3 ms·

IMO this is structurally a part of capitalism. Capitalism provides limited avenues for cooperation. If your problem doesn't meet those limits, capitalism can't

IMO this is structurally a part of capitalism. Capitalism provides limited avenues for cooperation. If your problem doesn't meet those limits, capitalism can't solve it. This seems to arises because capitalism seeks to maximize a personal reward function, rather than a societal one. A good example is car-dependency. Designing land use around car-dependency has a lot of rather painful externalities. Capitalism doesn't account for those externalities, and so decisions are made that are a net-negative (suburban sprawl, urban freeways, etc). These degrade everyone's quality of life & degrade the environment, but are optimal from a capitalist perspective (they enrich the individual decision maker).

naming_the_user 2y ago
The issue with your assessment is that everyone includes the individuals. The externalities associated with driving are probably -1 utility points for me whereas driving is +20 or even more. I think that basically what you are saying only makes sense if society includes a bunch of people who do not benefit, when in reality that’s usually a fairly small group (e.g. in the US or UK the small number of homeless).
- NumberWangMan 2y ago
  I think the whole problem with externalities is that even if everyone gains a private benefit from their choice, you can all be worse off due to the externalities. To take your example, if you have a society of 30 people, each of whom drives, and gains +20 utility for driving, but -1 for each other car on the road, you get a net utility of -9 per person. But if any individual decides not to drive, their utility drops to -29, even as they provide a total benefit of +29 utility to everyone else by choosing not to drive. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that. You have local externalities (noise, particulate pollution, health issues due to a more sedentary lifestyle, deaths and injuries due to accidents) and global ones (GHG emissions). Using public transport also subjects people to some negative externalities, if crime isn't controlled enough, or if people are noise. And you don't want a place that makes driving hard, but also has crappy public transit -- though usually, crappy public transit is a symptom of car-centric design, in my opinion. But I think on balance, places where driving is discouraged in favor of other modes of transport are better off, and especially, a world where private automobiles are rarely used is better than a world where most everyone drives everywhere.
rickydroll 2y ago
Car dpendency is a bad example because it assumes that everyone has the same values and weighs the externalities the same. For me, - Living in an urban space is a huge negative. - Living in a suburban space is a mild negative. - Living in low-density suburbs is a huge positive. - Driving an electric car is a positive. - Driving an ICE car is a negative. - Riding a bicycle or walking is a positive if my knees aren't acting up. It's a negative if they are. A more nuanced description of positive and negative externalities would give a fuller picture, but that's a basic assessment of my values. I think you'll find the same for other examples of externalities. Corporate air and water pollution is a positive for a company (i.e., a company that disposes of waste cheaply). For people in surrounding areas, it's a huge negative. Different values for different populations

naming_the_user 2y ago

The issue with your assessment is that everyone includes the individuals. The externalities associated with driving are probably -1 utility points for me whereas driving is +20 or even more. I think that basically what you are saying only makes sense if society includes a bunch of people who do not benefit, when in reality that’s usually a fairly small group (e.g. in the US or UK the small number of homeless).

NumberWangMan 2y ago
I think the whole problem with externalities is that even if everyone gains a private benefit from their choice, you can all be worse off due to the externalities. To take your example, if you have a society of 30 people, each of whom drives, and gains +20 utility for driving, but -1 for each other car on the road, you get a net utility of -9 per person. But if any individual decides not to drive, their utility drops to -29, even as they provide a total benefit of +29 utility to everyone else by choosing not to drive. It's obviously a lot more complicated than that. You have local externalities (noise, particulate pollution, health issues due to a more sedentary lifestyle, deaths and injuries due to accidents) and global ones (GHG emissions). Using public transport also subjects people to some negative externalities, if crime isn't controlled enough, or if people are noise. And you don't want a place that makes driving hard, but also has crappy public transit -- though usually, crappy public transit is a symptom of car-centric design, in my opinion. But I think on balance, places where driving is discouraged in favor of other modes of transport are better off, and especially, a world where private automobiles are rarely used is better than a world where most everyone drives everywhere.

rickydroll 2y ago

Car dpendency is a bad example because it assumes that everyone has the same values and weighs the externalities the same. For me, - Living in an urban space is a huge negative. - Living in a suburban space is a mild negative. - Living in low-density suburbs is a huge positive. - Driving an electric car is a positive. - Driving an ICE car is a negative. - Riding a bicycle or walking is a positive if my knees aren't acting up. It's a negative if they are. A more nuanced description of positive and negative externalities would give a fuller picture, but that's a basic assessment of my values. I think you'll find the same for other examples of externalities. Corporate air and water pollution is a positive for a company (i.e., a company that disposes of waste cheaply). For people in surrounding areas, it's a huge negative. Different values for different populations