3 ms·

[flagged]

lenerdenator 1y ago
> brilliant economist There's the problem. Economics is the science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today. We don't call people who successfully predict things "economists", we call them planners.
- turnsout 1y ago
  Exactly. Economists don't even have good theories for why something happened, let alone what might happen in the future. The entire field is vibe-based, which they try to cover up with a lot of crackpot math.
- gruez 1y ago
  >There's the problem. Economics is the science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today. Plenty of economists' predictions hold up. Turkey's unorthodox economic theory that higher interest causes inflation did not pan out, and when they hiked interest rates inflation duely dropped. Most prices drop with increased supply and increase with decreased supply. There are some goods that buck this trend, but that's incorporated into economic theory. Moreover your comment implies that economists shouldn't try to explain when their theories don't match up. This seems entirely antithetical to science? Astronomers used to be believe in geocentrism. Is it bad for them to explain why their geocentrist predictions not hold? >We don't call people who successfully predict things "economists", we call them planners. I can't tell whether this is satire. For me, "planners" invoke either bureaucrats of command economies, which have a pretty lousy economic history, or people on zoning boards. Neither are "people who successfully predict things".
zeroCalories 1y ago
Maybe people would just stop shopping as much if everyone was forced to participate? Is the solution to force everyone to engage in mandatory diversity shopping? Or is that what taxes are for?
- triceratops 1y ago
  > people would just stop shopping as much if everyone was forced to participate They'd be out-competed on being able to eat by the people who continued buying groceries without letting their personal biases affect their shopping. Then it's just Darwin at work.
  - zeroCalories 1y ago
    You think you need 100% shopping or 0% shopping? More like when the vibe is off at the cafe you'll decide to just order some beans off Amazon instead.
    - triceratops 1y ago
      I guess just wait from 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed, till the 90s when Amazon was founded? And Amazon would still employ minorities to comply with the law so what's the difference? You've just cheated yourself out of a nice time at the cafe.
      - zeroCalories 1y ago
        Amazon got money, but they got less than the cafe would have. Overall economic activity is down. The Amazon slave labor sustains, the cafe continues to raise prices to keep milking guilty liberals, and the customer sits at home dreaming of a better time. At least they saved some money instead of subjecting themselves to the bad attitude of modern baristas. And in the end, Milton stayed winning.
ch4s3 1y ago
This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. Earlier in the chapter he says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it The chapter is discussing the appropriateness of government regulating negative versus positive harms and he makes the case that regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities and that "fair employment" as imposed by the majority is not "free employment". In the same chapter he argues that "right to work" laws interfere with the freedom to engage in contracts. The arguments are far more subtle than Edward Zitron is making them out to be. Importantly Friedman here and elsewhere refers to people who discriminate on the basis of skin as ignorant racists. Throughout the book he makes the argument that if you remove the legal frameworks that enforced segregation, that people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage in doing so. Reasonable people can disagree with this assessment. He finishes the chapter with this quote: > On the other side of the picture, we should not be so naive as to suppose that deep-seated values and beliefs can be uprooted in short measure by law. If anyone thinks that Friedman was a racist, they haven't honestly engaged with his writing.
- triceratops 1y ago
  I haven't read much Friedman but his logic behind > regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities still makes no goddamn sense. I take back the racism accusation until I've read more of his work but > people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage is still some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no "mutual advantage". There never will be. You're counting on, or rather praying, for hearts and minds at large to change in order to get voluntary integration. That could take generations, or it may never happen. If people can't be nice on their own, maybe they need the stick (government regulation) until they learn.
Dracophoenix 1y ago
If we replaced the grocery store in the example with a Hooters and we replaced white and black grocers with female and male servers, it's easier to see the point being made. This is not to say that it is economically (or morally) sensible in the long term (e.g. Hooters), but it is certainly rational to appeal to a customer's discriminatory preferences for so long as it generates recurring revenue or until some other more profitable avenue opens up. A similar strategy is at play with "Made in USA" marketing (whether or not such claims are true) over the past two decades in its appeal to discrimination/patriotism over financial soundness. In many cases it works. > If just that one owner practices race-blind hiring out of their own personal beliefs they would definitely be harmed. If the law requires every store to practice race-blind hiring and the law is strictly enforced, racist customers will just have to get over themselves or stop buying groceries. The harm is to the agency of the owners. The entire point of a free market is voluntary terms of entry, association, and exit notwithstanding contractual obligations to the contrary. There is no harm to a grocery owner who voluntarily chooses to defy the trend set by his competitors except economic self-harm should he suffer a net loss of customers over the decision. It's the freedom of the consumer to consciously or unconsciously boycott a store that doesn't appeal to his preferences (whether for or against racial discrimination), however petty such preferences are or irrelevant to his purpose (i.e. buying food). It is also the consumer's freedom to patronize a store that does. Conversely, the owner may find new consumers and thus a new of source revenue that outperforms that of his competitors through the practice of race-blind hiring. > If the law requires every store to practice race-blind hiring and the law is strictly enforced, racist customers will just have to get over themselves or stop buying groceries. Or the customers can move out to the countryside, a suburb, or a small town where they can only find white grocers. They can also look for farmers' cooperatives or food clubs unlikely to be staffed by any other race.
- triceratops 1y ago
  > The harm is to the agency of the owners The status quo of discrimination caused harm to the agency of minority employees and shoppers. Why are "owners" more important than them? > There is no harm to a grocery owner... except economic self-harm So then there is harm. Economic harm is kinda the important kind of harm to a business owner. Every other "harm" is surmountable. > Or the customers can move out to the countryside, a suburb, or a small town where they can only find white grocers So what's the problem? They've added transaction costs for themselves to express their preferences.
tomhow 1y ago
Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[flagged]

