5 ms·

the parent is critiquing the argument that we are all homo economicus - an agent whose primary function is to operate within the market at maximum efficiency to

the parent is critiquing the argument that we are all homo economicus - an agent whose primary function is to operate within the market at maximum efficiency to optimise for profit. The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing. The GP is encouraging us to act like robots by living our lives in accordance with market calculations, not human actualisation and need-fulfilment. It's an ideological position, and a harmful one at that. We aren't all totally independent actors competing in a ruthless market to maximise profits.

KptMarchewa 5y ago
OP did not say that you have to optimize for profit. However, they said that we have to optimize for something. In other words, there's opportunity cost to everything we do.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  > You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. > It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal hazard, reputational hazard, etc. This is an argument that you have the responsibility alone to optimise your behaviour in the market. Yes, your utility function could be oriented towards something other than profit, but OP specifically oriented their argument towards getting "good returns". While this is the direction that neoliberal capitalism pushes you in, what with the social alienation and commodification of everything in life, but that's because it's not aligned with human wellbeing. Your self-image should not be one of a company optimising its market behaviour; this precludes socialising, spending time in nature, exercising for reasons beyond increased economic productivity. It reduces human existence down to rational behaviour in a market. To present an alternative, because criticism in a vacuum isn't very effective: I personally think that you should optimise your involvement in the economy, so that you are minimally involved in the economy, so that you can spend your precious little time on earth doing things that actually matter to you - whether that's social relationships, hobbies, communities, whatever. The market is something to be avoided, not exploited. To do this effectively you have to understand the market, sure, but it's the same way an accountant for an enterprise company has to deeply understand tax law in order to avoid paying taxes. If that's also what OP was arguing for then that's a whole other thing, but that's not the impression I got at all with the whole "you are a company, start acting like one" spiel.
  - KptMarchewa 5y ago
    "Good returns" are what you'll make of your time that's worthwhile to you. The interpretation that this means only money is entirely your interpretation.
nautilius 5y ago
Caffeine doesn't say that anywhere, though. Quite the opposite.
danielvaughn 5y ago
I'm not sure if this is a new trend, or if I've only just begun noticing it over the last decade. People seem to have completely lost the ability to infer the meaning of words if it lies beyond face value. What a trite, shallow interpretation.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  my point is that we should oppose the system that forces everybody to be in market competition with each other. I understand the position being forwarded, but I think it's describing a system that's antithetical to human values and thus should not be just accepted as a fact like gravity. Perhaps it is you who is being shallow and trite, not understanding the actual objection I have. I know that what the OP is saying is a description of how to optimise your economic standing - I've done it plenty myself because optimisation comes naturally to me; I'm saying that's a shite way to live and invest your time and energy.
  - jka 5y ago
    Markets can behave in ways that are either competitive (my tomatoes are better than your tomatoes) or co-operative (my tomatoes are a perfect complement to your cheese). And sometimes they morph from one mode into the other.
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Maybe this is a definitional argument, but I'd say the latter would be complementary, not cooperative. A cooperative model is one where people work together to achieve an outcome, like two kids working together on a school assignment. Outside an individual company, competition is favoured over cooperation, except when companies work together on e.g. supply chains.
      - jka 5y ago
        Yep, you're correct about that terminology, thanks. I'll leave my comment as-is because it'll be less confusing for anyone reading yours. It's possible that companies (knowingly or unwittingly) co-operate under some circumstances, though - even if competition is generally the {expected/favoured} model.
BobbyJo 5y ago
> The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing I don't see how an argument that agrees with the parent is counter argument. They literally said we all need to look out for our own well being, and a part of that is managing our participation in voluntary exchange. > We aren't all totally independent actors competing in a ruthless market to maximise profits. I missed the part where the parent said that. Where was it?
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. While that's an accurate description of neoliberal economics, I'm arguing that it's neither natural, nor necessarily productive, nor conducive to human wellbeing to mould one's behaviour to fit that system. Or to be more concrete: you're wasting your life studying the labour market for opportunities, learning new disciplines to increase your wage, reading through employment contracts looking for advantages (obviously you should check for big fuck-you statements in contracts, just for self-protection). Not only is the market irrational, such that behaviour based on a rational model of the market is a poor guarantee of positive outcomes, but that living such a life based on market rationality is pretty immiserating and misaligned with what actually makes people happy.
  - BobbyJo 5y ago
    > The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. Parent never said totally independent, just that the assumption is the most useful operating mode. "Don't jump in a pool expecting a life guard" is good advice whether there is a tower nearby or not. They also never said optimizing our participation should be a primary goal, but that our participation needs to be managed with our actual goals in mind. It's like he told everyone they should exercise and the counter argument is "Not everyone should quit their jobs to be a fitness model". It's nonsense.
bigbluedots 5y ago
The parent is critiquing an argument that the OP did not make.

