4 ms·

The idea that people are driven primarily by economic impulses is very America centric (to some extent, western centric). Any cursory study of recent history w

by spaceman_2020 4y ago

The idea that people are driven primarily by economic impulses is very America centric (to some extent, western centric). Any cursory study of recent history will tell you that people will readily accept poorer material conditions as long as amorphous ideas like pride, identity, etc. remain intact.

bumby 4y ago
I think the classic retort from an economist says people are governed by maximizing utility and that utility can take many forms from economic to varieties of subjective well-being.
- adolph 4y ago
  “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” ― F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/303269-the-curious-task-of-economics-is-to-demonstrate-to-men https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/303269-the-curious-task-of-...
  - taolegal 4y ago
    This is why everyone hates libertarians, it's an extremely modest ideology. The presumption of knowledge & power (hubris) is the basis for so much human suffering. Unfortunately it will never be defeated.
    - bumby 4y ago
      Devil’s advocate: People like libertarianism as an abstract ideology but not as a practical one. In a practical sense, it may require access to good information, across all domains, to be acted upon by rational agents capable of synthesizing all that information into a decision. That may work with a yeoman farmer society, but is incongruent with modernity. Creation of institutions like a government and regulatory bodies may be the natural reaction to facing the complexities of modern society. As an example, I don't have the sufficient knowledge or information to assess the air-worthiness of an airplane and even if I did, fear may bias my decision toward the irrational. Instead, public institutions like the FAA create a system of regulations to standardize that decision. Same with electrical codes, drug quality, and a bunch of other common risks. People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. Even if they could, assuming people are rational may ironically be an extremely irrational assumption.
      - taolegal 4y ago
        > People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. The issue is that groups (at any size, and worse when turned into hard-to-change institutions) have their own unique disadvantages even beyond the flaws & shortcomings of the individuals that make up the group. And it's precisely that inaccessible, dispersed knowledge that's crucial to operating an economy. Complexity if anything overwhelms government. They're usually far too slow & old to even begin to effectively regulate complex aspects of society.
        bumby 4y ago
        Your first paragraph is true irrespectively so I don’t know how it’s a case for or against either side. “People are people” isn’t adding much. However, systems can be put in place to mitigate (or amplify, depending on their implementation) these shortcomings. I’d argue bad institutions make things worse, while good institutions make things better. FWIW, I don't consider institutions to be limited to government; they can be groups like corporations as well. >inaccessible, dispersed knowledge I think the distinction is I don’t consider this a good thing. Opaque information hinders an economy; I don’t know how you can claim the opposite. I’d also argue inaccessible information is often at odds with dispersion of knowledge. For example, written knowledge wasn't dispersed until it became more accessible through the moveable type printing press. Making information inaccessible is just a way of hoarding power; that's generally not good for an economy (with some notable exceptions).
    - staticman2 4y ago
      I thought libertarians claim that all the world's economic problems are the result of the world not being sufficiently libertarian? What's modest about that?
      - taolegal 4y ago
        It's self-contradicting in the sense that libertarianism in essence is like a politician saying "I want the power to minimize power, even my own." Practically no politician says that. It's a modest position.
        bumby 4y ago
        I'll try a different tack than the OP. What percentage would you assign to libertarianism likely leading to better outcomes? If it's a relatively high percentage, it's not a modest position.
- danaris 4y ago
  I mean, at some point, it just becomes a tautology: "People will work to increase the things that matter to them most". How do you know those are the things that actually matter (as opposed to the things they say they value)? Because those are the things they work to maximize.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chordalkeyboard 4y ago
    it is a tautology.
  - bumby 4y ago
    From the standpoint of homo economicus, that is the point. And, contrary to the OP's point, it doesn't constrain utility to just economic utility. >How do you know those are the things that actually matter (as opposed to the things they say they value)? Because those are the things they work to maximize. The counterpoint from behavioral economics, is that homo ecnomicus is a myth and people aren't wholly rational actors. Implying there may be a gulf between what they actively maximize and what they think "actually matter."
seibelj 4y ago
It's about averages. For certain groups of people, for certain amounts of time, people are willing to starve / freeze / have poorer conditions voluntarily. Under the threat of a gun they can accept it for much longer periods. But on average, people want to live in comfort and have their needs met. It's even worse because leaders very rarely struggle under the same hardships, and when they do it's a PR stunt. It's like Brexit - people voted for it (just barely) but now are hating the consequences. The only option is increased trade and commerce, the UK government simply can't socialism / money print their way out of the mess. Only productive enterprise will save them, meaning a freer market, freer trade, lower taxes, etc. but this will take a decade: - Conservative government falls - Leftists take over - Leftists destroy everything and make stuff worse for a few years - People give up hope - Thatcher-like figure emerges, cuts taxes, promotes business, free trade - People get comfortable and start thinking socialism can work again - Go back to the beginning

bumby 4y ago

I think the classic retort from an economist says people are governed by maximizing utility and that utility can take many forms from economic to varieties of subjective well-being.

