3 ms·

The gain or loss of a single customer will have no effect on Walmart or the local mom and pop. The effects only add up if a significant number of people make t

The gain or loss of a single customer will have no effect on Walmart or the local mom and pop. The effects only add up if a significant number of people make the same decision. On the individual level, the cost of the local shop is detrimental compared to Walmart. The rational choice for any given individual is to go with the lower price. Choosing otherwise doesn't gain you anything other than that the local spot is a nicer place to visit. At the macro level, nobody wins unless everyone cooperates. At the individual level, you can only win by not cooperating. It's just the prisoner's dilemma. Happy thoughts don't really factor in here, it's not really an ethics problem, it's an economics problem.

AlbertCory 4y ago
It's not the prisoner's dilemma in any way, shape, or form. It's the problem of collective action. A person wishes everyone would behave as he prefers. They have the difficult task of persuading enough others to follow their lead. No one said it would be easy or convenient. Why should it be? We can find plenty of examples of people who do exactly that, today. There are boycotts active against thousands of organizations. It doesn't take "everybody" - just a loud minority who are organized. As for "the rational choice" -- that's the myth of Economic Man, which has been thoroughly demolished by behavioral economics. People make choices all the time that do not maximize their financial return.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  It really is a form of a prisoners dilemma, and the wikipedia page for Collective Action Problem spells out the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Pris... It's easy to see how if you take an example. Imagine there is a company selling a widget that really makes your life better, but manufacturing it really pollutes the environment. If everyone buys one of the widgets, in fact, so much pollution will occur that our lives will be MUCH worse off than if we never had the widget at all. So my (and everyone else's) preference is that no one has any widgets and we don't have the pollution. Now here is where it is a prisoner's dilemma; if no one buys a widget, the company goes out of business and there is no pollution, but I also don't end up with a widget. If everyone else doesn't buy a widget, but I do, then the company goes out of business (yay!) and there is no more pollution AND I have a widget anyway (double yay!). I get the best of both worlds - no pollution and this awesome widget. If I don't buy the widget, but everyone else does, then I still get the pollution but I don't even have a widget (the worst of both worlds). If everyone buys a widget, then we have pollution but at least I also have a widget. Just like a classical prisoner's dilemma, I am always better off defecting. If everyone else is buying a widget, I might as well buy one, too, because the pollution is happening no matter what, might as well also get the benefit of a widget. If no one else is buying a widget, then I might as well buy one because I can have the widget AND no pollution (which is better than just having no pollution). Everyone has this same incentive, which is why free markets don't solve pollution - it only is solved by regulation, forcing people to cooperate.

AlbertCory 4y ago

It's not the prisoner's dilemma in any way, shape, or form. It's the problem of collective action. A person wishes everyone would behave as he prefers. They have the difficult task of persuading enough others to follow their lead. No one said it would be easy or convenient. Why should it be? We can find plenty of examples of people who do exactly that, today. There are boycotts active against thousands of organizations. It doesn't take "everybody" - just a loud minority who are organized. As for "the rational choice" -- that's the myth of Economic Man, which has been thoroughly demolished by behavioral economics. People make choices all the time that do not maximize their financial return.

cortesoft 4y ago
It really is a form of a prisoners dilemma, and the wikipedia page for Collective Action Problem spells out the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Prisoner's_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem#Pris... It's easy to see how if you take an example. Imagine there is a company selling a widget that really makes your life better, but manufacturing it really pollutes the environment. If everyone buys one of the widgets, in fact, so much pollution will occur that our lives will be MUCH worse off than if we never had the widget at all. So my (and everyone else's) preference is that no one has any widgets and we don't have the pollution. Now here is where it is a prisoner's dilemma; if no one buys a widget, the company goes out of business and there is no pollution, but I also don't end up with a widget. If everyone else doesn't buy a widget, but I do, then the company goes out of business (yay!) and there is no more pollution AND I have a widget anyway (double yay!). I get the best of both worlds - no pollution and this awesome widget. If I don't buy the widget, but everyone else does, then I still get the pollution but I don't even have a widget (the worst of both worlds). If everyone buys a widget, then we have pollution but at least I also have a widget. Just like a classical prisoner's dilemma, I am always better off defecting. If everyone else is buying a widget, I might as well buy one, too, because the pollution is happening no matter what, might as well also get the benefit of a widget. If no one else is buying a widget, then I might as well buy one because I can have the widget AND no pollution (which is better than just having no pollution). Everyone has this same incentive, which is why free markets don't solve pollution - it only is solved by regulation, forcing people to cooperate.