5 ms·

I feel that Gate's comment about curing baldness is a testament to the efficacy of the marketplace. Markets only represent what the people want, and I guarantee

by smokeyj 14y ago

I feel that Gate's comment about curing baldness is a testament to the efficacy of the marketplace. Markets only represent what the people want, and I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria. Bill is noticing a problem with people, and the markets reflect that. The nice part about markets is they can adapt very quickly. If we were to convince enough people malaria was worth curing, we could do it! There's no rule to a marketplace that says you can't. I see two roads you can go down in solving this problem. We can convince the public that a cause is worth investing in, or we can force the public to support a cause (by means of a State actor or other monopoly on violence). Personally, I think historical evidence proves forcing people to do anything is unsustainable and counterproductive. Just one guys opinion.

hodr 14y ago
Where is my baldness vaccine?
mc32 14y ago
I think it's not as simple as that. People who would be affected by Malaria wouldn't have the purchasing power to affect the market. Baldness is universal and so people who have money and care about cosmetic effects, can affect the market to a greater degree.
- Cederfjard 14y ago
  I feel like you just skipped what I believe was smokeyj's entire point: that perhaps it's possible to convince people that a cure for malaria is a cause worth investing in, even if it doesn't affect them personally. It's not a truism that people who are sufficiently well off will necessarily care more about their impending baldness than the lives of others.
  - mc32 14y ago
    You're right, I did skip over some of his point. I would like to think that there is more to the notion than theory though. In practice, cures and treatments for baldness are self-sustaining --advertising > want > investment in treatments > more ads. Malaria (or similar affliction) have different dynamics and are not self-sustaining. (at least I don't see that). It's nice to think we could convince people to care about Malaria the same way they care about baldness (superficially this is a crass comparison), but the benefit (re Malaria) is remote and not immediate. Now, maybe it's not impossible. People unaffected personally by bigotry can show interest (and put effort) into ending bigotry, for example. I think that and Malaria are examples of 'big society'. So, maybe there is hope...
- smokeyj 14y ago
  Correct, treating baldness has more demand. My point is we can influence demand with things like outreach and awareness programs. I'm curious, of all the things killing poor people, who decided malaria was at the top? Some people see clean water and food as a higher priority. Why should anyone tell me how to donate? Do people really have such level of faith in the benevolence of central planners?
warfangle 14y ago
>I guarantee you that more people want to spend money on a cure for baldness rather than saving millions of lives, because people are selfish Fixed that for you. Healthcare and medicine break down when they become for-profit instead of for-health ventures.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  > Healthcare and medicine break down when they become for-profit instead of for-health ventures. Saying for-profit and "for-health" (whatever that means) are mutually exclusive is simply not true. I just picked up some allergy medication yesterday for $10 that is performing excellent. My exercise equipment is manufactured at a very fair rate. I think a profit motive was critical in providing me this invaluable preventative care.. so I can't see it your way. I think a more true statement would be, ventures that are heavily regulated break down, and I would agree.
amit_m 14y ago
You got it wrong: more DOLLARS want to cure baldness than malaria.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  You're correct, but in a "true" market the Federal Reserve wouldn't devaluate currency held/saved by the public, thus allowing the markets to better represent the productive agents of the economy (hint: all the people who go to work everyday). The skew isn't due to capitalism, but the crony nature of finance and banking. One biased opinion.
dscrd 14y ago
>The nice part about markets is they can adapt very quickly. If we were to convince enough people malaria was worth curing, we could do it! There's no rule to a marketplace that says you can't. This is a big problem of free market fundamentalism, in my opinion. It's far too optimistic about how rational people are. I do still think that capitalism might be one of those "it's crap but all options are worse" kind of thing. At least for now.
- smokeyj 14y ago
  > This is a big problem of free market fundamentalism, in my opinion. It's far too optimistic about how rational people are. I think it's a problem with your understanding, in my opinion. If you accept that people are inherently irrational, wouldn't a representative government be equally irrational? Unless of course one accepts the notion of the benevelent actor who burdens himself with the task of propellingn society foward against its will. A parental figure in a sense, who safeguards his sheep for the greater good. You essentially believe in batman, and I'm the optimistic one. I say this lightheartedly, simply trying to illustrate my view.
  - brazzy 14y ago
    The difference is that people are more willing (or perhaps capable) to be rational and idealistic about long-term abstract decisions like voting for a candidate who wants to ban unhealthy food, than about immediate everyday decisions like whether to eat a salad or a donut...
    - sans-serif 14y ago
