3 ms·

The downvotes only serve to prove my point That is false. The cause of my reaction is actually revealed here quite explicitly: trying to make profit at the ex

The downvotes only serve to prove my point That is false. The cause of my reaction is actually revealed here quite explicitly: trying to make profit at the expense of others. The enterprise we're all engaged in on HN is making profit, paid for by someone else. This is a good thing, because a buyer's willingness to pay for a product signifies how important that product is to him. If someone is willing to give me a lot of money for something, it's because he thinks my product is going to improve his situation at least to that degree. Thus, if someone is making a lot of profit (honestly), it's prima facie evidence that they are delivering that much value to their customers. And no, that's not corporatist propaganda. It's a necessary logical consequence of the idea that people who are free to choose, will make the choice that serves their own needs better. If we can assume that, it all follows automatically. EDIT: I wasn't going to add this, but can't restrain myself. The line "your disagreement only proves my point" is perhaps one of the worst gambits I can imagine in a debate, possibly only surpassed by "they're just jealous". A person's agreement or disagreement has absolutely no bearing on the veracity of a statement.

mike-cardwell 15y ago
I'll put you in with the group of people who misunderstood the point. By my statement, "they're just another rich corporation trying to make profit at the expense of others," I made no judgement on whether or not this is a good thing. I was trying to point out that they're no different to any other company. That they're motivated by profit, and do things that people consider to be evil in the pursuit of that profit. This is why I think they're undeserving of their reputation. People are too quick to make accusations of anti-capitalism around here. Especially when it's to defend a company that they like. Especially when said company has an undeserved reputation for being all nice and fluffy. Bringing us back to my point of their rep being harmful.
- drivebyacct2 15y ago
  My problem is that you seem to have implied that Google being a for-profit company automatically means that they must "do evil". I don't think anyone think Google is a saint, but you seem to have a vendetta against them and are looking for things to make them appear bad.
  - mike-cardwell 15y ago
    All for-profit companies eventually "do evil". If they don't, then they're not doing their job right for their share holders. I have no vendetta against them. You're seeing something that isn't there. The reason you're seeing it, is because of their undeserved reputation as being less evil than other companies. You're merely demonstrating my point, yet again.
tripzilch 15y ago
> It's a necessary logical consequence of the idea that people who are free to choose, will make the choice that serves their own needs better. If we can assume that, it all follows automatically. I could assume that, but I couldn't keep a straight face while doing it! :-D What planet are you from? This one we call "Earth" is inhabited by monkeys that habitually make irrational choices that are not the best or even harmful to themselves and others around them. Rational free market forces are a fairytale, I can't believe you seriously made that argument. It's just as "out there" as the pacifist idea that if only we'd all be nice to each other we'd have world peace, or the anarchist idea that if only we'd just all work together, we wouldn't need government. Did you know Santa's not real either?
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  I'll grant some small part of your response, as empirical evidence does show that people systematically mis-estimate values (risks, large sums of money, etc.) that are either extremely small or extremely large. However... monkeys that habitually make irrational choices that are not the best or even harmful to themselves and others around them First, let's throw out the "monkeys" bit. Again, you're falling back to a style of argumentation designed to inflame emotions, but in fact adds no rational content to the discourse. If this were a debate competition, I'd ding you for it. But more importantly, your assertion that the choices are not the best, etc., is unknowable by you -- yet you assert it as fact. These discussions always seem to assume that all actors ought to be working from the same set of values, yet that's clearly not the case. For example, if I choose a "live fast, die young" lifestyle, the choices I'll make -- BASE jumping, etc. -- may seem absurdly risky to you, but in fact, they really do bring to me a greater return than the alternative. You can learn a lot more about this in Mises' Human Action. He shows how each person's actions can only be viewed as a black box, the rest of us have no way to gainsay them (nor right to do so, but that's a different discussion). Indeed, sometimes a person's motivations aren't even known to that person himself, but that does not prove that they're not there. Also, even when people are wrong in their weighing of the costs and benefits, that in itself is a rational action, because the cost of gaining greater knowledge or doing deeper analysis itself skews the computation (kinda like Heisenberg uncertainty, in Economics, I guess). What's worse is that the idea that people do not act in their own best interest is generally attended by the conclusion that there needs to be some authority to watch over us. It's clearly bad to try to fit all of us into boxes of the same size and shape, but it's unavoidable from this approach. But more to the point, it doesn't actually provide a solution, because if we postulate that we're unable to correctly make our own decisions, then one must also conclude (in spades!) that nobody will be able to correctly make decisions for another person (or large groups of them). And (in a bit of admitted snark -- I'll let myself get away with it because I'm labeling it as such) there's every reason to believe, judging by their own lives, that those people who our system has making these decisions for the masses are doing a worse job than the individuals would themselves.

