3 ms·

I think you say 'basic economics' but actually mean 'ideal free market'. Economics is the science of economies, which do not have to be free or market based. T

I think you say 'basic economics' but actually mean 'ideal free market'. Economics is the science of economies, which do not have to be free or market based. The problem with people's basic understanding of free markets is that it is heavily simplified. We are looking at it from the perspective of 'what if human nature wasn't ever a problem, everyone was always perfectly rational, and everyone had all of the information they needed to make a rational decision'. Those criteria do not and have never existed, which is why the free market fails sometimes at doing some basic things. Don't get me wrong, it is a great idea and it solves all sorts of problems and we should keep using it -- but don't come to the conclusion that because it all works out in the theory part, then if something in the real world is a certain way then we have to accept that it is efficient and inevitable.

jonahx 1y ago
You've made a general argument that shows not all theoretical economic theories about free markets can be trusted. Fair enough. But my claim is much narrower. It merely relies on the love of money of real people in our current economy, and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would find and pay for products that don't screw their privacy, control, etc. I think both those premises are undeniably true.
- Eisenstein 1y ago
  So you are saying that because people are being screwed in the current market that is undeniable proof that people are OK with being screwed by the market? If I misunderstand you please correct me. If that is what you contend, then you have no addressed whether or not the market allows them to do otherwise. You take for granted that the market is free and that people are willingly choosing this outcome with perfect knowledge and without any incentives or forces which would compel them to act despite not wanting to be screwed. For instance, if you do not have bargaining power with a company over your contract, you have no choice but to accept it. Can you enter into negotiations before agreeing to a EULA? There are forces that are not free market forces which constrain actions, there is human tendency to prioritize immediate needs over long term benefits, etc which all play a role. The fact that: 1. The market exists 2. We have a conception of how the market should work in an ideal 3. People act in a certain way do not all combine to make it true that 'people prefer it this way'. That's the point I am making in counter to your assertion.
  - jonahx 1y ago
    You are making all these theoretical points... do you doubt that people are demonstrably lazy and willing to give up their privacy and control for free or cheap or convenient stuff? I don't see how this is even a contentious point to make. You're bringing up all these theoretical counterpoints that either obviously don't apply, or only apply very partially. There are many local only, FOSS options available for every type of software, right now, many free, for people that care about privacy and control in their computing. They generally have tiny market share. If they were made even more convenient, I don't believe the impact would be substantial. By that I mean stuff like brand recognition, what friends are using, and so on would still be more important decision factors than privacy/control features. This is a people problem, not a "free market not behaving like its theoretical model" problem. Either people don't fully understand the meaning and importance of their privacy, or their revealed preference of not caring that much is just... sadly... true.
    - Eisenstein 1y ago
      Right, I guess am focusing more on your using the 'economics' as proof that it is a people problem, because I see it used that way all the time without regard to structures and human elements. Basically people use 'but the market is obviously working so it must just be the way it is'. They see it as the result of a theoretical market structure in which people make purely rational decisions in their best interest on an even playing field with everyone else, instead of a situation which is affected by laws (or lack of them), specific cultural events, and psychology among many other things. Sorry if I was talking past you instead of with you, but I have to say that I don't think it is fair to call my responses 'theoretical counterpoints'. What I am doing is pointing out that on the face of your claim, you are engaging in what could reasonably be called 'begging the question'. That is, assuming the conclusion in your own argument without actually showing that that conclusion has a logical basis. Saying 'the current situation exists, and because people have mechanisms by which they can affect that situation that means they are in complete control of the situation' is not logically valid unless you can account for those things which they do not have mechanisms to control being irrelevant to the outcome.
- ksynwa 1y ago
  > and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would That's a terrible premise. Why are you assuming that this flow exists and that billions of people are failing individually rather than the simpler one this flow not existing?
  - jonahx 1y ago
    One reason: Whenever I've made the case personally to friends/family, people who are smart but not interested in messing around with tech, I am usually met with a giant shoulder shrug. Or perhaps, in a best case scenario, "Yeah that doesn't sound great, but there's no way I'm installing X to deal with it". We can always say the case hasn't been made well enough, and maybe it hasn't it, but at what point do you just start believing people?

jonahx 1y ago

You've made a general argument that shows not all theoretical economic theories about free markets can be trusted. Fair enough. But my claim is much narrower. It merely relies on the love of money of real people in our current economy, and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would find and pay for products that don't screw their privacy, control, etc. I think both those premises are undeniably true.

Eisenstein 1y ago
So you are saying that because people are being screwed in the current market that is undeniable proof that people are OK with being screwed by the market? If I misunderstand you please correct me. If that is what you contend, then you have no addressed whether or not the market allows them to do otherwise. You take for granted that the market is free and that people are willingly choosing this outcome with perfect knowledge and without any incentives or forces which would compel them to act despite not wanting to be screwed. For instance, if you do not have bargaining power with a company over your contract, you have no choice but to accept it. Can you enter into negotiations before agreeing to a EULA? There are forces that are not free market forces which constrain actions, there is human tendency to prioritize immediate needs over long term benefits, etc which all play a role. The fact that: 1. The market exists 2. We have a conception of how the market should work in an ideal 3. People act in a certain way do not all combine to make it true that 'people prefer it this way'. That's the point I am making in counter to your assertion.
- jonahx 1y ago
  You are making all these theoretical points... do you doubt that people are demonstrably lazy and willing to give up their privacy and control for free or cheap or convenient stuff? I don't see how this is even a contentious point to make. You're bringing up all these theoretical counterpoints that either obviously don't apply, or only apply very partially. There are many local only, FOSS options available for every type of software, right now, many free, for people that care about privacy and control in their computing. They generally have tiny market share. If they were made even more convenient, I don't believe the impact would be substantial. By that I mean stuff like brand recognition, what friends are using, and so on would still be more important decision factors than privacy/control features. This is a people problem, not a "free market not behaving like its theoretical model" problem. Either people don't fully understand the meaning and importance of their privacy, or their revealed preference of not caring that much is just... sadly... true.
  - Eisenstein 1y ago
    Right, I guess am focusing more on your using the 'economics' as proof that it is a people problem, because I see it used that way all the time without regard to structures and human elements. Basically people use 'but the market is obviously working so it must just be the way it is'. They see it as the result of a theoretical market structure in which people make purely rational decisions in their best interest on an even playing field with everyone else, instead of a situation which is affected by laws (or lack of them), specific cultural events, and psychology among many other things. Sorry if I was talking past you instead of with you, but I have to say that I don't think it is fair to call my responses 'theoretical counterpoints'. What I am doing is pointing out that on the face of your claim, you are engaging in what could reasonably be called 'begging the question'. That is, assuming the conclusion in your own argument without actually showing that that conclusion has a logical basis. Saying 'the current situation exists, and because people have mechanisms by which they can affect that situation that means they are in complete control of the situation' is not logically valid unless you can account for those things which they do not have mechanisms to control being irrelevant to the outcome.
ksynwa 1y ago
> and the premise that there is enough information flow that, if people cared, they would That's a terrible premise. Why are you assuming that this flow exists and that billions of people are failing individually rather than the simpler one this flow not existing?
- jonahx 1y ago
  One reason: Whenever I've made the case personally to friends/family, people who are smart but not interested in messing around with tech, I am usually met with a giant shoulder shrug. Or perhaps, in a best case scenario, "Yeah that doesn't sound great, but there's no way I'm installing X to deal with it". We can always say the case hasn't been made well enough, and maybe it hasn't it, but at what point do you just start believing people?