3 ms·

The purpose of the economy is to fulfill human desires. The only question we have to ask to understand which situation resulted in higher economic output is: wh

The purpose of the economy is to fulfill human desires. The only question we have to ask to understand which situation resulted in higher economic output is: which situation resulted in satisfying more human desires. It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Then the question becomes: is the distribution of currency caused by the buying and burning of the fuels preferable to the alternative distribution if the currency had been spent elsewhere? If it is preferable, does that offset the waste of fuel for no purpose except redistributing currency? Any time I hear these kinds of reasonings the question comes to mind: if some distributions of currency are preferable to others, and we know what such distributions look like, why not let the government do the distribution directly?

landemva 4y ago
> the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. That sentence would have a different meaning if the conclusitory (looking for real word here) word "pointless" was not there. Abundant reliable on-demand energy has enormously improved the human condition. I'm also glad the Dutch no longer dig up peat bogs for dirty fuel.
- carlosjobim 4y ago
  He or she didn't mean that burning of these fuels is pointless, it was a response to a poster suggesting to pointlessly burn these fuels in order to stimulate the economy.
- geysersam 4y ago
  Driving to work, when you can/prefer to work from home, is pointless.
lelanthran 4y ago
> It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Yeah, but ... how much of it was pointless? Who decides if a use-case is pointless? You? Me? The government?
- Nihilartikel 4y ago
  The one true God, clearly.
- amanaplanacanal 4y ago
  If the same work gets done without the burning, I’d say yes, it’s pointless.
- geysersam 4y ago
  If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. Burning fossil fuels can of course also be meaningful. We're talking about driving to work when you can work from home.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. I dunno. There's a lot of PHBs who have petty tyrant syndrome. They desire their employees in the office. Then there's a lot of people in the CBD who desire to continue selling their wares to the people working in the CBD. There's letting companies who desire income from the letting arrangements, landlords who desire income enough to pay the city tax ... On the whole, I agree with WFH; I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.
    - geysersam 4y ago
      I don't agree. It's totally fair to disqualify some desires as less important than others. I think we all agree that a tyrants desire to be a tyrant isn't worth taking into consideration. Someone selling wares don't usually desire selling wares. They desire income. Everybody wants income. Buying something we don't want/need is waste + redistribution of currency. Redistribution of currency is a zero sum game unless we have some reason to particularly value the desires of the ones receiving. I don't see why we should particularly value the desires of landlords. > I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire. What alternative do you propose?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bitcoin_anon 4y ago
> Any time I hear these kinds of reasonings the question comes to mind: if some distributions of currency are preferable to others, and we know what such distributions look like, why not let the government do the distribution directly? Because this presumes that the people in government will do what is preferable to the masses. My conception of government is that of a tool or weapon that various powers vie for control over. Why should I expect benevolence from such?

landemva 4y ago

> the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. That sentence would have a different meaning if the conclusitory (looking for real word here) word "pointless" was not there. Abundant reliable on-demand energy has enormously improved the human condition. I'm also glad the Dutch no longer dig up peat bogs for dirty fuel.

carlosjobim 4y ago
He or she didn't mean that burning of these fuels is pointless, it was a response to a poster suggesting to pointlessly burn these fuels in order to stimulate the economy.
geysersam 4y ago
Driving to work, when you can/prefer to work from home, is pointless.

lelanthran 4y ago

> It's clear that the pointless burning of fossil fuels didn't satisfy any human need. Yeah, but ... how much of it was pointless? Who decides if a use-case is pointless? You? Me? The government?

Nihilartikel 4y ago
The one true God, clearly.
amanaplanacanal 4y ago
If the same work gets done without the burning, I’d say yes, it’s pointless.
geysersam 4y ago
If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. Burning fossil fuels can of course also be meaningful. We're talking about driving to work when you can work from home.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > If it didn't satisfy anyones desire, it was pointless. I dunno. There's a lot of PHBs who have petty tyrant syndrome. They desire their employees in the office. Then there's a lot of people in the CBD who desire to continue selling their wares to the people working in the CBD. There's letting companies who desire income from the letting arrangements, landlords who desire income enough to pay the city tax ... On the whole, I agree with WFH; I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire.
  - geysersam 4y ago
    I don't agree. It's totally fair to disqualify some desires as less important than others. I think we all agree that a tyrants desire to be a tyrant isn't worth taking into consideration. Someone selling wares don't usually desire selling wares. They desire income. Everybody wants income. Buying something we don't want/need is waste + redistribution of currency. Redistribution of currency is a zero sum game unless we have some reason to particularly value the desires of the ones receiving. I don't see why we should particularly value the desires of landlords. > I just don't think it's a good exercise to justify anything based on what people desire. What alternative do you propose?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bitcoin_anon 4y ago

> Any time I hear these kinds of reasonings the question comes to mind: if some distributions of currency are preferable to others, and we know what such distributions look like, why not let the government do the distribution directly? Because this presumes that the people in government will do what is preferable to the masses. My conception of government is that of a tool or weapon that various powers vie for control over. Why should I expect benevolence from such?