mike-cardwell 15y ago

I'll put you in with the group of people who misunderstood the point. By my statement, "they're just another rich corporation trying to make profit at the expense of others," I made no judgement on whether or not this is a good thing. I was trying to point out that they're no different to any other company. That they're motivated by profit, and do things that people consider to be evil in the pursuit of that profit. This is why I think they're undeserving of their reputation. People are too quick to make accusations of anti-capitalism around here. Especially when it's to defend a company that they like. Especially when said company has an undeserved reputation for being all nice and fluffy. Bringing us back to my point of their rep being harmful.

drivebyacct2 15y ago
My problem is that you seem to have implied that Google being a for-profit company automatically means that they must "do evil". I don't think anyone think Google is a saint, but you seem to have a vendetta against them and are looking for things to make them appear bad.
- mike-cardwell 15y ago
  All for-profit companies eventually "do evil". If they don't, then they're not doing their job right for their share holders. I have no vendetta against them. You're seeing something that isn't there. The reason you're seeing it, is because of their undeserved reputation as being less evil than other companies. You're merely demonstrating my point, yet again.

tripzilch 15y ago

> It's a necessary logical consequence of the idea that people who are free to choose, will make the choice that serves their own needs better. If we can assume that, it all follows automatically. I could assume that, but I couldn't keep a straight face while doing it! :-D What planet are you from? This one we call "Earth" is inhabited by monkeys that habitually make irrational choices that are not the best or even harmful to themselves and others around them. Rational free market forces are a fairytale, I can't believe you seriously made that argument. It's just as "out there" as the pacifist idea that if only we'd all be nice to each other we'd have world peace, or the anarchist idea that if only we'd just all work together, we wouldn't need government. Did you know Santa's not real either?

CWuestefeld 15y ago
I'll grant some small part of your response, as empirical evidence does show that people systematically mis-estimate values (risks, large sums of money, etc.) that are either extremely small or extremely large. However... monkeys that habitually make irrational choices that are not the best or even harmful to themselves and others around them First, let's throw out the "monkeys" bit. Again, you're falling back to a style of argumentation designed to inflame emotions, but in fact adds no rational content to the discourse. If this were a debate competition, I'd ding you for it. But more importantly, your assertion that the choices are not the best, etc., is unknowable by you -- yet you assert it as fact. These discussions always seem to assume that all actors ought to be working from the same set of values, yet that's clearly not the case. For example, if I choose a "live fast, die young" lifestyle, the choices I'll make -- BASE jumping, etc. -- may seem absurdly risky to you, but in fact, they really do bring to me a greater return than the alternative. You can learn a lot more about this in Mises' Human Action. He shows how each person's actions can only be viewed as a black box, the rest of us have no way to gainsay them (nor right to do so, but that's a different discussion). Indeed, sometimes a person's motivations aren't even known to that person himself, but that does not prove that they're not there. Also, even when people are wrong in their weighing of the costs and benefits, that in itself is a rational action, because the cost of gaining greater knowledge or doing deeper analysis itself skews the computation (kinda like Heisenberg uncertainty, in Economics, I guess). What's worse is that the idea that people do not act in their own best interest is generally attended by the conclusion that there needs to be some authority to watch over us. It's clearly bad to try to fit all of us into boxes of the same size and shape, but it's unavoidable from this approach. But more to the point, it doesn't actually provide a solution, because if we postulate that we're unable to correctly make our own decisions, then one must also conclude (in spades!) that nobody will be able to correctly make decisions for another person (or large groups of them). And (in a bit of admitted snark -- I'll let myself get away with it because I'm labeling it as such) there's every reason to believe, judging by their own lives, that those people who our system has making these decisions for the masses are doing a worse job than the individuals would themselves.