> brilliant economist There's the problem. Economics is the science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today. We don't call people who successfully predict things "economists", we call them planners.

turnsout 1y ago
Exactly. Economists don't even have good theories for why something happened, let alone what might happen in the future. The entire field is vibe-based, which they try to cover up with a lot of crackpot math.
gruez 1y ago
>There's the problem. Economics is the science of explaining tomorrow why the predictions you made yesterday didn't come true today. Plenty of economists' predictions hold up. Turkey's unorthodox economic theory that higher interest causes inflation did not pan out, and when they hiked interest rates inflation duely dropped. Most prices drop with increased supply and increase with decreased supply. There are some goods that buck this trend, but that's incorporated into economic theory. Moreover your comment implies that economists shouldn't try to explain when their theories don't match up. This seems entirely antithetical to science? Astronomers used to be believe in geocentrism. Is it bad for them to explain why their geocentrist predictions not hold? >We don't call people who successfully predict things "economists", we call them planners. I can't tell whether this is satire. For me, "planners" invoke either bureaucrats of command economies, which have a pretty lousy economic history, or people on zoning boards. Neither are "people who successfully predict things".

zeroCalories 1y ago

Maybe people would just stop shopping as much if everyone was forced to participate? Is the solution to force everyone to engage in mandatory diversity shopping? Or is that what taxes are for?

triceratops 1y ago
> people would just stop shopping as much if everyone was forced to participate They'd be out-competed on being able to eat by the people who continued buying groceries without letting their personal biases affect their shopping. Then it's just Darwin at work.
- zeroCalories 1y ago
  You think you need 100% shopping or 0% shopping? More like when the vibe is off at the cafe you'll decide to just order some beans off Amazon instead.
  - triceratops 1y ago
    I guess just wait from 1964, when the Civil Rights Act passed, till the 90s when Amazon was founded? And Amazon would still employ minorities to comply with the law so what's the difference? You've just cheated yourself out of a nice time at the cafe.
    - zeroCalories 1y ago
      Amazon got money, but they got less than the cafe would have. Overall economic activity is down. The Amazon slave labor sustains, the cafe continues to raise prices to keep milking guilty liberals, and the customer sits at home dreaming of a better time. At least they saved some money instead of subjecting themselves to the bad attitude of modern baristas. And in the end, Milton stayed winning.

