tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post5277069239406899414..comments2024-02-27T14:44:07.868+01:00Comments on Greedy goblin: Individualism and capitalism don't mix wellGevlonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-75724107632550677812014-01-21T00:47:00.976+01:002014-01-21T00:47:00.976+01:00A previous anonymous wrote, "You are making a...A previous anonymous wrote, "You are making a big mistake in assuming that "fun" (aka utility) can be compared between persons at all."<br /><br />Um... no. Not only have philosophers been hairsplitting definitions of utility for about 150 years, but also see Sam Harris' recent work "The Moral Landscape: how science can determine human values".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-66190043777904122962014-01-20T23:49:37.567+01:002014-01-20T23:49:37.567+01:00> Socialism is the system where productive peop...> Socialism is the system where productive people are taxed and the money collected is distributed among the improductive ones<br /><br />Nope, socialism is where the *means of production* are owned by all, not the products themselves. Ie, to use your apple analogy, you don't have to share your 2 apples, you do have to share the apple seeds so that I too can make apples. Nothing in socialism requires direct monetary transfers. Many governments do have substantial transfer programs, but this is orthogonal to being socialist or not.<br /><br />> Theoretically it's a negative-sum transaction as there are always costs, as the organizations performing the collection-redistribution (typically the government) aren't running for free (quite the opposite). <br /><br />True, government intervention has an inherent operating cost, as well as a deadweight loss. However in many cases there can be positive effects outweighing this. If an individual can not afford proper healthcare, and becomes ill, he or she can no longer produce. So state funded healthcare (which, by the way, Obamacare is not) can cause an increase in production. If this outweighs the deadweight and operational costs of providing the service, then the net productivity of the country has increased.<br /><br />Not all government intervention will have a net positive effect, so your question as to why taking these ideas to the extreme doesn't work has a trivial answer, there's no reason it ought to.<br /><br />What then follows is a naive application of utility, which hits on roughly the correct conclusions. Overall utility is increased by wealth redistribution, however wealth redistribution also has an effect on productivity. This effect may be positive or negative, as there are two competing factors. People with less money have a higher marginal propensity to spend than people with more, so redistribution increase demand, however redistribution also has a negative incentive to work, thus decreasing supply. Which of these factors wins out depends on what the current wealth curve looks like. <br /><br />>The greatest GDP jumps happened in times of war<br /><br />Yes, this is because war is a huge demand shock, which causes higher productivity. There are some collectivist aspects too, but it's mainly just Macro 101.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-84110196497013122372014-01-20T23:47:46.873+01:002014-01-20T23:47:46.873+01:00humans already ignore living in nature for thousan...humans already ignore living in nature for thousands of years. since the time we know how to build tools and teach. so what ever system we come up with it will fail. the last untouched tribes in the amazons where resettled because of mineral greed. we don't care. they where uncivilised savages in the first place, right? completely ignoring that they where living within nature like we did ten thousands of years. sure they already where biased and stupid but they where the closed thing of all humans right now to live within nature.<br />but it doesn't matter now it's destroyed for coin.<br /><br />we where all born in several doctrines and radicalised throughout our youth. we all, even the tribespeople, are heavily biased and really don't know how to use a brain since the time we stoodup in evolution.<br /><br />thanks for the post. it reminds me again that we don't know shit.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-33783862634670654572014-01-20T23:47:45.946+01:002014-01-20T23:47:45.946+01:00Actually, Capitalism is where individualism is bes...Actually, Capitalism is where individualism is best allowed to nurture. The imposition of another's will over yourself verus the imposition of your own over yourself can only happen in a free society. Socialist leaning and Socialist nations impose their vision on the individual. Capitalism makes no demands on the individual except that hard work pays off. <br /><br />The individual can then practice a personal form of socialism, known as charity, and give to those who have less than them. The more socialist a nation, the less generous people are as individuals.<br /><br />A famous person once said: "the problem with Capitalism is capitalists. The problem with Socialism is Socialism."<br /><br />Socialism dictates what fun is - particularly if you are one who thinks fun is earning $100 an hour and spending it as you will.<br /><br />The person making $100 an hour is as much a worker as the person making $1 an hour. The real question is: what keeps the person making $1 an hour from making $100? Is it himself (limitations in education, capability, etc) or external such as regulation, welfare, or some form of elitism such as racism or sexism?