4 ms·
Please don't take this post seriously. It is fundamentally flawed. People are not rational. Homo economicus does not exist, outside the fictions of the simple m
by noelwelsh 3y ago
Please don't take this post seriously. It is fundamentally flawed. People are not rational. Homo economicus does not exist, outside the fictions of the simple models of classical economics. Money is not an expression of virtue or caring, and economics is not a moral framework.
- loeg 3y agoNothing in your comment addresses the article beyond the headline.
- noelwelsh 3y agoMy apologies for only addressing the premise of the article, and not the rest that derives from that premise.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- loeg 3y agoYou managed to address several premises that aren't actually present in the article.
- noelwelsh 3y agoYou seem to want me to guess the premises you believe the article builds on but I haven't addressed, but I'm really not interested in playing this game. If you have something to say beyond "you're wrong", just say it.
- ke88y 3y agoThe article starts with a "folk theorem" which is more of a tautology/definition suited to the author's priors. It meaning hinges on the meanings of at least a half dozen very fancy sounding but conveniently undefined terms. You'll have to excuse me for not even wanting to read much further. From there, the article gets exponentially worse by the paragraph. It's pseudo-mathematical and pseudo-philosophical nonsense. The final claims are fundamentally sociological(!!!) But the author makes zero effort to empirically or rationally interrogate how his prescribed behavioral modifications would impact human individual behavior or human group dynamics. He fails to make any testable hypotheses. Here's a counter-theory: the prescribed course of action would have the effect of alienating the wealthy from the poor, resulting in worse outcomes for everyone involved than a society where there is more fraternity between class categories but in which man hours are slightly less "efficiently" allocated. I also suspect that wealthy people throw money at rationalists because "continue being On Top And In Charge because you are Better and it's morally justified as long as you Donate To Help The Poors" is far less dangerous to the status quo wealth distribution than telling every middle and upper income person "maybe you should spend a few weeks volunteering in a homeless shelter".
- quinnjh 3y agoOeconomicus comes from the Ancient Greek words oikos for home or house and nemein which means management, literally translated to 'household management'.
- FearNotDaniel 3y ago"Nice" comes from the Latin "nescius" meaning "ignorant, stupid". Etymology is fun, but often completely irrelevant to the matter at hand.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y agoThe most obvious flaw is that money is printed by the government, and the value of it is also manipulated by the government, and ~40% of it is spent by the government. Money says more about the government than it says about the people who use it.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoIf you had perfectly rational people, all uniform in their rationality, one might want to distribute that trait along the bell curve, such that most were "mostly" rational, with a few highly irrational individuals and a few highly rational ones. It's like the ant colony... send agents out along all the possible paths simultaneously, see who comes back with cake. Even in that model though, they all average out to "mostly rational". People do too. What about this argument requires that people be individually rational rather than on-average rational?
- polygamous_bat 3y agoHave you ever lived with a roommate who doesn't flush the toilet after they use it, so you always have to flush the toilet twice, once before you use it and once after? What's up with this system that requires everyone to individually flush rather than every person on average to flush once?
- flushit 3y agoWow. Best comment I've read this year! (Like, seriously. Kudos!)
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y agoIf all we're counting is the number of flushes (which we are) why would that matter? You're injecting some weird morality into it which just doesn't belong. Economics works not despite the fact that some are irrational, but because all the irrationality averages out.
- troelsSteegin 3y agoI read the article as asserting that all action must be economically observable in order to be action. That action requires concrete allocation of resources, and that in order to care, you have to do something. Otheriwse, I agree.
- flushit 3y agoIt's all approximate. People are not fully rational, but they are not fully irrational either. Seen the blog? It's literally called "Less Wrong". It's not perfect, but it provides interesting insights. As such, I found that article valuable.