3 ms·

> entire theory of the efficiency of "free markets" is predicated on the rational choice model Whatever theory you are referring to is probably bullshit (defi

by javert 13y ago

> entire theory of the efficiency of "free markets" is predicated on the rational choice model Whatever theory you are referring to is probably bullshit (definitely, if it's the one I think it is), but it's not the only theory supporting free markets. So you argument is basically a straw man.

dragonwriter 13y ago
I am anxious to see your presentation of any theory supporting the efficiency, in utilitarian terms, of "free markets" in which the claim that information asymmetry is a positive property is defensible.
- philwelch 13y ago
  Don't hold your breath. Javert is an Ayn Rand disciple.
  - javert 13y ago
    Objectivism is actually the systematic rejection of Platonic thinking in philosophy, and thus is the opposite of a religion. So it's wrong to call me a "disciple." Why shouldn't he hold his breath? Do you think I can't answer a simple question?
    - philwelch 13y ago
      Per Wiktionary: 1. A person who learns from another, especially one who then teaches others. 2. An active follower or adherent of someone, or some philosophy etc. (http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/disciple http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/disciple) I would say there's no connotation of religion or Platonism in the word "disciple" and that by the second definition especially, you are very much a disciple of Ayn Rand. That's why it's useless to ask you for a utilitarian argument--Rand never dealt in utilitarianism, and as her disciple, you wouldn't, either.
      - javert 13y ago
        Arguably, there is no _denotation_ of blindly following someone in the word "disciple," but I certainly feel that there is a _connotation_ of that. I would also reject being called a "follower" or "adherent." All of these seem to me to have a connotation of _blind_ following, faith, or believing something just because you _trust_ some "authority" figure. People who agree with Darwin are not called "disciples" of Darwin. I acknowledge that the word "disciple" _is_ sometimes used to describe people who agree with a certain intellectual thinker, but I still think it generally has a negative connotation. Anyway, regardless of your opinion on the word, Objectivists are likely to interpret you as being openly hostile if you use it to describe them. Though I can't speak for everyone, as I am a particularly sensitive person. For instance, Your "don't hold your breath" point was right on target, but I initially interpreted it differently than the way I now think you meant it.
        philwelch 13y ago
        Darwin didn't advance a comprehensive philosophical system but rather a unifying theory of biology. And it was not a theory that was unique to him; he only published his theory of natural selection when it was independently developed by another scientist. He gets the credit in the same sense that Newton (or is it Liebniz?) gets credit for calculus--it has simply passed into accepted truth and it's merely a question of history as to who came up with the theory of natural selection. Rand, on the other hand, advanced a large, comprehensive philosophical system that has never been independently arrived at. Every Objectivist becomes such by reading and becoming convinced by the works of Rand and her associates. And very little disagreement with Rand is tolerated--certainly no disagreement with what she clearly incorporated into her philosophical system itself. This is the behavior of disciples, not simply people who agree with a philosopher. This is not to say that they are wrong, but that they are engaging in a behavior--namely wholesale acceptance of another person's thoughts--that fits, for me, the denotation and connotation of the word "disciple". And it doesn't bother me one bit that some disciples of Rand bristle at that word, because the word fits.
        javert 13y ago
- javert 13y ago
  Utilitarianism is bankrupt moral philosophy, so you won't get a utilitarian justification from me. Unless you just mean "utilitarian" to mean "useful" or "efficient." I really don't have the patience to go deep into philosophy and economics in HN comments, so I'm not going to try to do that. The most I aim for normally is just to call out irrationality that can easily and convincingly be called out. That said, I'll go into it a little bit. I'm not saying that it's good for certain people to know less than others. I'm saying that it's inherent in human society. The whole point of a stock market, to take a simple example, is so that a company can raise money based on certain people's belief that the company will do well. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. They want to take the risk. The whole situation comes from information asymmetry. If that weren't the case, all investments would be no-brainers, and everything would be totally different. That said, the market rewards people for acting rationally on the information they have. That's not the purpose of the market, exactly, but it's a good thing. And it does not imply victimhood. Knowing less doesn't make you a victim of someone who knows more. Overall, people acting rationally on information they know is fundamental to the economy. This is a huge topic, so I'm not sure if these points are that relevant to whatever you are thinking, but there you have it.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Utilitarianism is bankrupt moral philosophy, so you won't get a utilitarian justification from me. > Unless you just mean "utilitarian" to mean "useful" or "efficient." Economic efficiency and the value proposition of utilitarianism are defined identically, so, yes, I'm saying "utilitarian" to mean "efficient". > I really don't have the patience to go deep into philosophy and economics in HN comments Then you probably shouldn't make value claims about properties of economic arrangements. > I'm not saying that it's good for certain people to know less than others. I'm saying that it's inherent in human society. You seem, then, to have completely abandoned the "positive property" claim that I asked you to support. > The whole point of a stock market, to take a simple example, is so that a company can raise money based on certain people's belief that the company will do well. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. They want to take the risk. The whole situation comes from information asymmetry. No, it doesn't. Sure, the point of a stock market is to allow firms to raise money. But information asymmetry isn't essential to it. Some difference between the market participants is necessary for exchanges to occur in the market, but difference in preferences (i.e., different utility functions) is sufficient (this can manifest in, e.g., different sensitivies to risk and different preferences for current vs. future goods) to support a market without asymmetric access to information.

