3 ms·

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 situati

by 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.
  - chmod775 4y ago
    At this point I will assume you're being obtuse on purpose.

by kamaal 4y ago

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.
- chmod775 4y ago
  At this point I will assume you're being obtuse on purpose.