ch4s3 1y ago

This quote is taken totally out of context from the chapter of the book it's from and is clipped to make it appear in the worst light. Earlier in the chapter he says: > On the contrary, I believe strongly that the color of a man's skin or the religion of his parents is, by itself, no reason to treat him differently; that a man should be judged by what he is and what he does and not by these external characteristics. I deplore what seem to me the prejudice and narrowness of outlook of those whose tastes differ from mine in this respect and I think the less of them for it The chapter is discussing the appropriateness of government regulating negative versus positive harms and he makes the case that regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities and that "fair employment" as imposed by the majority is not "free employment". In the same chapter he argues that "right to work" laws interfere with the freedom to engage in contracts. The arguments are far more subtle than Edward Zitron is making them out to be. Importantly Friedman here and elsewhere refers to people who discriminate on the basis of skin as ignorant racists. Throughout the book he makes the argument that if you remove the legal frameworks that enforced segregation, that people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage in doing so. Reasonable people can disagree with this assessment. He finishes the chapter with this quote: > On the other side of the picture, we should not be so naive as to suppose that deep-seated values and beliefs can be uprooted in short measure by law. If anyone thinks that Friedman was a racist, they haven't honestly engaged with his writing.

triceratops 1y ago
I haven't read much Friedman but his logic behind > regulating negative harms is a short-sighted and ineffective means of achieving the policy aim of protecting minorities still makes no goddamn sense. I take back the racism accusation until I've read more of his work but > people would over time choose to integrate as they found mutual advantage is still some dumb shit. If letting minorities shop or work in your store drives away the majority there's no "mutual advantage". There never will be. You're counting on, or rather praying, for hearts and minds at large to change in order to get voluntary integration. That could take generations, or it may never happen. If people can't be nice on their own, maybe they need the stick (government regulation) until they learn.

Dracophoenix 1y ago

If we replaced the grocery store in the example with a Hooters and we replaced white and black grocers with female and male servers, it's easier to see the point being made. This is not to say that it is economically (or morally) sensible in the long term (e.g. Hooters), but it is certainly rational to appeal to a customer's discriminatory preferences for so long as it generates recurring revenue or until some other more profitable avenue opens up. A similar strategy is at play with "Made in USA" marketing (whether or not such claims are true) over the past two decades in its appeal to discrimination/patriotism over financial soundness. In many cases it works. > If just that one owner practices race-blind hiring out of their own personal beliefs they would definitely be harmed. If the law requires every store to practice race-blind hiring and the law is strictly enforced, racist customers will just have to get over themselves or stop buying groceries. The harm is to the agency of the owners. The entire point of a free market is voluntary terms of entry, association, and exit notwithstanding contractual obligations to the contrary. There is no harm to a grocery owner who voluntarily chooses to defy the trend set by his competitors except economic self-harm should he suffer a net loss of customers over the decision. It's the freedom of the consumer to consciously or unconsciously boycott a store that doesn't appeal to his preferences (whether for or against racial discrimination), however petty such preferences are or irrelevant to his purpose (i.e. buying food). It is also the consumer's freedom to patronize a store that does. Conversely, the owner may find new consumers and thus a new of source revenue that outperforms that of his competitors through the practice of race-blind hiring. > If the law requires every store to practice race-blind hiring and the law is strictly enforced, racist customers will just have to get over themselves or stop buying groceries. Or the customers can move out to the countryside, a suburb, or a small town where they can only find white grocers. They can also look for farmers' cooperatives or food clubs unlikely to be staffed by any other race.

triceratops 1y ago
> The harm is to the agency of the owners The status quo of discrimination caused harm to the agency of minority employees and shoppers. Why are "owners" more important than them? > There is no harm to a grocery owner... except economic self-harm So then there is harm. Economic harm is kinda the important kind of harm to a business owner. Every other "harm" is surmountable. > Or the customers can move out to the countryside, a suburb, or a small town where they can only find white grocers So what's the problem? They've added transaction costs for themselves to express their preferences.

tomhow 1y ago

Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html