6 ms·

Should an economy serve humanity or should humanity serve the economy? It's largely a moral choice, but how a population answers it determines their political r

Should an economy serve humanity or should humanity serve the economy? It's largely a moral choice, but how a population answers it determines their political response

paganel 5y ago
> humanity serve the economy Humanity is economy, no money on the table means no food and no shelter.
- h0l0cube 5y ago
  Certainly one predicates the other (i.e., there's no economy without humanity) and it's quite impractical for humanity to exist at any scale without trade, but whether it makes sense to sacrifice human life for 'the greater good of the economy' or to sacrifice economic function for 'the greater good of humanity' entails a moral choice
  - dnautics 5y ago
    Technically you can have economies that don't operate with money; economies are just a (not necessarily good) quantitative lens to analyze human behavior.
    - h0l0cube 5y ago
      I never made an assertion to the contrary, but I think economies are also useful for permitting specialization (and hence supply chains, to create more complex goods) and amortizing local disruptions to supply (e.g. food stores, trade) and probably a bunch of other useful things. They can also enable large scale waste, environmental destruction, debt traps, extreme inequality etc
      - dnautics 5y ago
        No you're still misunderstanding. Even in for example, a super primitive society, there are, say "obligation economies" that exist even though nobody inside the society is using it to understand their situation. Likewise, in a modern society there are economies of waste, economies of environmental destruction etc. The "economies" are just quantitative frameworks for understanding human interaction.
        h0l0cube 5y ago
        Ah sure, I suppose I'm talking about what pops into mind when most people here the word 'economy', but certainly there's more going on as you've noted. When I use the word, I'm talking something a more to do with the systems of trade of goods and services, currency, etc. - the health of such systems are the concern of many anti-lockdown proponents.
MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
In modern times, you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve. This isn't star trek socialism. It's a survival of the fittest environment. The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power. Even among private institutions. Look how many took advantage of the government PPP loans or outright laid off workers just for the hell of it. The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set. But because we have to protect the already dying, lets shut down everything and make life miserable for everyone! Lets not just tell these people to stay inside and be shut ins even though we could've!
- geofft 5y ago
  The economy, as you know it, exists because government says, "Nope, we know best!" It is a survival of the fittest environment solely because the people in charge of the government don't want Star Trek socialism. It is true that the majority of COVID deaths are among the population that one government called "life unworthy of life." But the decision to let them die off for the greater good is, itself, a form of saying "Nope, we know best." When a pandemic hits, you don't get to not choose a response.
  - MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
    Sweden did and theyre fine...
    - geofft 5y ago
      My point is simply that Sweden chose a response. You are absolutely welcome to argue that they chose a better response than what others chose, that they served the greater good for cheaper, that the surviving Swedes are happier. But everyone - most especially the Swedish government ministers who made that choice - will tell you that Sweden said, we think we know better, so we're doing this.
- 5y ago

Should an economy serve humanity or should humanity serve the economy? It's largely a moral choice, but how a population answers it determines their political response

paganel 5y ago

> humanity serve the economy Humanity is economy, no money on the table means no food and no shelter.

h0l0cube 5y ago
Certainly one predicates the other (i.e., there's no economy without humanity) and it's quite impractical for humanity to exist at any scale without trade, but whether it makes sense to sacrifice human life for 'the greater good of the economy' or to sacrifice economic function for 'the greater good of humanity' entails a moral choice
- dnautics 5y ago
  Technically you can have economies that don't operate with money; economies are just a (not necessarily good) quantitative lens to analyze human behavior.
  - h0l0cube 5y ago
    I never made an assertion to the contrary, but I think economies are also useful for permitting specialization (and hence supply chains, to create more complex goods) and amortizing local disruptions to supply (e.g. food stores, trade) and probably a bunch of other useful things. They can also enable large scale waste, environmental destruction, debt traps, extreme inequality etc
    - dnautics 5y ago
      No you're still misunderstanding. Even in for example, a super primitive society, there are, say "obligation economies" that exist even though nobody inside the society is using it to understand their situation. Likewise, in a modern society there are economies of waste, economies of environmental destruction etc. The "economies" are just quantitative frameworks for understanding human interaction.
      - h0l0cube 5y ago
        Ah sure, I suppose I'm talking about what pops into mind when most people here the word 'economy', but certainly there's more going on as you've noted. When I use the word, I'm talking something a more to do with the systems of trade of goods and services, currency, etc. - the health of such systems are the concern of many anti-lockdown proponents.

MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago

In modern times, you serve an economy because if you don't, you starve. This isn't star trek socialism. It's a survival of the fittest environment. The government stepping in and saying "NOPE! WE KNOW BEST!" and then basically forcing every citizen to restructure their lives for something that couldn't even remotely be contained just shows the abuse of power. Even among private institutions. Look how many took advantage of the government PPP loans or outright laid off workers just for the hell of it. The majority of the COVID deaths can be attributed to the old, obese, and sickly people. But most institutions serve people outside of that set. But because we have to protect the already dying, lets shut down everything and make life miserable for everyone! Lets not just tell these people to stay inside and be shut ins even though we could've!

geofft 5y ago
The economy, as you know it, exists because government says, "Nope, we know best!" It is a survival of the fittest environment solely because the people in charge of the government don't want Star Trek socialism. It is true that the majority of COVID deaths are among the population that one government called "life unworthy of life." But the decision to let them die off for the greater good is, itself, a form of saying "Nope, we know best." When a pandemic hits, you don't get to not choose a response.
- MeinBlutIstBlau 5y ago
  Sweden did and theyre fine...
  - geofft 5y ago
    My point is simply that Sweden chose a response. You are absolutely welcome to argue that they chose a better response than what others chose, that they served the greater good for cheaper, that the surviving Swedes are happier. But everyone - most especially the Swedish government ministers who made that choice - will tell you that Sweden said, we think we know better, so we're doing this.
5y ago