      While that's not entirely implausible, if we start structuring societies around that idea, then the state could justify any action to a scary extent. You know, for the greater good, we know better, yadda yadda.
  - dscrd 14y ago
    Well, that's a bit of a false dichotomy. But for argument's sake... Even if people (as in, most people) are irrational, that wouldn't necessarily lead to their rulers being irrational, would it? After all, we supposedly* select people who are good at ruling to be rulers, just like we supposedly select people who are good at healing people to be doctors. They are expected to be better at it because they are interested in it, have studied it and are focused to do it, not because they're supermen. * yes, this could be tad optimistic, especially under democracy because of the very irrationality of most people
RivieraKid 14y ago
Markets represent what rich people want.
- pdonis 14y ago
  How did they get rich in the first place? Hint: It wasn't by charitable donations.
- voxfrege 14y ago
  > Markets represent what rich people want. Do you want to tell us, that it is the rich people that crowd the Walmarts and other temples of mass consumption? If that are your rich people over there in America, then GOD may have pity with you!
lukeschlather 14y ago
Unsustainable maybe, but then historical evidence proves no political endeavor is sustainable. Most sustainable entity really goes to the the Catholic Church. On that note I'd argue historical sustainability is not a great way to choose political models. As for counterproductive, the US has a number of good examples of "forcing" people to do things being productive. WWII and the moon landing are the classic examples. Of course, since I'm not a free-market capitalist but a staunch advocate of democracy, I don't really view government-directed activities as forced but rather democratically directed.
furyofantares 14y ago
> I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria. I know you're getting hammered on this point already, but I feel like the other responses are coming from the angle that there are a ton of people in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South America that don't have much money but would likely disagree with your count. But I'll come at it from a different angle: My step-father has spent a decent chunk of change on hair-growth products. But I guarantee you if he was given the choice between curing malaria and curing baldness, he would cure malaria, and I expect this would be true of most people.
- brazzy 14y ago
  Your step-father already had the choice of donating that money to malaria research or prevention programmes. Sure, the former isn't guaranteed to lead to success, but from what I hear hair-growth products don't exactly have a stellar track record either (unlike malaria prevention programmes).
  - malyk 14y ago
    Of course. If everyone was a perfect little rational automaton then they would weigh all the factors and choose appropriately. Bu they aren't. Social and cultural norms, advertising, pride, self esteem, distance and on and on influence people to choose the hair products over people's lives. I'm not saying its wrong to want to keep your hair over saving people from malaria. But I am saying its wrong to think that "the market" is this perfect thing and "rational actors" actually exist. The market is great, but it isn't right about everything, and people don't have enough information and are too easily influenced by everything else to be considered rational about anything.
    - rapind 14y ago
      It's also entirely possible that if baldness was cured, he'd have more hair, which would give him more confidence, which would in turn affect everything in his life including his earning potential, which he may then donate to curing malaria in much greater amounts. At least if I was selling Rogaine, that's how I might spin it.
brazzy 14y ago
> I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria. You are so very, very wrong. More rich people want to cure baldness than malaria, because pretty much all rich countries are in climates where malaria can't thrive. How many people do you think care more about their thinning hair than an illness that can kill their children?
- rdouble 14y ago
  The USA has ideal conditions for malaria. Washington DC was a giant malarial swamp at one point.
  - illuminate 14y ago
    Florida has an abundance of skeeters, but they do not test positive for malaria.
    - rdouble 14y ago
      Yes but that was not always the case. Malaria was endemic to North America and existed from Florida all the way up through Minnesota. The CDC was formed as the center for malaria control. I was responding to the point that "pretty much all rich countries" are in areas with climates not conducive to malaria. There are at least a half dozen rich countries that once were endemic to malaria. USA, Hong Kong, Australia, Italy, Singapore, etc.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- smokeyj 14y ago
  I should have specified that I was talking about the US. My point was the US markets serve the US's demands very well. And if demand grew to cure malaria, the market would solve it, much like any other demand.
- kevinskii 14y ago
  It seems, then, that we need to figure out how to create more rich people in sub-Saharan Africa. Capitalism isn't the problem. It is the best long-term solution to problems like these.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
cema 14y ago
We can convince the public that a cause is worth investing in, or we can force the public I think this is a fundamental distinction. I am surprised and dismayed so many (smart and intelligent) people do not appear to consider it critical. Perhaps I have a different perspective after having lived in a non-democratic country for about half my life? I am not sure.

