4 ms·

I'm pretty tired of this trope about blind self-interest being "rational", as if acting in the public interest is somehow "irrational" There are perfectly "rat

by cowpig 5y ago

I'm pretty tired of this trope about blind self-interest being "rational", as if acting in the public interest is somehow "irrational" There are perfectly "rational" ways of defending placing value in either. Further, public interest and self-interest are not concepts in direct opposition. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the best socio-political systems are the ones which best align the two. edit: Further thought: consumer protection laws exist to bring those two into better alignment. In a market where there are many small competitors, it wouldn't make economic sense for any individual to lobby to destroy these protections, as everyone is subject to the same rules. Amazon is large enough that tipping the scales in favor of the self-interest of its business affects it in an outsized way. I think a big part of the problem here is the size of the market actor.

missedthecue 5y ago
"Rational self-interest" is a specific academic economics term. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/economic-analysis-monetary-policy/rational-self-interest-definition https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/economic-analysis-mon...
- cowpig 5y ago
  A specific academic term that has philosophical implications that I'm saying are harmful edit: maybe not in all contexts, but certainly in the context of the comment I was replying to
- omnicognate 5y ago
  That doesn't change anything the post you're replying to said. Rational self-interest in that sense is a simplifying assumption made as part of the process of mathematically modelling economic behaviour. It's not a prescription for how a real world company like Amazon should behave. Somebody will probably now bring up "fiduciary duty" and "shareholder value" which are almost as irrelevant.
  - missedthecue 5y ago
    Why should we expect Amazon (or anyone for that matter) to engage in behaviour that favors you at their own expense? That makes no sense to me. Of course they should act in their own rational self interest, just like you and I do.
    - omnicognate 5y ago
      The point I made wasn't about what Amazon should or shouldn't do. It was about the irrelevance of the economic modelling concept of "rational self-interest" (which describes behaviour, rather than prescribing it) to that question. If you think humans or companies should work solely on the basis of self-interest then you're in good company (especially if you're from the US, though it's far from a uniquely American view). I'm not going to dissuade you by arguing with you on HN, but I do disagree. I hope at some point you and the many, many people with similar views learn to look at the world a bit differently.
      - missedthecue 5y ago
        How is it irrelevant to model that way when we're in agreement that everyone tends to act in their own rational self interest?
        holonomically 5y ago
        In what sense are your actions here on HN supporting your rational self interest?
1cvmask 5y ago
I am using the academic definition of rational actor. But the true irrational ones are the voters. They elect the same folks with a track record of serving the corporate elites and then get upset when the same politicians act against them. Blame the voters. Voters have agency. The voters are the enablers of the politicians.
- klabb3 5y ago
  > Blame the voters. Voters have agency. Meta: I appreciate your candidness in getting to the point, I wish more political debate was like this instead of wrapped in layers of fluff. I disagree though, and I'd go further and say selectively assigning agency - especially on a binary basis - distorts the solution space and waters down any good faith attempts to further the discussion, albeit unintentionally. Our implementation of democracy is not a magically balanced game where incentives line up in perfection. As a result, you cannot point to an outcome and blame the players any more than you can do in a video game with a shitty meta. In reality, players interpret and influence the rules of the game itself. In particular, our modern version of democracy is based on the fundamentals of marketing - where actors influence (aka nudge) aggregate behavior and sentiments, to get what they want. This system is vulnerable to feedback cycles leading to large concentrations of power - both political and corporate. The last decade is a prime example of both - not just in the US, but globally.
- uoaei 5y ago
  > I am using the academic definition of rational actor. No you're not. You're assuming specific time and influence horizons for what can be considered an "outcome" of allegedly rational actions, and using that to retroactively define rationality. If we consider "avoiding fucking up the entire planet so that the economy can boom by including more participants and economic activity, so that Amazon can grow even bigger and more profitable" to be the outcome that we are considering, then what Amazon does is highly irrational.
- sobkas 5y ago
  <Blame the voters. Voters have agency. The voters are the enablers of the politicians. And then we have gerrymandering and voter suppression, good luck with getting a vote that counts.

by cowpig 5y ago

missedthecue 5y ago

"Rational self-interest" is a specific academic economics term. https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/economic-analysis-monetary-policy/rational-self-interest-definition https://thebusinessprofessor.com/en_US/economic-analysis-mon...

cowpig 5y ago
A specific academic term that has philosophical implications that I'm saying are harmful edit: maybe not in all contexts, but certainly in the context of the comment I was replying to
omnicognate 5y ago
That doesn't change anything the post you're replying to said. Rational self-interest in that sense is a simplifying assumption made as part of the process of mathematically modelling economic behaviour. It's not a prescription for how a real world company like Amazon should behave. Somebody will probably now bring up "fiduciary duty" and "shareholder value" which are almost as irrelevant.
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Why should we expect Amazon (or anyone for that matter) to engage in behaviour that favors you at their own expense? That makes no sense to me. Of course they should act in their own rational self interest, just like you and I do.
  - omnicognate 5y ago
    The point I made wasn't about what Amazon should or shouldn't do. It was about the irrelevance of the economic modelling concept of "rational self-interest" (which describes behaviour, rather than prescribing it) to that question. If you think humans or companies should work solely on the basis of self-interest then you're in good company (especially if you're from the US, though it's far from a uniquely American view). I'm not going to dissuade you by arguing with you on HN, but I do disagree. I hope at some point you and the many, many people with similar views learn to look at the world a bit differently.
    - missedthecue 5y ago
      How is it irrelevant to model that way when we're in agreement that everyone tends to act in their own rational self interest?
      - holonomically 5y ago
        In what sense are your actions here on HN supporting your rational self interest?

1cvmask 5y ago

I am using the academic definition of rational actor. But the true irrational ones are the voters. They elect the same folks with a track record of serving the corporate elites and then get upset when the same politicians act against them. Blame the voters. Voters have agency. The voters are the enablers of the politicians.

klabb3 5y ago
> Blame the voters. Voters have agency. Meta: I appreciate your candidness in getting to the point, I wish more political debate was like this instead of wrapped in layers of fluff. I disagree though, and I'd go further and say selectively assigning agency - especially on a binary basis - distorts the solution space and waters down any good faith attempts to further the discussion, albeit unintentionally. Our implementation of democracy is not a magically balanced game where incentives line up in perfection. As a result, you cannot point to an outcome and blame the players any more than you can do in a video game with a shitty meta. In reality, players interpret and influence the rules of the game itself. In particular, our modern version of democracy is based on the fundamentals of marketing - where actors influence (aka nudge) aggregate behavior and sentiments, to get what they want. This system is vulnerable to feedback cycles leading to large concentrations of power - both political and corporate. The last decade is a prime example of both - not just in the US, but globally.
uoaei 5y ago
> I am using the academic definition of rational actor. No you're not. You're assuming specific time and influence horizons for what can be considered an "outcome" of allegedly rational actions, and using that to retroactively define rationality. If we consider "avoiding fucking up the entire planet so that the economy can boom by including more participants and economic activity, so that Amazon can grow even bigger and more profitable" to be the outcome that we are considering, then what Amazon does is highly irrational.
sobkas 5y ago
<Blame the voters. Voters have agency. The voters are the enablers of the politicians. And then we have gerrymandering and voter suppression, good luck with getting a vote that counts.