4 ms·

A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of par

by kriops 2y ago

A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. This is neither complicated nor controversial.

wakawaka28 2y ago
>A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business and wreck the country. >It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. There's a huge misunderstanding in here somewhere. Most people don't think of their own welfare in terms of a negative outcome for anyone else. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. People can coexist and duplicate effort, and that sometimes makes sense. An individual or nation should strive for some reasonable level of self-sufficiency, because you can't always rely on other people to treat you well or take care of you.
- kriops 2y ago
  To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.
    - kriops 2y ago
      > Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion Only in a risk-free/non-probabilistic world. To be clear, 'my freedom ends where your begins' is a way to simplify and summarize an approach to the theory of rights. The point of bringing it up in this context was to point out that there is an equilibrium between opportunity spaces of different actors. In other words, as long as we share the universe, we can't do expect to do literally anything (to other actors or their property in particular) without reprecussions, because any justification for it would be inconsistent.
- BoiledCabbage 2y ago
  > I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it?
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    >So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Yes, but these people also provide good services. I think car dealerships might be the best bad example out of these because car manufacturers don't deal directly with customers. However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. Car dealers are explicitly authorized to negotiate prices with customers, which can go either above or below MSRP. If the manufacturer was selling directly to you, you'd probably be stuck with ONE price which might not be the best one. All three of the cases I quoted here can be viewed as a form of optional delegation that usually benefits the producer, the consumer, or both. If it can be proven that there is a better way to allocate resources (especially on a micro scale), that way should not be categorically banned. But at the international scale especially, you need to be careful. >Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Yes a handful of unimportant ones here and there doesn't have to be so bad. But if strategically important businesses and jobs are eliminated in an allegedly sovereign region, that is usually a bad thing (proportional to the size of the region). If too many of the less important jobs in a region are eliminated or challenged, that puts stress on the people which is also a bad thing. >I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it? I think this question only makes sense if you're talking about a relatively closed, cohesive system like a sovereign country. "Higher standard of living" is not the only metric that needs to be optimized (at least as it is commonly defined). We need to have a resilient country to the extent that we can. That might mean paying extra costs to support our native businesses, or accepting somewhat worse products in some cases. For example, you personally could cut or reduce most of your insurance and stop saving for retirement. That would put more money in your pocket every month that you could use to buy cool stuff. That might be interpreted as a higher standard of living. But is it wise? This is not far from what we have done on a national scale, driven by globalist policies and profiteering.

by kriops 2y ago

wakawaka28 2y ago

>A reduction in the space of possible allocations of resources isn’t good. I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business and wreck the country. >It is good for any particular set of parties insofar as it hurts some other set of parties more than themselves. There's a huge misunderstanding in here somewhere. Most people don't think of their own welfare in terms of a negative outcome for anyone else. It's not necessarily a zero sum game. People can coexist and duplicate effort, and that sometimes makes sense. An individual or nation should strive for some reasonable level of self-sufficiency, because you can't always rely on other people to treat you well or take care of you.

kriops 2y ago
To the second half: If some other party seeks to hurt you, it is in your best interest to prevent them from doing so. Especially if the cost is less than the harm they would inflict. Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >Presuming peaceful coexistence, then it is not in anyone's interest to limit anything beyond the basic idea of 'my freedom ends where your begins'. Let me put it another way. Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion, and that would limit the amount of resource usage and toil for everyone. In an ideal world with zero possibility of conflict or other externalities like tsunamis, volcanoes, extreme weather, disease, etc., along with perfect foresight of each monopolist, that makes sense. However, we do have possibilities of disruption that make redundancy beneficial. A monopolistic structure can also grow stagnant. With more competitors you have more chances for good ideas to break through. There is a cost but it is essential to maintain some competition and redundancy across geographic and cultural bounds even if it is not the absolute mathematical minimum resource solution. This redundant effort also helps the labor market by giving people something meaningful to do that might otherwise be unmarketable. My idea of instituting duplicate effort requires support from a lot of people, because it's not free of cost. But I think it's the right way to manage society.
  - kriops 2y ago
    > Your comment suggests some kind of state of maximum efficiency in which the best producer can be charged with production in a monopolistic fashion Only in a risk-free/non-probabilistic world. To be clear, 'my freedom ends where your begins' is a way to simplify and summarize an approach to the theory of rights. The point of bringing it up in this context was to point out that there is an equilibrium between opportunity spaces of different actors. In other words, as long as we share the universe, we can't do expect to do literally anything (to other actors or their property in particular) without reprecussions, because any justification for it would be inconsistent.
BoiledCabbage 2y ago
> I would personally like to eliminate allocations of resources that put me out of business So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it?
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >So would travel agents, real estate agents and car dealerships. Yes, but these people also provide good services. I think car dealerships might be the best bad example out of these because car manufacturers don't deal directly with customers. However, I think the fact is that the manufacturers who set it up like this don't want to deal with customers, and they establish dealerships that agree to a certain quality of service that the manufacturer wants associated with their name. Car dealers are explicitly authorized to negotiate prices with customers, which can go either above or below MSRP. If the manufacturer was selling directly to you, you'd probably be stuck with ONE price which might not be the best one. All three of the cases I quoted here can be viewed as a form of optional delegation that usually benefits the producer, the consumer, or both. If it can be proven that there is a better way to allocate resources (especially on a micro scale), that way should not be categorically banned. But at the international scale especially, you need to be careful. >Just because a change in allocation of resources or production would end businesses / jobs doesn't necessarily make it a bad thing. Yes a handful of unimportant ones here and there doesn't have to be so bad. But if strategically important businesses and jobs are eliminated in an allegedly sovereign region, that is usually a bad thing (proportional to the size of the region). If too many of the less important jobs in a region are eliminated or challenged, that puts stress on the people which is also a bad thing. >I'm not arguing whether this specific policy is good or bad, but mainly that the argument don't do it because "it would cost jobs somewhere" doesn't mean something is a bad policy. Just about every change in the economy costs jobs somewhere. The question is: Does it create more jobs (or higher standard of living) in other places to make up for it? I think this question only makes sense if you're talking about a relatively closed, cohesive system like a sovereign country. "Higher standard of living" is not the only metric that needs to be optimized (at least as it is commonly defined). We need to have a resilient country to the extent that we can. That might mean paying extra costs to support our native businesses, or accepting somewhat worse products in some cases. For example, you personally could cut or reduce most of your insurance and stop saving for retirement. That would put more money in your pocket every month that you could use to buy cool stuff. That might be interpreted as a higher standard of living. But is it wise? This is not far from what we have done on a national scale, driven by globalist policies and profiteering.