4 ms·

Ok, so any time bad corporate behavior causing inflation comes up, I have to wonder -- how much oil stock would you need to own for this contribution to inflati

by abeppu 2y ago

Ok, so any time bad corporate behavior causing inflation comes up, I have to wonder -- how much oil stock would you need to own for this contribution to inflation to be good for you (outweigh your increased costs)? When price increases cause greater revenue to asset holders from consumers, there's some spectrum of spending to asset holding, and most people that own nothing are losing out, and Warren Buffett who owns a lot but is famously modest in his lifestyle is benefiting ... but how would you estimate where the breakeven point is? Is a lean FIRE person benefiting? Exxon stock has had a really strong 3 years, but we don't get to observe the counter-factual of how it would have behaved without this price-fixing.

mistrial9 2y ago
all that assumes perfect selfish behavior by each individual investor. Most stocks are not held by individuals, and most individual adults are not invested in stocks. The rational question raised here is not terrible, but several assumptions in it, together, make the mental model that has enabled rampant destruction of the one and only natural Earth in the past two decades with full knowledge of it.
- abeppu 2y ago
  Asking who benefits does not require us to assume perfect selfish behavior from all investors, nor does it require us to assume that people who benefit from this behavior to want it to continue. I don't think it requires the mental model you're alleging at all. I'm fully in favor of taxing carbon at a rate which reflects its actual externalized costs, as well as other emissions. I've argued that DAs should charge oil companies with manslaughter when people die in heat waves. I don't drive a car, I don't eat animals, and I plant native wildflowers. Being opposed to the destruction of the planet does not mean I should not ask "who actually benefits from economic trends that everyone complains about?" Piketty argued that the share of growth that goes to capital vs labor will determine a great deal about how inequality changes over time, and insofar as artificial price increases are just increased revenues to asset holders, this behavior has importance not just today but in shaping the future. > Most stocks are not held by individuals Isn't that a distraction? Even when stocks are held by, e.g. an insurer, another company, ultimately ownership of most wealth tracks back to some collection of natural persons. Even in cases where 'ownership' doesn't track back to people, there are still beneficiaries, e.g. people who have pensions don't directly own the assets that the pension fund holds.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    > ... nor does it require us to assume that people who benefit from this behavior to want it to continue. that really is stretching belief.. addiction is literally implied by money flows.. the realms of the conscious and rational are easily left behind at this stage, by millions of people, and through generations.. The tides of humanity versus a small rationalization... > I'm fully in favor of taxing carbon at a rate which reflects its actual externalized costs, as well as other emissions. I've argued yes, I believe that you could be different.. most people, most of the time, are not different > Piketty argued that the share of growth that goes to capital vs labor will determine a great deal about how inequality changes over time agree Piketty is deep, and worth more attention.. so much detail however! one lifetime is not enough.. glad to see second sources on that as a whole > artificial price increases are just increased revenues to asset holders as if any price is not artificial !! but OK, some theory can be useful.. are markets rational, really? > Isn't that a distraction? ... wealth tracks back to some collection of natural persons. This emphasis might be satisfying psychologically, but no, really no. Game theory or management theory or even warfare in uniform, all predict that organizational behavior of humans is not just a bunch of individuals. This statement is a tip of an iceburg to economic thinking that sees companies and governments and other groups as having a "life of their own" and significantly and fundamentally changing the trajectory of outcomes. > people who have pensions see above. not at all the whole story of finance flows
    - abeppu 2y ago
      > yes, I believe that you could be different.. most people, most of the time, are not different I dunno, I think a lot of people want money but not at any cost. To me the problem is that it's so hard to actually invest in line with one's values. Businesses with carbon neutrality goals are mostly just buying into fake carbon offsets, etc. > as if any price is not artificial Certainly increased prices due to actual supply or demand shocks, or increased prices of inputs or labor are different from execs quietly price fixing. Maybe "artificial" isn't the right word to express that difference. > This statement is a tip of an iceburg to economic thinking that sees companies and governments and other groups as having a "life of their own" and significantly and fundamentally changing the trajectory of outcomes. I'm not claiming that institutions behave as just the sum of the behavior of the humans involved. And I'm not seeking an explanation of the behavior of companies or institutions. My point about stuff ultimately being held by people is only that there is a group (one might even call it a "class") of people who benefit from price increases like this, even if they are not directly owners of shares in specific companies. I don't understand your position at all. From what I can tell you think that people who do benefit from harmful behaviors must want those behaviors to continue (I might call this "complicity") but simultaneously to believe that seeking to even describe this group of people is itself harmful. It's almost like you want the moral certainty of saying that rich people are bad, but forestall actual change which might require a lot of work and uncertainty.

