3 ms·

https://todon.eu/@waldenecovillage/109687604490531094 https://todon.eu/@waldenecovillage/109687604490531094 Why are ethics questions always like: "is it ethica

by buro9 4y ago

https://todon.eu/@waldenecovillage/109687604490531094 https://todon.eu/@waldenecovillage/109687604490531094 Why are ethics questions always like: "is it ethical to steal bread to feed your starving family?" And not: "is it ethical to sell bread when families are starving?"

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
[dead]
thebrianmcgee 4y ago
And how do you plan to make this bread? How do you plan bread makers to buy other things?
JimtheCoder 4y ago
"And not: "is it ethical to sell bread when families are starving?"" Is it the bread sellers problem that families are starving, though?
joshlemer 4y ago
This is a highly unproductive attitude and outlook to have. It is precisely when families are starving that you want to encourage more people to produce and sell bread, and for people who are consuming more bread than they need to, to be as economical/non-wasteful in their consumption as possible. That is, people using bread for unnecessary uses like to feed birds, or who don't eat all their bread before it goes bad, should buy less bread so that it is available for others who have greater use of it (eating every slice, because they're hungry). The only workable way to do this is through the price mechanism. Raising prices incentivizes people to consume less bread, so the marginal bread consumer (bird feeders, etc) consume less, and it incents marginal producers to produce more bread. Vilifying the making of profit of scarce goods like bread during a famine is exactly the wrong idea, and only makes the problem worse. We _want_ people to be able to make a profit by helping others. If as a society we shame people for selling bread when there are hungry people, ironically there will be less bread sellers and prices will go up. The way to alleviate food insecurity is to promote more competition among food producers/retailers, and to allow price signals to work their magic. Of course, combined with a reasonable redistribution scheme to provide a baseline level of income to people.
- Nullabillity 4y ago
  This objectivist fairy tale falls apart on first contact with reality. - Income and savings are not evenly distributed, your rich birdfeeder would barely notice the price bump while the poor starver would have even less to eat. Rationing would be a closer solution, but that needs to be planned carefully to avoid similar loopholes (for example: if you can afford meat then you'll need less wheat, leaving more available for waste). - Crisis-induced profit incentives aren't going to lead to increased production, because 1) setting up production lines takes time and long-term investments, and 2) solving the crisis brings the price back down to normal, anyone who wouldn't invest at the normal prices would be stuck holding the bag in the end. We saw this in action a year ago, during the COVID chip shortage.
  - joshlemer 4y ago
    I'm not invoking Ayn Rand or Objectivism here, merely basic mainstream economics. Imagining a single billionaire who has a bird feeding hobby is not realistic. True, I don't think an extremely wealthy bird feeder is going to cut back, but there's a continuum of producers and consumers all the way up and down the wealth scale and many of whom are price sensitive. A million different small adjustments all combine to re-allocate capital and labour to more efficiently allocate food towards people who are hungry. Manufacturers of bird feed packs may switch their ingredients on the margin away from grains that humans consume. Pig farmers may switch away from purchasing bread. Food processors, restaurants, etc will on the margin switch towards less wasteful/decadent products, since the relative increase in the price of staples make them more profitable than luxury foods. Distributors will find it makes sense to spend more money to buy food from further abroad, diverting trucks, trains, and ships from less urgent needs towards food transportation. All these millions of actions do have an effect.

by buro9 4y ago

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago

[dead]

thebrianmcgee 4y ago

And how do you plan to make this bread? How do you plan bread makers to buy other things?

JimtheCoder 4y ago

"And not: "is it ethical to sell bread when families are starving?"" Is it the bread sellers problem that families are starving, though?

joshlemer 4y ago

This is a highly unproductive attitude and outlook to have. It is precisely when families are starving that you want to encourage more people to produce and sell bread, and for people who are consuming more bread than they need to, to be as economical/non-wasteful in their consumption as possible. That is, people using bread for unnecessary uses like to feed birds, or who don't eat all their bread before it goes bad, should buy less bread so that it is available for others who have greater use of it (eating every slice, because they're hungry). The only workable way to do this is through the price mechanism. Raising prices incentivizes people to consume less bread, so the marginal bread consumer (bird feeders, etc) consume less, and it incents marginal producers to produce more bread. Vilifying the making of profit of scarce goods like bread during a famine is exactly the wrong idea, and only makes the problem worse. We _want_ people to be able to make a profit by helping others. If as a society we shame people for selling bread when there are hungry people, ironically there will be less bread sellers and prices will go up. The way to alleviate food insecurity is to promote more competition among food producers/retailers, and to allow price signals to work their magic. Of course, combined with a reasonable redistribution scheme to provide a baseline level of income to people.

Nullabillity 4y ago
This objectivist fairy tale falls apart on first contact with reality. - Income and savings are not evenly distributed, your rich birdfeeder would barely notice the price bump while the poor starver would have even less to eat. Rationing would be a closer solution, but that needs to be planned carefully to avoid similar loopholes (for example: if you can afford meat then you'll need less wheat, leaving more available for waste). - Crisis-induced profit incentives aren't going to lead to increased production, because 1) setting up production lines takes time and long-term investments, and 2) solving the crisis brings the price back down to normal, anyone who wouldn't invest at the normal prices would be stuck holding the bag in the end. We saw this in action a year ago, during the COVID chip shortage.
- joshlemer 4y ago
  I'm not invoking Ayn Rand or Objectivism here, merely basic mainstream economics. Imagining a single billionaire who has a bird feeding hobby is not realistic. True, I don't think an extremely wealthy bird feeder is going to cut back, but there's a continuum of producers and consumers all the way up and down the wealth scale and many of whom are price sensitive. A million different small adjustments all combine to re-allocate capital and labour to more efficiently allocate food towards people who are hungry. Manufacturers of bird feed packs may switch their ingredients on the margin away from grains that humans consume. Pig farmers may switch away from purchasing bread. Food processors, restaurants, etc will on the margin switch towards less wasteful/decadent products, since the relative increase in the price of staples make them more profitable than luxury foods. Distributors will find it makes sense to spend more money to buy food from further abroad, diverting trucks, trains, and ships from less urgent needs towards food transportation. All these millions of actions do have an effect.