6 ms·

>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

by 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
  - justinmk 14y ago
    > we supposedly* select people who are good at ruling The consumer is irrational, but the voter is rational? This is a contradiction. The operative difference between a purchase and a vote is that purchases are (1) voluntary, and (2) continually adjusting to changing conditions.
    - dscrd 14y ago
      Please reread my comment. Everything you said was covered there already.
- jordan0day 14y ago
  You're putting words into dscrd's mouth. They didn't say that people are "inherently irrational", which would imply that making a rational decision would be some extraordinary occurrence. Likewise, I wonder if it's reasonable to claim that people are "inherently rational", because we all know from experience that it doesn't require extraordinary circumstances for a person to make an irrational choice. People make both rational and irrational decisions all the time! I know you're trying to make a lighthearted jest, but your benevolent actor = batman illustration seems a little too mean-spirited in its chiding. You start by misconstruing dscrd's meaning, and end by claiming that dscrd's "essentially believe[s] in batman". I don't think it's unreasonable (irrational?) to presume that people are capable of increasing the amount of rationality they wish to apply to a problem based on its stakes (although we have plenty of anecdotes to support the counterpoint to this, as well), while still constantly making irrational choices on things which are (or appear to be) lower-stakes. For example: I probably wouldn't build a house next to a coal power plant. I would consider that to be a rational decision. On the other hand, I may be a smoker, or really, really love doughnuts. There may be rational components to each of those (they give pleasure), but when viewed in the light of my decision to not live next to a coal power plant (I don't want to eventually get sick), they seem like pretty irrational decisions (because they'll eventually make me sick).
  - smokeyj 14y ago
    If I'm misinterpreting dscrd's argument please help me out. I interpreted his critique to markets as they won't work because they represent the will of the people, and sometimes the will of the people is wrong (because they're irrational)? He seemed to accept that argument and wanted to push it forward.. > There may be rational components to each of those (they give pleasure), but when viewed in the light of my decision to not live next to a coal power plant (I don't want to eventually get sick), they seem like pretty irrational decisions (because they'll eventually make me sick). Sounds like value theory to me. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. Donuts make me reeeaaally happy, so I'll indulge. To make up for it, I'll run a mile. I like eating a donut and running a mile over not having a donut at all. It's not a matter of rationality, but preference -- which is what value should reflect. The creation of value can't be institutionalized by a central planner because preference is so diverse and changes at a rate quicker than any beurocracy can address. Again, just one persons observations.
voxfrege 14y ago
No, this is not a problem with market fundamentalism, whatever this is, but with properties ascribed to market fundamentalism. Advocates of free markets tell you that the outcome is such and such if and when market participants can serve their interest as they see fit. They don't tell you that the outcome will be what you call "rational".
chacham15 14y ago
I had a professor once who invested in the stock market a lot. He invested a lot in Apple, but he always looked dismayed. When we asked him about it, he replied: "the market can remain irrational longer than I can stay solvent." So while, I believe that the market is ultimately rational, there are delays which can make it appear irrational.
pdonis 14y ago
You appear to be assuming that wanting to cure malaria in some other country is more rational than wanting to cure one's own baldness. Can you provide an argument for that?
- smokeyj 14y ago
  Instead of rational, I would say valuable. Curing malaria can be more valuable than one's own baldness due to altruistic motives such as love, empathy, compassion. It can also be valuable for selfish motives. People do things like donate and volunteer all the time, so I don't think it's an unheard of concept.
  - pdonis 14y ago
    All this is true, and the point is that "free market fundamentalism" is perfectly consistent with it. Free market fundamentalism doesn't assume people are "perfectly rational"; it assumes that people value things and will do things that they reasonably expect to lead to things they value. (I realize that you know this, but I'm not sure the parent poster to mine does.)

by dscrd 14y ago

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
- justinmk 14y ago
  > we supposedly* select people who are good at ruling The consumer is irrational, but the voter is rational? This is a contradiction. The operative difference between a purchase and a vote is that purchases are (1) voluntary, and (2) continually adjusting to changing conditions.
  - dscrd 14y ago
    Please reread my comment. Everything you said was covered there already.
jordan0day 14y ago
You're putting words into dscrd's mouth. They didn't say that people are "inherently irrational", which would imply that making a rational decision would be some extraordinary occurrence. Likewise, I wonder if it's reasonable to claim that people are "inherently rational", because we all know from experience that it doesn't require extraordinary circumstances for a person to make an irrational choice. People make both rational and irrational decisions all the time! I know you're trying to make a lighthearted jest, but your benevolent actor = batman illustration seems a little too mean-spirited in its chiding. You start by misconstruing dscrd's meaning, and end by claiming that dscrd's "essentially believe[s] in batman". I don't think it's unreasonable (irrational?) to presume that people are capable of increasing the amount of rationality they wish to apply to a problem based on its stakes (although we have plenty of anecdotes to support the counterpoint to this, as well), while still constantly making irrational choices on things which are (or appear to be) lower-stakes. For example: I probably wouldn't build a house next to a coal power plant. I would consider that to be a rational decision. On the other hand, I may be a smoker, or really, really love doughnuts. There may be rational components to each of those (they give pleasure), but when viewed in the light of my decision to not live next to a coal power plant (I don't want to eventually get sick), they seem like pretty irrational decisions (because they'll eventually make me sick).
- smokeyj 14y ago
  If I'm misinterpreting dscrd's argument please help me out. I interpreted his critique to markets as they won't work because they represent the will of the people, and sometimes the will of the people is wrong (because they're irrational)? He seemed to accept that argument and wanted to push it forward.. > There may be rational components to each of those (they give pleasure), but when viewed in the light of my decision to not live next to a coal power plant (I don't want to eventually get sick), they seem like pretty irrational decisions (because they'll eventually make me sick). Sounds like value theory to me. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. Donuts make me reeeaaally happy, so I'll indulge. To make up for it, I'll run a mile. I like eating a donut and running a mile over not having a donut at all. It's not a matter of rationality, but preference -- which is what value should reflect. The creation of value can't be institutionalized by a central planner because preference is so diverse and changes at a rate quicker than any beurocracy can address. Again, just one persons observations.

voxfrege 14y ago

No, this is not a problem with market fundamentalism, whatever this is, but with properties ascribed to market fundamentalism. Advocates of free markets tell you that the outcome is such and such if and when market participants can serve their interest as they see fit. They don't tell you that the outcome will be what you call "rational".

chacham15 14y ago

I had a professor once who invested in the stock market a lot. He invested a lot in Apple, but he always looked dismayed. When we asked him about it, he replied: "the market can remain irrational longer than I can stay solvent." So while, I believe that the market is ultimately rational, there are delays which can make it appear irrational.

pdonis 14y ago

You appear to be assuming that wanting to cure malaria in some other country is more rational than wanting to cure one's own baldness. Can you provide an argument for that?

smokeyj 14y ago
Instead of rational, I would say valuable. Curing malaria can be more valuable than one's own baldness due to altruistic motives such as love, empathy, compassion. It can also be valuable for selfish motives. People do things like donate and volunteer all the time, so I don't think it's an unheard of concept.
- pdonis 14y ago
  All this is true, and the point is that "free market fundamentalism" is perfectly consistent with it. Free market fundamentalism doesn't assume people are "perfectly rational"; it assumes that people value things and will do things that they reasonably expect to lead to things they value. (I realize that you know this, but I'm not sure the parent poster to mine does.)