4 ms·

Same, By this definition you shouldn't invest anywhere where the supply is low and demand is high, which by very consequence rules out all investments.

by kamaal 4y ago

Jcowell 4y ago
I believe the unsaid prerequisite here is the investment subject being a human necessity (whether or not owning a home is a human necessity is another argument)
chmod775 4y ago
All forms of investment are either predatory or rent-seeking?
- kamaal 4y ago
  Unfortunately yes. Even the pie fallacy argument is subject to certain conditions which are often false. For economy to work beyond pie fallacy you need situations where most of the economy is driven by people who make wealth by creating things out of nothing. That is purely knowledge work jobs. Almost any where, where you need a raw material as an input to make a thing, the supply of that is limited, and therefore subject to these demand-supply issues(predatory behaviour/rent seeking). This extends to things like buying a plumber's service. If the number of plumbers are limited, and their time is limited(which it is), and there more people who need their services than plumbers going around. Plumbers are going to charge a premium for putting you up their priority queue. That is what you are ready to pay to buy their services before others could get a chance. This doesn't mean its predatory. Its what you are willing to pay to buy their time. Any other way of settling this is bonkers, If the price is fixed and the queue if FIFO, why should you be given a special exception and moved up the queue. And more importantly why should the plumber settle for lower pay when clearly there is a demand for his services. But on the short run, everything even in knowledge economy work, money is made literally by moving it from person A to person B. Hence A wins at the expense of B. Even on the longer run most people lack the resources, patience and overall life situations to make decision over such long periods of time.
  - chmod775 4y ago
    I had trouble parsing this argument. You lost me way at the beginning: > For economy to work beyond pie fallacy you need situations where most of the economy is driven by people who make wealth by creating things out of nothing. It's unclear whether you're trying to propose an alternative model here ("beyond?") or are expanding upon something you call a fallacy but still use as the basis of your argument. > Almost any where, where you need a raw material as an input to make a thing, the supply of that is limited, and therefore subject to these demand-supply issues(predatory behaviour/rent seeking). I don't see how rent-seeking fits into that, so I'm going to assume you're talking about predatory investments here. Why we are fixating on goods and specifically on acquiring them for some process I don't know either. > But on the short run, everything even in knowledge economy work, money is made literally by moving it from person A to person B. Hence A wins at the expense of B. The other way around maybe? Does either make sense? If I invest in your company, I am giving you money: Am I winning or am I losing? Am I behaving predatory? Are you? To most people the answer can be found by looking at the transaction in a broader context, you don't seem to even care. I get that predatory is ill-defined in economics, but your interpretation of it seems to be useless at best. If "predatory investment" means the same as "investment" to you, then predatory is not a useful qualifier in this context. You'll have to come up with a new word to describe what others simply call predatory. The only way for your construction to make any sense would have been to show that all investments must be made with the goal of rent-seeking and/or be predatory, while both terms each would describe only a subset of investments. There is no point to having this conversation if we don't even share the same useful terminology. But even if we sorted that out, the argument likely would still be incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't know where to add the words "Therefore all forms of investment are either predatory or rent-seeking." if you held a gun to my head.
    - kamaal 4y ago
      >>To most people the answer can be found by looking at the transaction in a broader context, you don't seem to even care. Except that the same argument needs to be applied to housing. Look at it in the broader context. Everything will make sense.
roflyear 4y ago
I'm sure OP would be OK investing in a company who focused on building equitable housing solutions. That is way different than what they are talking about and I feel like you're just being obtuse.
- kamaal 4y ago
  >>equitable housing solutions What is equitable? and to whom? This argument is moot. Why do you think you should get to decide how much profit somebody should make. Would you agree with the same if somebody decided to cap your salary, to make some end service/product affordable?
  - roflyear 4y ago
    I probably shouldnt even reply to such a poor attitude, but I never said I should decide anything or that I agreed with OP. Just clarified their position, which seems to be the same as saying "I like to invest in companies who I believe are morally sound" etc.. which is not something that is crazy.