<br /><br />Socialism cannot be if it allows the individual to be at their most free. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06632890795463696914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-73905842667735346602014-01-20T18:02:57.225+01:002014-01-20T18:02:57.225+01:00I've always said that we should end hunger and...I've always said that we should end hunger and poverty by eating the poor. Can we go back to killing goons now?Satori Okanatanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-91671041536523310022014-01-20T15:53:03.370+01:002014-01-20T15:53:03.370+01:00I suggest making a study of Japan. Your model of h...I suggest making a study of Japan. Your model of highly capitalist no-fun collectivism seems to be how they run their society.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-76397535973466858862014-01-20T15:22:33.472+01:002014-01-20T15:22:33.472+01:00@anon
>A communist utopia would actually be a p...@anon<br />>A communist utopia would actually be a pretty great place to live. Unfortunately human beings are assholes and the chances of that ever actually happening are pretty much zero<br /><br />So in other words, you are saying a system that neglects taking basic human nature into account is a good one and would be a great place to live... if only humans would stop behaving like humans? Really?<br /><br />Also, utopia and dystopia are two sides of the same coin. Let that sink in.<br /><br />Experiments in communism failed horribly (even at more local levels) because it's a system thought up by two bored armchair academics (not even proper scientists!) in time where humanity in general wes suffering from an extreme case of Dunning-Kruger effect when it comes to knowing how the world ACTUALLY works.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-27064450336364437532014-01-20T14:44:24.438+01:002014-01-20T14:44:24.438+01:00Utility does not have to be equal. That's wher...Utility does not have to be equal. That's where supply and demand curves come in. I'm willing to buy 2 hotdogs at 1 dollar but I'll be 3 at .75. That is why everyone doesn't buy the same number of things as everyone else but it can be measured as an avg. that's also why economics is an art not a science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-58607266876530141002014-01-20T13:48:05.868+01:002014-01-20T13:48:05.868+01:00They ran out of money, so they can't redistrib...They ran out of money, so they can't redistribute more. Also, the free moving within the EU means that a productive Greek can work in a lower-tax country, paying nothing to Greece.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-54492322883410776402014-01-20T13:23:11.632+01:002014-01-20T13:23:11.632+01:00Explain why Spain, Greece, and Italy have no fun a...Explain why Spain, Greece, and Italy have no fun anymore, then?<br /><br />They are welfare states. The real fun-seeking countries are in the northern half of Europe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-51532822402824813512014-01-20T12:22:33.796+01:002014-01-20T12:22:33.796+01:00@Anonymous: utility function MUST be taken as equa...@Anonymous: utility function MUST be taken as equal, otherwise exploiting would be trivial, just as you said: I so much need a yacht that I must get one.Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-22391526411169266852014-01-20T12:08:23.552+01:002014-01-20T12:08:23.552+01:00You are making a big mistake in assuming that &qu...You are making a big mistake in assuming that "fun" (aka utility) can be compared between persons at all.<br />Who is to say how deeply taking away my yacht to buy you some bread will affect my feelings? Maybe you are some zen-like philosopher who doesn't care about *anything* very much and I am the most hysteric yacht owner you can find?<br />You can't measure the loss of utility persons experience in any reliable way - even if you gave both of us some scale to mark the loss we would experience on, you have no idea how our individual scales are calibrated against each other. Maybe the 10 (maximum loss) on his scale is equivalent to a 3 on my scale because he is just of a very stoic disposition. <br />Comparing utility is illogical and unscientific. <br /><br />Most of public economics works around this problem by assuming that all people have exactly the same utility function (or the same utility function save for a small number of idiosyncratic parameters) but everyone does of course know perfectly well that this is complete bullshit. However, the only alternative would be to shut up on most matters of public policy and nobody wants to lose their sweet consulting gigs and tenured positions just because of some idealistic desire to maintain logical consistency in your models.<br /><br />Sen has developed a slightly better concept than "fun" with his capability sets but even those are usually not comparable between persons (very rare that one person will have an exact subset/superset of the capability set of some other person). Capability sets also don't lend themselves very well to mathematical treatment.