this world without effecting others, I would say the distinction of having the power to be free from compulsion and the power to compel others is very, very murky. For example, I am not using my power to directly compel someone with violence like a slave owner, but I know that living the quality of life that people in the top 10% to 20% of the US do is for sure compelling others to live with more pollution and/or fewer resources due to me consuming so many resources. I am pretty sure this claim could be made for anyone living in a detached single family house, or even people with more than 2 kids. Or maybe even 1 kid. If we go back to the original claim: > The idea that the only, or even primary, incentive to do stuff is money is an invention of 20th century economics. Yes, people like doing things for their community or helping others here and there, but functionally no one is going to change bed pans in a nursing home without getting something in return.
        marginalia_nu 5y ago
        It is questionable whether these two ever actually met, but the moral of the story is relevant so I'll repeat the tale. Alexander the Great, the embodiment of power, approached notorious hobo philosopher Diogenes the Cynic and asked if there was anything he can do for him. Sunbathing Diogenes asks Alexander if he wouldn't mind stepping to the side a bit, as he is blocking the light. Alexander is able to compel armies and lay countries to ruin, but Diogenes is resistant to all compulsion but is without land, possessions, rank, title, nobility, reputation, and so on. There is nothing you can take away from him he hasn't already given up, no hardship you can impose on him that he does not willingly endure. Even the times he is de facto enslaved, he is still free, because he willingly subjects himself to any punishment. It would be an absurd conclusion that the reason Diogenes is able to make a mockery of this request is because this homeless man is more powerful than Alexander the Great.
beaconstudios 5y ago
That's essentially modernism (or at least, its economic side); there's a reason postmodernism is hot right now, and it's because modernism is both wrong and rubbish.
gruez 5y ago
> along with the shareholder value myth (the idea that companies should be (may even be required to be) entirely short term profit motivated out of a duty to shareholders The only myth here is you thinking that "shareholder value" = "short term profits". Amazon (in the past) and uber are counterexamples of that.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

lotsofpulp 5y ago

The incentive to do work is to gain power. The power to feed and house your kids, the power to not be tortured or killed if you are a slave, the power to obtain other things you want. Money is a proxy for power. Has a better alternative proxy to power been demonstrated to exist?

marginalia_nu 5y ago
Do all people want power? Seems like Nietzsche would probably agree, but Damocles would voice objections. Seems like what most people want is something more akin to self-determination. It isn't quite power, and it isn't quite freedom, but somewhere in the middle.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  What is self determination? Having the freedom to do what you want to do is the same as having the power to do what you want to do. Having the power to attract your desired mate is also a power, and it involves showing you have power.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    The nuance is in the contrast between freedom from compulsion and the ability to compel. Most care about the former but power only grants the latter. Do you want to enslave your partner? Compel them to live with you against their will?
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      The power to be free from compulsion is also power. I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but it is all on one spectrum. Do I want to enslave my partner or compel them to live with me against their will? No. I am sure others in history have wanted that and still do today. But the important thing is you need power to not be enslaved by others, even if that just means living within the borders of a tribe of people who act against slavery. Since money is a proxy for power, and since resources are finite and we do not live in this world without effecting others, I would say the distinction of having the power to be free from compulsion and the power to compel others is very, very murky. For example, I am not using my power to directly compel someone with violence like a slave owner, but I know that living the quality of life that people in the top 10% to 20% of the US do is for sure compelling others to live with more pollution and/or fewer resources due to me consuming so many resources. I am pretty sure this claim could be made for anyone living in a detached single family house, or even people with more than 2 kids. Or maybe even 1 kid. If we go back to the original claim: > The idea that the only, or even primary, incentive to do stuff is money is an invention of 20th century economics. Yes, people like doing things for their community or helping others here and there, but functionally no one is going to change bed pans in a nursing home without getting something in return.
      - marginalia_nu 5y ago
        It is questionable whether these two ever actually met, but the moral of the story is relevant so I'll repeat the tale. Alexander the Great, the embodiment of power, approached notorious hobo philosopher Diogenes the Cynic and asked if there was anything he can do for him. Sunbathing Diogenes asks Alexander if he wouldn't mind stepping to the side a bit, as he is blocking the light. Alexander is able to compel armies and lay countries to ruin, but Diogenes is resistant to all compulsion but is without land, possessions, rank, title, nobility, reputation, and so on. There is nothing you can take away from him he hasn't already given up, no hardship you can impose on him that he does not willingly endure. Even the times he is de facto enslaved, he is still free, because he willingly subjects himself to any punishment. It would be an absurd conclusion that the reason Diogenes is able to make a mockery of this request is because this homeless man is more powerful than Alexander the Great.

beaconstudios 5y ago

That's essentially modernism (or at least, its economic side); there's a reason postmodernism is hot right now, and it's because modernism is both wrong and rubbish.

gruez 5y ago

> along with the shareholder value myth (the idea that companies should be (may even be required to be) entirely short term profit motivated out of a duty to shareholders The only myth here is you thinking that "shareholder value" = "short term profits". Amazon (in the past) and uber are counterexamples of that.