by abeppu 2y ago

mistrial9 2y ago

all that assumes perfect selfish behavior by each individual investor. Most stocks are not held by individuals, and most individual adults are not invested in stocks. The rational question raised here is not terrible, but several assumptions in it, together, make the mental model that has enabled rampant destruction of the one and only natural Earth in the past two decades with full knowledge of it.

abeppu 2y ago
Asking who benefits does not require us to assume perfect selfish behavior from all investors, nor does it require us to assume that people who benefit from this behavior to want it to continue. I don't think it requires the mental model you're alleging at all. I'm fully in favor of taxing carbon at a rate which reflects its actual externalized costs, as well as other emissions. I've argued that DAs should charge oil companies with manslaughter when people die in heat waves. I don't drive a car, I don't eat animals, and I plant native wildflowers. Being opposed to the destruction of the planet does not mean I should not ask "who actually benefits from economic trends that everyone complains about?" Piketty argued that the share of growth that goes to capital vs labor will determine a great deal about how inequality changes over time, and insofar as artificial price increases are just increased revenues to asset holders, this behavior has importance not just today but in shaping the future. > Most stocks are not held by individuals Isn't that a distraction? Even when stocks are held by, e.g. an insurer, another company, ultimately ownership of most wealth tracks back to some collection of natural persons. Even in cases where 'ownership' doesn't track back to people, there are still beneficiaries, e.g. people who have pensions don't directly own the assets that the pension fund holds.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  > ... nor does it require us to assume that people who benefit from this behavior to want it to continue. that really is stretching belief.. addiction is literally implied by money flows.. the realms of the conscious and rational are easily left behind at this stage, by millions of people, and through generations.. The tides of humanity versus a small rationalization... > I'm fully in favor of taxing carbon at a rate which reflects its actual externalized costs, as well as other emissions. I've argued yes, I believe that you could be different.. most people, most of the time, are not different > Piketty argued that the share of growth that goes to capital vs labor will determine a great deal about how inequality changes over time agree Piketty is deep, and worth more attention.. so much detail however! one lifetime is not enough.. glad to see second sources on that as a whole > artificial price increases are just increased revenues to asset holders as if any price is not artificial !! but OK, some theory can be useful.. are markets rational, really? > Isn't that a distraction? ... wealth tracks back to some collection of natural persons. This emphasis might be satisfying psychologically, but no, really no. Game theory or management theory or even warfare in uniform, all predict that organizational behavior of humans is not just a bunch of individuals. This statement is a tip of an iceburg to economic thinking that sees companies and governments and other groups as having a "life of their own" and significantly and fundamentally changing the trajectory of outcomes. > people who have pensions see above. not at all the whole story of finance flows
  - abeppu 2y ago
    > yes, I believe that you could be different.. most people, most of the time, are not different I dunno, I think a lot of people want money but not at any cost. To me the problem is that it's so hard to actually invest in line with one's values. Businesses with carbon neutrality goals are mostly just buying into fake carbon offsets, etc. > as if any price is not artificial Certainly increased prices due to actual supply or demand shocks, or increased prices of inputs or labor are different from execs quietly price fixing. Maybe "artificial" isn't the right word to express that difference. > This statement is a tip of an iceburg to economic thinking that sees companies and governments and other groups as having a "life of their own" and significantly and fundamentally changing the trajectory of outcomes. I'm not claiming that institutions behave as just the sum of the behavior of the humans involved. And I'm not seeking an explanation of the behavior of companies or institutions. My point about stuff ultimately being held by people is only that there is a group (one might even call it a "class") of people who benefit from price increases like this, even if they are not directly owners of shares in specific companies. I don't understand your position at all. From what I can tell you think that people who do benefit from harmful behaviors must want those behaviors to continue (I might call this "complicity") but simultaneously to believe that seeking to even describe this group of people is itself harmful. It's almost like you want the moral certainty of saying that rich people are bad, but forestall actual change which might require a lot of work and uncertainty.