3 ms·

> In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying. True. Don't we tacitly agree as a soc

> In aggregate, you reduce trips flown minimally. On the individual level, you’re pricing certain families out of flying. True. Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? We have minimum wages and we don't let people sell cars made of cardboard, even to those otherwise unable to buy transportation. I'm not sure economists have properly modeled the mass psychic effects of enshittification or, more generally, model the morale and spirit of the people as a proper factor of production.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort. Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. > not sure economists have properly modeled Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?
- quotemstr 1y ago
  > Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why. It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior. Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that? Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt? Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors. You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear. > Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done? You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation. It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf. > Where's the economics model that captures that? Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer? > You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
    - quotemstr 1y ago
      > Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions. Which frictions capture the concepts I'm describing? I'm not talking about transaction costs. I'm not talking about search frictions. I'm not talking about information frictions. I'm talking, ultimately, about how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor of production and fail to account for it when optimizing for consumer surplus. When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum, the consequent mass cynicism itself imposes severe transaction and opportunity costs on society. Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures! And don't bullshit me about economists taking this effect into account. Who models social capital depreciation? Give me names. You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor Again, did you even bother to look? > When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum Not how every economic interaction is modelled in even toy models. > Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures …yes. > You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so I can’t tell if this comment thread is just a desire to rant. To third parties, yes, this is all modelled. Not perfectly. But not due to lack of effort. There are lots of things thrown out above, so I’m not going to chase down citations for someone who is unlikely to read them, given many should be findable within minutes of googling.

JumpCrisscross 1y ago

> Don't we tacitly agree as a society, in other contexts, that certain experiences aren't worth having at all if they're below some quality threshold? I think the reasonable delineation is that we do for safety and we don’t for comfort. Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. > not sure economists have properly modeled Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done?

quotemstr 1y ago
> Otherwise, it strikes me as patronizing to decide someone else shouldn’t fly so you and I can avoid the friction of paying for a more-comfortable seat. My views have shifted towards believing the optimal level of economic paternalism being somewhat above zero. Comments like yours are why. It's beyond obvious that a society in which every transaction is just barely tolerable is a miserable society, that people will make themselves miserable by hyperoptimizing for price, and that perhaps policy has a role in stopping that self destructive behavior. Individual choice is not the summum bonum ultra of a good life. Where's the economics model that captures that? Also, what's the rational basis for being paternalistic about safety but not quality? Safety is a dimension of quality. Are people competent to be autonomous about marginal utility except when it involves a seat belt? Your position is incoherent. Either come out against safety mandates and minimum wages or acknowledge that there is a role for policy in setting quality floors. You might say "safety risks impose externalities we must internalize". That's just availability bias talking. We can see broken bones. We can't see broken souls. Each incremental hit to public trust and overall happiness is also an externality we must all bear. > Given you didn’t recognise friction as having been extensively modelled, maybe reduce confidence in your intuitions around what economists have and haven’t done? You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones. I'm not talking about immediate and local transaction costs.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > the optimal amount of economic paternalism is not zero Apart from anarchists, nobody believes in zero regulation. It may be the case that pricing the poor out of flying leaves them feeling more dignified. It may also be the case that enrages them. I’d want to ask them before assuming on their behalf. > Where's the economics model that captures that? Honest question, did you look before assuming the answer? > You're talking local effects. I'm talking global ones Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions.
  - quotemstr 1y ago
    > Nope. Friction is modelled micro and macro economically, which much of the research focusing on the systemic effects of seemingly-insignificant frictions. Which frictions capture the concepts I'm describing? I'm not talking about transaction costs. I'm not talking about search frictions. I'm not talking about information frictions. I'm talking, ultimately, about how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor of production and fail to account for it when optimizing for consumer surplus. When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum, the consequent mass cynicism itself imposes severe transaction and opportunity costs on society. Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures! And don't bullshit me about economists taking this effect into account. Who models social capital depreciation? Give me names. You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > how economists don't model social cohesion itself as a factor Again, did you even bother to look? > When markets train people to treat every interaction as zero-sum Not how every economic interaction is modelled in even toy models. > Revealed preferences are differently welfare-maximizing under different market structures …yes. > You people have all the mathematical tools to model welfare. You just don't deign to do so I can’t tell if this comment thread is just a desire to rant. To third parties, yes, this is all modelled. Not perfectly. But not due to lack of effort. There are lots of things thrown out above, so I’m not going to chase down citations for someone who is unlikely to read them, given many should be findable within minutes of googling.