by smokeyj 14y ago

hodr 14y ago

Where is my baldness vaccine?

mc32 14y ago

I think it's not as simple as that. People who would be affected by Malaria wouldn't have the purchasing power to affect the market. Baldness is universal and so people who have money and care about cosmetic effects, can affect the market to a greater degree.

Cederfjard 14y ago
I feel like you just skipped what I believe was smokeyj's entire point: that perhaps it's possible to convince people that a cure for malaria is a cause worth investing in, even if it doesn't affect them personally. It's not a truism that people who are sufficiently well off will necessarily care more about their impending baldness than the lives of others.
- mc32 14y ago
  You're right, I did skip over some of his point. I would like to think that there is more to the notion than theory though. In practice, cures and treatments for baldness are self-sustaining --advertising > want > investment in treatments > more ads. Malaria (or similar affliction) have different dynamics and are not self-sustaining. (at least I don't see that). It's nice to think we could convince people to care about Malaria the same way they care about baldness (superficially this is a crass comparison), but the benefit (re Malaria) is remote and not immediate. Now, maybe it's not impossible. People unaffected personally by bigotry can show interest (and put effort) into ending bigotry, for example. I think that and Malaria are examples of 'big society'. So, maybe there is hope...
smokeyj 14y ago
Correct, treating baldness has more demand. My point is we can influence demand with things like outreach and awareness programs. I'm curious, of all the things killing poor people, who decided malaria was at the top? Some people see clean water and food as a higher priority. Why should anyone tell me how to donate? Do people really have such level of faith in the benevolence of central planners?

warfangle 14y ago

>I guarantee you that more people want to spend money on a cure for baldness rather than saving millions of lives, because people are selfish Fixed that for you. Healthcare and medicine break down when they become for-profit instead of for-health ventures.

smokeyj 14y ago
> Healthcare and medicine break down when they become for-profit instead of for-health ventures. Saying for-profit and "for-health" (whatever that means) are mutually exclusive is simply not true. I just picked up some allergy medication yesterday for $10 that is performing excellent. My exercise equipment is manufactured at a very fair rate. I think a profit motive was critical in providing me this invaluable preventative care.. so I can't see it your way. I think a more true statement would be, ventures that are heavily regulated break down, and I would agree.

amit_m 14y ago

You got it wrong: more DOLLARS want to cure baldness than malaria.

smokeyj 14y ago
You're correct, but in a "true" market the Federal Reserve wouldn't devaluate currency held/saved by the public, thus allowing the markets to better represent the productive agents of the economy (hint: all the people who go to work everyday). The skew isn't due to capitalism, but the crony nature of finance and banking. One biased opinion.

dscrd 14y ago

>The nice part about markets is they can adapt very quickly. If we were to convince enough people malaria was worth curing, we could do it! There's no rule to a marketplace that says you can't. This is a big problem of free market fundamentalism, in my opinion. It's far too optimistic about how rational people are. I do still think that capitalism might be one of those "it's crap but all options are worse" kind of thing. At least for now.

smokeyj 14y ago
> This is a big problem of free market fundamentalism, in my opinion. It's far too optimistic about how rational people are. I think it's a problem with your understanding, in my opinion. If you accept that people are inherently irrational, wouldn't a representative government be equally irrational? Unless of course one accepts the notion of the benevelent actor who burdens himself with the task of propellingn society foward against its will. A parental figure in a sense, who safeguards his sheep for the greater good. You essentially believe in batman, and I'm the optimistic one. I say this lightheartedly, simply trying to illustrate my view.
- brazzy 14y ago
  The difference is that people are more willing (or perhaps capable) to be rational and idealistic about long-term abstract decisions like voting for a candidate who wants to ban unhealthy food, than about immediate everyday decisions like whether to eat a salad or a donut...
  - sans-serif 14y ago
    While that's not entirely implausible, if we start structuring societies around that idea, then the state could justify any action to a scary extent. You know, for the greater good, we know better, yadda yadda.
- dscrd 14y ago
  Well, that's a bit of a false dichotomy. But for argument's sake... Even if people (as in, most people) are irrational, that wouldn't necessarily lead to their rulers being irrational, would it? After all, we supposedly* select people who are good at ruling to be rulers, just like we supposedly select people who are good at healing people to be doctors. They are expected to be better at it because they are interested in it, have studied it and are focused to do it, not because they're supermen. * yes, this could be tad optimistic, especially under democracy because of the very irrationality of most people