by javert 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

I am anxious to see your presentation of any theory supporting the efficiency, in utilitarian terms, of "free markets" in which the claim that information asymmetry is a positive property is defensible.

philwelch 13y ago
Don't hold your breath. Javert is an Ayn Rand disciple.
- javert 13y ago
  Objectivism is actually the systematic rejection of Platonic thinking in philosophy, and thus is the opposite of a religion. So it's wrong to call me a "disciple." Why shouldn't he hold his breath? Do you think I can't answer a simple question?
  - philwelch 13y ago
    Per Wiktionary: 1. A person who learns from another, especially one who then teaches others. 2. An active follower or adherent of someone, or some philosophy etc. (http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/disciple http://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/disciple) I would say there's no connotation of religion or Platonism in the word "disciple" and that by the second definition especially, you are very much a disciple of Ayn Rand. That's why it's useless to ask you for a utilitarian argument--Rand never dealt in utilitarianism, and as her disciple, you wouldn't, either.
    - javert 13y ago
      Arguably, there is no _denotation_ of blindly following someone in the word "disciple," but I certainly feel that there is a _connotation_ of that. I would also reject being called a "follower" or "adherent." All of these seem to me to have a connotation of _blind_ following, faith, or believing something just because you _trust_ some "authority" figure. People who agree with Darwin are not called "disciples" of Darwin. I acknowledge that the word "disciple" _is_ sometimes used to describe people who agree with a certain intellectual thinker, but I still think it generally has a negative connotation. Anyway, regardless of your opinion on the word, Objectivists are likely to interpret you as being openly hostile if you use it to describe them. Though I can't speak for everyone, as I am a particularly sensitive person. For instance, Your "don't hold your breath" point was right on target, but I initially interpreted it differently than the way I now think you meant it.
      - philwelch 13y ago
        Darwin didn't advance a comprehensive philosophical system but rather a unifying theory of biology. And it was not a theory that was unique to him; he only published his theory of natural selection when it was independently developed by another scientist. He gets the credit in the same sense that Newton (or is it Liebniz?) gets credit for calculus--it has simply passed into accepted truth and it's merely a question of history as to who came up with the theory of natural selection. Rand, on the other hand, advanced a large, comprehensive philosophical system that has never been independently arrived at. Every Objectivist becomes such by reading and becoming convinced by the works of Rand and her associates. And very little disagreement with Rand is tolerated--certainly no disagreement with what she clearly incorporated into her philosophical system itself. This is the behavior of disciples, not simply people who agree with a philosopher. This is not to say that they are wrong, but that they are engaging in a behavior--namely wholesale acceptance of another person's thoughts--that fits, for me, the denotation and connotation of the word "disciple". And it doesn't bother me one bit that some disciples of Rand bristle at that word, because the word fits.
        javert 13y ago
javert 13y ago
Utilitarianism is bankrupt moral philosophy, so you won't get a utilitarian justification from me. Unless you just mean "utilitarian" to mean "useful" or "efficient." I really don't have the patience to go deep into philosophy and economics in HN comments, so I'm not going to try to do that. The most I aim for normally is just to call out irrationality that can easily and convincingly be called out. That said, I'll go into it a little bit. I'm not saying that it's good for certain people to know less than others. I'm saying that it's inherent in human society. The whole point of a stock market, to take a simple example, is so that a company can raise money based on certain people's belief that the company will do well. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. They want to take the risk. The whole situation comes from information asymmetry. If that weren't the case, all investments would be no-brainers, and everything would be totally different. That said, the market rewards people for acting rationally on the information they have. That's not the purpose of the market, exactly, but it's a good thing. And it does not imply victimhood. Knowing less doesn't make you a victim of someone who knows more. Overall, people acting rationally on information they know is fundamental to the economy. This is a huge topic, so I'm not sure if these points are that relevant to whatever you are thinking, but there you have it.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Utilitarianism is bankrupt moral philosophy, so you won't get a utilitarian justification from me. > Unless you just mean "utilitarian" to mean "useful" or "efficient." Economic efficiency and the value proposition of utilitarianism are defined identically, so, yes, I'm saying "utilitarian" to mean "efficient". > I really don't have the patience to go deep into philosophy and economics in HN comments Then you probably shouldn't make value claims about properties of economic arrangements. > I'm not saying that it's good for certain people to know less than others. I'm saying that it's inherent in human society. You seem, then, to have completely abandoned the "positive property" claim that I asked you to support. > The whole point of a stock market, to take a simple example, is so that a company can raise money based on certain people's belief that the company will do well. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are wrong. They want to take the risk. The whole situation comes from information asymmetry. No, it doesn't. Sure, the point of a stock market is to allow firms to raise money. But information asymmetry isn't essential to it. Some difference between the market participants is necessary for exchanges to occur in the market, but difference in preferences (i.e., different utility functions) is sufficient (this can manifest in, e.g., different sensitivies to risk and different preferences for current vs. future goods) to support a market without asymmetric access to information.