3 ms·

> Noone parts with money for an exchange that they don't find useful. I think this is true at face value, but when we consider addiction and self-destructive b

by ehnto 4y ago

> Noone parts with money for an exchange that they don't find useful. I think this is true at face value, but when we consider addiction and self-destructive behaviors it is clear that while the definition of useful my still apply, the result is a negative impact on society. The easiest most inflammatory example is drugs, but a more nuanced example might be slot machines. I won't wax lyrical about the examples, but I think they show that a transaction of money doesn't imply a positive impact on society. Another example is rent seeking and fees, sometimes the transaction of money is non-negotiable, and one side is exploiting the other, or a middleman has inserted themselves (sometimes through policy lobbying) and extracts rent that no one benefits from but them.

chii 4y ago
> drugs ... slot machines i would assert that drugs or slot machines both provide value - they are entertainment, and the people using them are deriving value out of it. Why is that those people's enjoyment doesn't factor into society as being positive? Are they somehow not part of society? If you imply that because they must've committed a crime to obtain the money to pay for their entertainment, then it's not the entertainment, but the crime that's negative to society. If you imply that slot machines are harmful to the players, and that they're better off not using it, then my argument is who's to say that it's harmful? Why is that there must be a negative moral attribution to using it? Edit: i would agree that "rent seeking" is bad, but it's hard to actually specify exactly what rent-seeking is, so i will leave it to someone else to discuss.
- ehnto 4y ago
  Anyone who has spent time around addiction and those afflicted by it can tell you it causes more pain than enjoyment. There is a big difference between someome getting high for fun and someone who feels they no longer have a choice but to be high. For what it's worth I am pro deregulation of drugs. I just think it's a good example that money changing hands doesn't imply a net positive had occurred. People pay for guns they use to murder people for another on the nose example.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  I think there's a tautology hiding here. It's unstated, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The tautology is that what people exchange for has value, but it has value because people pay for it. Specifically that it has the value people are paying or more. This is a sort of free market idea: why would someone swap for something that isn't good for them? People must be swapping for stuff they want. To a degree this is totally reasonable. Why does a guy buy a razor if he doesn't think shaving is worth it? The problem with this kind of thinking is it can never check itself. There's no independent way to give an item a value, so how do you know the exchanged values are correct? There's an assumption implicit that the market gives everything the right value, but it's not checkable without some other way to come up with a value. And there are reasons to think this value might be wrong. For instance externalities, but also plain old "consumer misjudged the value". I met a guy who exploited every trick in the book when building his business. He always picked addictive stuff. Online casinos, vapes. He would also put in fine print that people were buying a minimum subscription, so they would they surprised when they got billed a second time. On top of that he found a way to trick Facebook into showing his advertisements that were against the ToS. I doubt anyone got what they thought from this fellow, but he's rich now. This isn't to say everyone who sets out to just make money makes a mess, far from it. I'm sure there are people whose get rich quick scheme is genuinely useful to other people. But it does mean we need to keep eye on behaviour to make sure there aren't abuses.
  - chii 4y ago
    > but it's not checkable without some other way to come up with a value which is the whole point - the value doesn't exist independently of what someone else values it for their own purpose. There's no objective measure of value, like the objective measure of some quantity like weight or energy. So the free-market assumption is that everyone is always selfish but rational, and thus would only transact if the resulting transaction is beneficial. in all the cited examples of otherwise, the transaction is fraudulent - someone tricking someone else (which is, technically already illegal, if somewhat un-enforcible all the time).
- crabmusket 4y ago
  I don't think anybody objects to the enjoyment of drugs or slot machines. They object to the addictive distortion of the enjoyer's mental state. The free market notion of value surely relies on the rationality of participants. Saying "it is rational for an addict to satisfy their addiction" is... well I suppose it is an argument.

by ehnto 4y ago

chii 4y ago

> drugs ... slot machines i would assert that drugs or slot machines both provide value - they are entertainment, and the people using them are deriving value out of it. Why is that those people's enjoyment doesn't factor into society as being positive? Are they somehow not part of society? If you imply that because they must've committed a crime to obtain the money to pay for their entertainment, then it's not the entertainment, but the crime that's negative to society. If you imply that slot machines are harmful to the players, and that they're better off not using it, then my argument is who's to say that it's harmful? Why is that there must be a negative moral attribution to using it? Edit: i would agree that "rent seeking" is bad, but it's hard to actually specify exactly what rent-seeking is, so i will leave it to someone else to discuss.

ehnto 4y ago
Anyone who has spent time around addiction and those afflicted by it can tell you it causes more pain than enjoyment. There is a big difference between someome getting high for fun and someone who feels they no longer have a choice but to be high. For what it's worth I am pro deregulation of drugs. I just think it's a good example that money changing hands doesn't imply a net positive had occurred. People pay for guns they use to murder people for another on the nose example.
lordnacho 4y ago
I think there's a tautology hiding here. It's unstated, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The tautology is that what people exchange for has value, but it has value because people pay for it. Specifically that it has the value people are paying or more. This is a sort of free market idea: why would someone swap for something that isn't good for them? People must be swapping for stuff they want. To a degree this is totally reasonable. Why does a guy buy a razor if he doesn't think shaving is worth it? The problem with this kind of thinking is it can never check itself. There's no independent way to give an item a value, so how do you know the exchanged values are correct? There's an assumption implicit that the market gives everything the right value, but it's not checkable without some other way to come up with a value. And there are reasons to think this value might be wrong. For instance externalities, but also plain old "consumer misjudged the value". I met a guy who exploited every trick in the book when building his business. He always picked addictive stuff. Online casinos, vapes. He would also put in fine print that people were buying a minimum subscription, so they would they surprised when they got billed a second time. On top of that he found a way to trick Facebook into showing his advertisements that were against the ToS. I doubt anyone got what they thought from this fellow, but he's rich now. This isn't to say everyone who sets out to just make money makes a mess, far from it. I'm sure there are people whose get rich quick scheme is genuinely useful to other people. But it does mean we need to keep eye on behaviour to make sure there aren't abuses.
- chii 4y ago
  > but it's not checkable without some other way to come up with a value which is the whole point - the value doesn't exist independently of what someone else values it for their own purpose. There's no objective measure of value, like the objective measure of some quantity like weight or energy. So the free-market assumption is that everyone is always selfish but rational, and thus would only transact if the resulting transaction is beneficial. in all the cited examples of otherwise, the transaction is fraudulent - someone tricking someone else (which is, technically already illegal, if somewhat un-enforcible all the time).
crabmusket 4y ago
I don't think anybody objects to the enjoyment of drugs or slot machines. They object to the addictive distortion of the enjoyer's mental state. The free market notion of value surely relies on the rationality of participants. Saying "it is rational for an addict to satisfy their addiction" is... well I suppose it is an argument.