RivieraKid 14y ago

Markets represent what rich people want.

pdonis 14y ago
How did they get rich in the first place? Hint: It wasn't by charitable donations.
voxfrege 14y ago
> Markets represent what rich people want. Do you want to tell us, that it is the rich people that crowd the Walmarts and other temples of mass consumption? If that are your rich people over there in America, then GOD may have pity with you!

lukeschlather 14y ago

Unsustainable maybe, but then historical evidence proves no political endeavor is sustainable. Most sustainable entity really goes to the the Catholic Church. On that note I'd argue historical sustainability is not a great way to choose political models. As for counterproductive, the US has a number of good examples of "forcing" people to do things being productive. WWII and the moon landing are the classic examples. Of course, since I'm not a free-market capitalist but a staunch advocate of democracy, I don't really view government-directed activities as forced but rather democratically directed.

furyofantares 14y ago

> I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria. I know you're getting hammered on this point already, but I feel like the other responses are coming from the angle that there are a ton of people in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South America that don't have much money but would likely disagree with your count. But I'll come at it from a different angle: My step-father has spent a decent chunk of change on hair-growth products. But I guarantee you if he was given the choice between curing malaria and curing baldness, he would cure malaria, and I expect this would be true of most people.

brazzy 14y ago
Your step-father already had the choice of donating that money to malaria research or prevention programmes. Sure, the former isn't guaranteed to lead to success, but from what I hear hair-growth products don't exactly have a stellar track record either (unlike malaria prevention programmes).
- malyk 14y ago
  Of course. If everyone was a perfect little rational automaton then they would weigh all the factors and choose appropriately. Bu they aren't. Social and cultural norms, advertising, pride, self esteem, distance and on and on influence people to choose the hair products over people's lives. I'm not saying its wrong to want to keep your hair over saving people from malaria. But I am saying its wrong to think that "the market" is this perfect thing and "rational actors" actually exist. The market is great, but it isn't right about everything, and people don't have enough information and are too easily influenced by everything else to be considered rational about anything.
  - rapind 14y ago
    It's also entirely possible that if baldness was cured, he'd have more hair, which would give him more confidence, which would in turn affect everything in his life including his earning potential, which he may then donate to curing malaria in much greater amounts. At least if I was selling Rogaine, that's how I might spin it.

brazzy 14y ago

> I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria. You are so very, very wrong. More rich people want to cure baldness than malaria, because pretty much all rich countries are in climates where malaria can't thrive. How many people do you think care more about their thinning hair than an illness that can kill their children?

rdouble 14y ago
The USA has ideal conditions for malaria. Washington DC was a giant malarial swamp at one point.
- illuminate 14y ago
  Florida has an abundance of skeeters, but they do not test positive for malaria.
  - rdouble 14y ago
    Yes but that was not always the case. Malaria was endemic to North America and existed from Florida all the way up through Minnesota. The CDC was formed as the center for malaria control. I was responding to the point that "pretty much all rich countries" are in areas with climates not conducive to malaria. There are at least a half dozen rich countries that once were endemic to malaria. USA, Hong Kong, Australia, Italy, Singapore, etc.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
smokeyj 14y ago
I should have specified that I was talking about the US. My point was the US markets serve the US's demands very well. And if demand grew to cure malaria, the market would solve it, much like any other demand.
kevinskii 14y ago
It seems, then, that we need to figure out how to create more rich people in sub-Saharan Africa. Capitalism isn't the problem. It is the best long-term solution to problems like these.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

cema 14y ago

We can convince the public that a cause is worth investing in, or we can force the public I think this is a fundamental distinction. I am surprised and dismayed so many (smart and intelligent) people do not appear to consider it critical. Perhaps I have a different perspective after having lived in a non-democratic country for about half my life? I am not sure.