KptMarchewa 5y ago

OP did not say that you have to optimize for profit. However, they said that we have to optimize for something. In other words, there's opportunity cost to everything we do.

beaconstudios 5y ago
> You are the boss of a company of one. Your company sells labor to the labor market, it makes investments in assets, it borrows funds, etc. It’s your job to decide how that company is run. It’s your job to decide what investments that company needs to make to get good returns. > It’s also your job to interpret the contracts your company enters into and decide what is acceptable, and to appropriately risk-manage legal hazard, reputational hazard, etc. This is an argument that you have the responsibility alone to optimise your behaviour in the market. Yes, your utility function could be oriented towards something other than profit, but OP specifically oriented their argument towards getting "good returns". While this is the direction that neoliberal capitalism pushes you in, what with the social alienation and commodification of everything in life, but that's because it's not aligned with human wellbeing. Your self-image should not be one of a company optimising its market behaviour; this precludes socialising, spending time in nature, exercising for reasons beyond increased economic productivity. It reduces human existence down to rational behaviour in a market. To present an alternative, because criticism in a vacuum isn't very effective: I personally think that you should optimise your involvement in the economy, so that you are minimally involved in the economy, so that you can spend your precious little time on earth doing things that actually matter to you - whether that's social relationships, hobbies, communities, whatever. The market is something to be avoided, not exploited. To do this effectively you have to understand the market, sure, but it's the same way an accountant for an enterprise company has to deeply understand tax law in order to avoid paying taxes. If that's also what OP was arguing for then that's a whole other thing, but that's not the impression I got at all with the whole "you are a company, start acting like one" spiel.
- KptMarchewa 5y ago
  "Good returns" are what you'll make of your time that's worthwhile to you. The interpretation that this means only money is entirely your interpretation.

nautilius 5y ago

Caffeine doesn't say that anywhere, though. Quite the opposite.

danielvaughn 5y ago

I'm not sure if this is a new trend, or if I've only just begun noticing it over the last decade. People seem to have completely lost the ability to infer the meaning of words if it lies beyond face value. What a trite, shallow interpretation.

beaconstudios 5y ago
my point is that we should oppose the system that forces everybody to be in market competition with each other. I understand the position being forwarded, but I think it's describing a system that's antithetical to human values and thus should not be just accepted as a fact like gravity. Perhaps it is you who is being shallow and trite, not understanding the actual objection I have. I know that what the OP is saying is a description of how to optimise your economic standing - I've done it plenty myself because optimisation comes naturally to me; I'm saying that's a shite way to live and invest your time and energy.
- jka 5y ago
  Markets can behave in ways that are either competitive (my tomatoes are better than your tomatoes) or co-operative (my tomatoes are a perfect complement to your cheese). And sometimes they morph from one mode into the other.
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Maybe this is a definitional argument, but I'd say the latter would be complementary, not cooperative. A cooperative model is one where people work together to achieve an outcome, like two kids working together on a school assignment. Outside an individual company, competition is favoured over cooperation, except when companies work together on e.g. supply chains.
    - jka 5y ago
      Yep, you're correct about that terminology, thanks. I'll leave my comment as-is because it'll be less confusing for anyone reading yours. It's possible that companies (knowingly or unwittingly) co-operate under some circumstances, though - even if competition is generally the {expected/favoured} model.

BobbyJo 5y ago

> The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing I don't see how an argument that agrees with the parent is counter argument. They literally said we all need to look out for our own well being, and a part of that is managing our participation in voluntary exchange. > We aren't all totally independent actors competing in a ruthless market to maximise profits. I missed the part where the parent said that. Where was it?

beaconstudios 5y ago
The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. While that's an accurate description of neoliberal economics, I'm arguing that it's neither natural, nor necessarily productive, nor conducive to human wellbeing to mould one's behaviour to fit that system. Or to be more concrete: you're wasting your life studying the labour market for opportunities, learning new disciplines to increase your wage, reading through employment contracts looking for advantages (obviously you should check for big fuck-you statements in contracts, just for self-protection). Not only is the market irrational, such that behaviour based on a rational model of the market is a poor guarantee of positive outcomes, but that living such a life based on market rationality is pretty immiserating and misaligned with what actually makes people happy.
- BobbyJo 5y ago
  > The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market. Parent never said totally independent, just that the assumption is the most useful operating mode. "Don't jump in a pool expecting a life guard" is good advice whether there is a tower nearby or not. They also never said optimizing our participation should be a primary goal, but that our participation needs to be managed with our actual goals in mind. It's like he told everyone they should exercise and the counter argument is "Not everyone should quit their jobs to be a fitness model". It's nonsense.

bigbluedots 5y ago

The parent is critiquing an argument that the OP did not make.