3 ms·

> that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole, The very next sentence I wrote disag

> that all individuals pursuing their best interests will usually result in a beneficial situation for society as a whole, The very next sentence I wrote disagrees. > Of course there are problems, every system has winners and losers and thats why we have taxation and welfare, to smooth out some of the issues. The choice of capitalism depends on moral subjectivity, its a necessary part of the discussion. As I said before, capitalism is a type 2 system. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9338441 At the end of the discussion I asked a question that eli_gottlieb didn't get around to answering. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9345477 This was specific to economic democracy but you can replace that with any other alternative system, the question would still apply and be interesting.

danbruc 11y ago
I am not sure if I don't understand your reasoning with regard to subjective or objective morality or if I disagree. I don't think it matters. We want an economic system that honours some moral objectives. To come up with such an system we have to first establish our moral values, but I don't see in which way it matters if those values are based on subjective or objective morality. Especially because there is no proof that moral objectivism is true it is at least for the moment also just a subjective position. So how could we even think about choosing an economic system based on that distinction if we don't know which is true? For the records, I am heavily on the subjective side but think that only very few values or assumptions are required to build an entire system of moral values upon them. Let me pick an example, all humans are equal. This might be an objective truth or a society might just agree on that as a foundational value. But in both cases you can build the exactly same society or economic system that honours this value independent of its origin. But I guess I missed a crucial point of your argument, maybe our understanding of subjective and objective morality differs. Are you talking about the distinction between a society where everybody lives by his own moral values as opposed to a society where all people share more or less the same moral values?
- grinnbearit 11y ago
  I should define my terms better. For this discussion, I'll initially restrict it to just "value subjectivity", i.e. a person's desires are dependent on their state of mind and that state of mind is personal and varying. For example, ranking your preference for a cool glass of water and a delicious sandwich depends on how thirsty you are. Scale this up to millions of people and you find that there is no objective ordering of "things" that can satisfy everybody bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem Capitalism, as a system, recognises this and is effectively a distributed consensus mechanism. Allocating "points" to people who provide the most value to the system. BUT like any system, it has winners and losers (not necessarily evil, just benefitting) and without checks and balances would lead to a state of the world that I'm unhappy with. Which is why taxation and welfare. For any proposed alternative/update, I'm interested in the new winners and losers as well as how this distributed consensus is achieved.
  - danbruc 11y ago
    I am fine with the market mechanism to establish prices and production volumes, it is a pretty efficient mechanism for this. But I also see no fundamental difference to say a planned economy. Whenever the Soviet Union created their five-year plan they still tried - at least to some extend - to align demand and production, but this is of course hugely inefficient compared to a market because of the long planning interval and because it is impossible to capture the demand in detail or predict what it will be in five years. There are also some advantages in a planned economy, you can for example penalize environmentally unfriendly products directly in the plan while controlling a market is only possible indirectly via laws and regulations and their enforcement which might be less efficient. But all in all market and price mechanism with some added planning, i.e. regulations where market forces are not aligned with goals agreed on by the society, seems at the very least a reasonable choice for an economy. I take issues with capitalism in other places, for example with the ownership of the means of production. Let's again take an example. You found a company, your workers produce goods or services sold for 10 millions per year. You pay 8 millions for consumed raw materials and in salaries and invest 2 millions into the growth of the company, say a new offices, a new production floors or new machines. For the moment this is all good and even necessary for the growth of the company. But when you decide to sell your company you alone get all the money your workers worked for. This is of course unfair and leads to inequality because one or a few owners are able to capture a share of the value created by a lot of workers.

danbruc 11y ago

I am not sure if I don't understand your reasoning with regard to subjective or objective morality or if I disagree. I don't think it matters. We want an economic system that honours some moral objectives. To come up with such an system we have to first establish our moral values, but I don't see in which way it matters if those values are based on subjective or objective morality. Especially because there is no proof that moral objectivism is true it is at least for the moment also just a subjective position. So how could we even think about choosing an economic system based on that distinction if we don't know which is true? For the records, I am heavily on the subjective side but think that only very few values or assumptions are required to build an entire system of moral values upon them. Let me pick an example, all humans are equal. This might be an objective truth or a society might just agree on that as a foundational value. But in both cases you can build the exactly same society or economic system that honours this value independent of its origin. But I guess I missed a crucial point of your argument, maybe our understanding of subjective and objective morality differs. Are you talking about the distinction between a society where everybody lives by his own moral values as opposed to a society where all people share more or less the same moral values?

grinnbearit 11y ago
I should define my terms better. For this discussion, I'll initially restrict it to just "value subjectivity", i.e. a person's desires are dependent on their state of mind and that state of mind is personal and varying. For example, ranking your preference for a cool glass of water and a delicious sandwich depends on how thirsty you are. Scale this up to millions of people and you find that there is no objective ordering of "things" that can satisfy everybody bhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem Capitalism, as a system, recognises this and is effectively a distributed consensus mechanism. Allocating "points" to people who provide the most value to the system. BUT like any system, it has winners and losers (not necessarily evil, just benefitting) and without checks and balances would lead to a state of the world that I'm unhappy with. Which is why taxation and welfare. For any proposed alternative/update, I'm interested in the new winners and losers as well as how this distributed consensus is achieved.
- danbruc 11y ago
  I am fine with the market mechanism to establish prices and production volumes, it is a pretty efficient mechanism for this. But I also see no fundamental difference to say a planned economy. Whenever the Soviet Union created their five-year plan they still tried - at least to some extend - to align demand and production, but this is of course hugely inefficient compared to a market because of the long planning interval and because it is impossible to capture the demand in detail or predict what it will be in five years. There are also some advantages in a planned economy, you can for example penalize environmentally unfriendly products directly in the plan while controlling a market is only possible indirectly via laws and regulations and their enforcement which might be less efficient. But all in all market and price mechanism with some added planning, i.e. regulations where market forces are not aligned with goals agreed on by the society, seems at the very least a reasonable choice for an economy. I take issues with capitalism in other places, for example with the ownership of the means of production. Let's again take an example. You found a company, your workers produce goods or services sold for 10 millions per year. You pay 8 millions for consumed raw materials and in salaries and invest 2 millions into the growth of the company, say a new offices, a new production floors or new machines. For the moment this is all good and even necessary for the growth of the company. But when you decide to sell your company you alone get all the money your workers worked for. This is of course unfair and leads to inequality because one or a few owners are able to capture a share of the value created by a lot of workers.