adolph 4y ago
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” ― F. A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/303269-the-curious-task-of-economics-is-to-demonstrate-to-men https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/303269-the-curious-task-of-...
- taolegal 4y ago
  This is why everyone hates libertarians, it's an extremely modest ideology. The presumption of knowledge & power (hubris) is the basis for so much human suffering. Unfortunately it will never be defeated.
  - bumby 4y ago
    Devil’s advocate: People like libertarianism as an abstract ideology but not as a practical one. In a practical sense, it may require access to good information, across all domains, to be acted upon by rational agents capable of synthesizing all that information into a decision. That may work with a yeoman farmer society, but is incongruent with modernity. Creation of institutions like a government and regulatory bodies may be the natural reaction to facing the complexities of modern society. As an example, I don't have the sufficient knowledge or information to assess the air-worthiness of an airplane and even if I did, fear may bias my decision toward the irrational. Instead, public institutions like the FAA create a system of regulations to standardize that decision. Same with electrical codes, drug quality, and a bunch of other common risks. People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. Even if they could, assuming people are rational may ironically be an extremely irrational assumption.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      > People can’t get all the information they need to make good individual decisions in a complex environment. The issue is that groups (at any size, and worse when turned into hard-to-change institutions) have their own unique disadvantages even beyond the flaws & shortcomings of the individuals that make up the group. And it's precisely that inaccessible, dispersed knowledge that's crucial to operating an economy. Complexity if anything overwhelms government. They're usually far too slow & old to even begin to effectively regulate complex aspects of society.
      - bumby 4y ago
        Your first paragraph is true irrespectively so I don’t know how it’s a case for or against either side. “People are people” isn’t adding much. However, systems can be put in place to mitigate (or amplify, depending on their implementation) these shortcomings. I’d argue bad institutions make things worse, while good institutions make things better. FWIW, I don't consider institutions to be limited to government; they can be groups like corporations as well. >inaccessible, dispersed knowledge I think the distinction is I don’t consider this a good thing. Opaque information hinders an economy; I don’t know how you can claim the opposite. I’d also argue inaccessible information is often at odds with dispersion of knowledge. For example, written knowledge wasn't dispersed until it became more accessible through the moveable type printing press. Making information inaccessible is just a way of hoarding power; that's generally not good for an economy (with some notable exceptions).
  - staticman2 4y ago
    I thought libertarians claim that all the world's economic problems are the result of the world not being sufficiently libertarian? What's modest about that?
    - taolegal 4y ago
      It's self-contradicting in the sense that libertarianism in essence is like a politician saying "I want the power to minimize power, even my own." Practically no politician says that. It's a modest position.
      - bumby 4y ago
        I'll try a different tack than the OP. What percentage would you assign to libertarianism likely leading to better outcomes? If it's a relatively high percentage, it's not a modest position.
danaris 4y ago
I mean, at some point, it just becomes a tautology: "People will work to increase the things that matter to them most". How do you know those are the things that actually matter (as opposed to the things they say they value)? Because those are the things they work to maximize.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  it is a tautology.
- bumby 4y ago
  From the standpoint of homo economicus, that is the point. And, contrary to the OP's point, it doesn't constrain utility to just economic utility. >How do you know those are the things that actually matter (as opposed to the things they say they value)? Because those are the things they work to maximize. The counterpoint from behavioral economics, is that homo ecnomicus is a myth and people aren't wholly rational actors. Implying there may be a gulf between what they actively maximize and what they think "actually matter."

seibelj 4y ago

It's about averages. For certain groups of people, for certain amounts of time, people are willing to starve / freeze / have poorer conditions voluntarily. Under the threat of a gun they can accept it for much longer periods. But on average, people want to live in comfort and have their needs met. It's even worse because leaders very rarely struggle under the same hardships, and when they do it's a PR stunt. It's like Brexit - people voted for it (just barely) but now are hating the consequences. The only option is increased trade and commerce, the UK government simply can't socialism / money print their way out of the mess. Only productive enterprise will save them, meaning a freer market, freer trade, lower taxes, etc. but this will take a decade: - Conservative government falls - Leftists take over - Leftists destroy everything and make stuff worse for a few years - People give up hope - Thatcher-like figure emerges, cuts taxes, promotes business, free trade - People get comfortable and start thinking socialism can work again - Go back to the beginning