Same, By this definition you shouldn't invest anywhere where the supply is low and demand is high, which by very consequence rules out all investments.

by kamaal 4y ago

Same, By this definition you shouldn't invest anywhere where the supply is low and demand is high, which by very consequence rules out all investments.

Jcowell 4y ago

I believe the unsaid prerequisite here is the investment subject being a human necessity (whether or not owning a home is a human necessity is another argument)

chmod775 4y ago

All forms of investment are either predatory or rent-seeking?

kamaal 4y ago
Unfortunately yes. Even the pie fallacy argument is subject to certain conditions which are often false. For economy to work beyond pie fallacy you need situations where most of the economy is driven by people who make wealth by creating things out of nothing. That is purely knowledge work jobs. Almost any where, where you need a raw material as an input to make a thing, the supply of that is limited, and therefore subject to these demand-supply issues(predatory behaviour/rent seeking). This extends to things like buying a plumber's service. If the number of plumbers are limited, and their time is limited(which it is), and there more people who need their services than plumbers going around. Plumbers are going to charge a premium for putting you up their priority queue. That is what you are ready to pay to buy their services before others could get a chance. This doesn't mean its predatory. Its what you are willing to pay to buy their time. Any other way of settling this is bonkers, If the price is fixed and the queue if FIFO, why should you be given a special exception and moved up the queue. And more importantly why should the plumber settle for lower pay when clearly there is a demand for his services. But on the short run, everything even in knowledge economy work, money is made literally by moving it from person A to person B. Hence A wins at the expense of B. Even on the longer run most people lack the resources, patience and overall life situations to make decision over such long periods of time.
- chmod775 4y ago
  I had trouble parsing this argument. You lost me way at the beginning: > For economy to work beyond pie fallacy you need situations where most of the economy is driven by people who make wealth by creating things out of nothing. It's unclear whether you're trying to propose an alternative model here ("beyond?") or are expanding upon something you call a fallacy but still use as the basis of your argument. > Almost any where, where you need a raw material as an input to make a thing, the supply of that is limited, and therefore subject to these demand-supply issues(predatory behaviour/rent seeking). I don't see how rent-seeking fits into that, so I'm going to assume you're talking about predatory investments here. Why we are fixating on goods and specifically on acquiring them for some process I don't know either. > But on the short run, everything even in knowledge economy work, money is made literally by moving it from person A to person B. Hence A wins at the expense of B. The other way around maybe? Does either make sense? If I invest in your company, I am giving you money: Am I winning or am I losing? Am I behaving predatory? Are you? To most people the answer can be found by looking at the transaction in a broader context, you don't seem to even care. I get that predatory is ill-defined in economics, but your interpretation of it seems to be useless at best. If "predatory investment" means the same as "investment" to you, then predatory is not a useful qualifier in this context. You'll have to come up with a new word to describe what others simply call predatory. The only way for your construction to make any sense would have been to show that all investments must be made with the goal of rent-seeking and/or be predatory, while both terms each would describe only a subset of investments. There is no point to having this conversation if we don't even share the same useful terminology. But even if we sorted that out, the argument likely would still be incomprehensible to me. I wouldn't know where to add the words "Therefore all forms of investment are either predatory or rent-seeking." if you held a gun to my head.
  - kamaal 4y ago
    >>To most people the answer can be found by looking at the transaction in a broader context, you don't seem to even care. Except that the same argument needs to be applied to housing. Look at it in the broader context. Everything will make sense.

roflyear 4y ago

I'm sure OP would be OK investing in a company who focused on building equitable housing solutions. That is way different than what they are talking about and I feel like you're just being obtuse.

kamaal 4y ago
>>equitable housing solutions What is equitable? and to whom? This argument is moot. Why do you think you should get to decide how much profit somebody should make. Would you agree with the same if somebody decided to cap your salary, to make some end service/product affordable?
- roflyear 4y ago
  I probably shouldnt even reply to such a poor attitude, but I never said I should decide anything or that I agreed with OP. Just clarified their position, which seems to be the same as saying "I like to invest in companies who I believe are morally sound" etc.. which is not something that is crazy.