<br /><br />tl;dr public economics ignores basic logic and econ 101 because otherwise the field couldn't exist. so instead of shutting up 95% of the time and having something worthwhile to say in the other 5% economists engaged in this field of study tend to brabble 100% of the time based on obviously absurd premises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-34315101349575127472014-01-20T10:18:40.023+01:002014-01-20T10:18:40.023+01:00I must admit that greedy goblin is so hady with nu...I must admit that greedy goblin is so hady with numbers that i believed for almost half a second that socialism is a good idea.<br /><br />Although that nonlinear fun curve might suggest the more redistribution brings the more total fun there is also second well hidden highly nonlinear curve that says the more redistribution the more wasting. And at a certain point redistribution costs overwhelm all productivity.<br /><br />And words like moral, selflessnes, sharing, solidarity are just used by socials who want some free profit.Oska Rusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-61129734164907955702014-01-20T09:39:06.889+01:002014-01-20T09:39:06.889+01:00Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" ...Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom" (known as "Fear of Freedom" outside US) can be considered the seminal work on the topic of why capitalism necessarily leads to de-individuation. I highly recommend it. <br /><br />-------------<br /><br />In terms of reasons for failing of communism, you are clearly both discounting China and underestimating the impact of the World War 2.<br /><br />It is suprising to see you as a fan of mobilisation towards a goal. Though not all tha surprising in hindsight :D. <br />Countries can't stay fully mobilised for long, though. Focusing too hard and too long on a single goal is also in itself un-fun.<br /><br />Mobilisation brought around the Soviet economic miracle in early XX century. However, overmobilisation forced by WWII and subsequent nuclear rush was (imo) the source of all the tendencies that ultimately killed USSR.maximhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12576542229498004147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-63048627637385846632014-01-20T07:37:57.094+01:002014-01-20T07:37:57.094+01:00"Socialism comes from the idea that every per..."Socialism comes from the idea that every persons fun is equal"<br /><br />No, socialism comes from the idea that you are judged by how you treat the lowest members of society.<br /><br />It would be cute and quaint to paint everyone who does not work as a moron and a slacker, but, in the democracies which are laughingly painted as "socialist", what it actually means is "We have figured out that it is disgraceful if our unemployed cannot feed themselves, or get medical treatment before their condition is critical, or are on the streets"<br />(By the way, these societies which are tagged as "socialist" by angry right wing Americans(and others), are just as capitalist as any other Western country, they just don't think you should give the rich tax breaks at the cost of those who need it, and understand that "job creators" and "trickle down economics" is just bullshit from those who decry welfare while accepting monumental government handouts and tax breaks)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-28862411781681517532014-01-20T07:06:22.817+01:002014-01-20T07:06:22.817+01:00Yes, shared ownership between everyone. How about ...<i>Yes, shared ownership between everyone. How about you have 2 apples and I have zero and we share. That will be TOTALLY different from simply me taking an apple from you.</i><br /><br />It is totally different because we're not talking about apples here, we're talking about a society.<br /><br />Your apple analogy is absurd on the face of it.<br /><br />If we, for example, socialize medicine - and you (and others) pay for that socialized medicine, then the return to you is free health care, and healthy workers. The benefit to you is even *greater* profitability (and this has been proven countless times), despite your greater tax.<br /><br /><i>In small isolated communities such control is not needed, because the members of the community either agree on rules, or the authority of the leader is unquestioned. I don't doubt that communism CAN exist without banning fun, I'm saying it in the post that that's the ideal state for social people.</i><br /><br />Communism doesn't really exist at all at the level of a state because of corruption. In fact, communism is supposed to work without an autocrat. Once you get an autocrat you have a dictatorship regardless of how you spin it. As I said before, the crack down on "fun" and communism are unrelated. The crack down of fun is a symptom of a dictatorship or some form of single party rule system such as in China.<br /><br />A communist utopia would actually be a pretty great place to live. Unfortunately human beings are assholes and the chances of that ever actually happening are pretty much zero<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-88789468004113323302014-01-20T06:45:06.551+01:002014-01-20T06:45:06.551+01:00Steel H
The view that productive people are taxed...Steel H<br /><br />The view that productive people are taxed to pay for the unproductives is naïve and simplistic. The problem here in the US is that everyone has joined the game of Pigs at the Govt Through, and everybody is busy transferring wealth from everyone. Frankly, I’ve gotten to the point where I don’t care if some bum gets some money; whatever, he’s got it bad as it is. It’ corporate welfare that bothers me – being robbed by the rich assholes. You’ve got billions&billions on subsidies for everything under the sun, from oil, corn, sugar, renewable energy. Then you have mortgage interest deduction and employer health benefits paid from pre-tax money; these are huge subsidies for the middle-class that also massively distort the market. Pretty much every other shitty thing here has some special preferential tax breaks. Then you have bailouts and printing money…<br /><br />Now, I am a libertarian capitalist pig – an actual capitalist pig. Whenever I am presented with some right wing, pro-capitalist, free-market politician or pundit or blogger, the first things I want to hear is how you’re going to eliminate subsidies, eliminate preferential tax breaks, eliminate bailouts and TBTF, recoup the money that was taken through the Iraq-war no-bid contracts (and put the heads of those who made the deals on spikes), and then we’ll talk about some inactives. Otherwise, you are a lying sack of shit. That’s because your dear republicans will talk all that nonsense, then come to power, vote for every socialist, big government spending bill and bailout, and shower subsidies and tax breaks on all their favorite special interests. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-58862967591802894052014-01-20T06:24:39.199+01:002014-01-20T06:24:39.199+01:00Yes, shared ownership between everyone. How about ...Yes, shared ownership between everyone. How about you have 2 apples and I have zero and we share. That will be TOTALLY different from simply me taking an apple from you.<br /><br />The "utility of second unit is smaller than the first" statement is obvious. If I want to travel faster and spend $2000 on a vehicle, the second $2000 won't buy me a twice faster/safer vehicle. However it still has higher utility than giving the money away. Socialism comes from the idea that every persons fun is equal, so the society must try to find the highest fun-utility of money, which is at the hand of the poorest man of the group.<br /><br />In small isolated communities such control is not needed, because the members of the community either agree on rules, or the authority of the leader is unquestioned. I don't doubt that communism CAN exist without banning fun, I'm saying it in the post that that's the ideal state for social people. Gevlonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07072766785893313616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-64834922913283347342014-01-20T06:04:36.273+01:002014-01-20T06:04:36.273+01:00They fail because they also oppress fun. In a comm...<i>They fail because they also oppress fun. In a communist country not only starting business is forbidden. Extramarital sex is forbidden, porn is forbidden, drugs are forbidden, jokes are forbidden, travel is forbidden. With all kind of "fun" activities forbidden, no doubt that people aren't happy</i><br /><br />Communism and crack down's on anti-social behavior are largely orthogonal to each other. Yes there is a strong correlation within communist state's for this sort of behavior (although an argument can be made that no nation has ever reached a state of communism - strong socialists perhaps but never quite communism) but this is usually an attempt to hold onto power through control.<br /><br />In places where communism DOES work (small isolated communities) there isn't this kind of control.<br /><br />Communism doesn't require that "fun" be banned. Dictators do. Might be worth reading Marx again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-53992768978334203752014-01-20T06:02:18.539+01:002014-01-20T06:02:18.539+01:00You do know the "ideal countries" you na...You do know the "ideal countries" you named are dirt poor right? Also, you are talking about utility of whatever let it be fun or a burger. You second unit of x will always have less utility than the first.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-12399053878925759162014-01-20T06:00:07.443+01:002014-01-20T06:00:07.443+01:00Socialism is the system where productive people ar...<i>Socialism is the system where productive people are taxed and the money collected is distributed among the improductive ones.</i><br /><br />That... that isn't really the definition of socialism. That is a rather twisted and narrow view of the concept of socialism. A socialist society is one of shared ownership, which includes the productive. It isn't a Robin Hood society of "rob from the rich and give to the poor".<br /><br />Also socialism doesn't exist in a vacuum. Democrating and largely capitalist societies will (depending on the government of the day) create socialist policy which is for the good of everyone (i.e. socialised medicine - healthy workers are productive workers! Socialised education - everyone can access world class education and everyone can have a chance to better themselves).<br /><br />Your entire post the runs right off the rails when you start invoking Rand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1461700565722278823.post-61798589126531317862014-01-20T04:48:13.697+01:002014-01-20T04:48:13.697+01:00Congratulations! You've discovered Utilitaria...Congratulations! You've discovered Utilitarianism. Something for you to consider are the recent psychological/sociological studies of "happiness" which show that humans derive a great deal of satisfaction from thinking that they have more possessions than those around them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com