what do you expect for free?

bendix

ninky wrote: »

sometimes i even drink coffee from a large corporate chain in a disposable cup. single espresso two sugars.

Doesn't it worry you that said chain exploits its staff?

And sacrifices babies in its boardroom on a regular basis?

And stuff.

ninky_2

bendix wrote: »

Doesn't it worry you that said chain exploits its staff?

And sacrifices babies in its boardroom on a regular basis?

And stuff.

nah - it's wealth creation, innit.

i actually think large corporations can be a good thing. they often have better employment practices and social responsibility than small businesses. even if they don't in theory they should be easier to change / police than lots of small businesses. for one there is more media interest in reporting bad practice of a large corporation and that can pressure them to behave better. also, if they do implement a positive change it has a more broad reaching impact.

as for the disposable cup i have no excuse whatsoever. it's pure unadulterated laziness.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

nah - it's wealth creation, innit.

i actually think large corporations can be a good thing. they often have better employment practices and social responsibility than small businesses. even if they don't in theory they should be easier to change / police than lots of small businesses. for one there is more media interest in reporting bad practice of a large corporation and that can pressure them to behave better. also, if they do implement a positive change it has a more broad reaching impact.

as for the disposable cup i have no excuse whatsoever. it's pure unadulterated laziness.

I miss irresponsible, expensive coffee on the run.

Generali

ninky wrote: »

i think i understand what you are saying and i agree "the market" is an effecient way of distributing resources through effectively doing nothing - basically letting it happen.

i think what you are saying is that state intervention / control can lead to inefficiencies since it involves human judgement which can be wrong. however my view is that markets also involve human judgement (e.g. supply for perceived demand) and that can also be wrong / inefficient. stockpiles of excess / unwanted / unworn clothing are just one example of such inefficiency - all using labour and natural resources and creating waste.

it's also an amoral mechanism. that can create suffering and hardship imo.

ultimately it is all down to value judgements. on a pragmatic level i would err towards more state intervention than you. i think it's state intervention that makes us civilized. too much i agree has the opposite effect. however i suspect (hope) that neither of us is a raving extremist it's just a case of where the balance lies.

on a more philosophical level i do think that there may well be something beyond the socialism/capitalism dichotomy. not sure what it is though. you posted a link a while back that was very interesting about the origins of the money system. perhaps evolution has hardwired us to manage things the way we do. but evolution is a forever unfinished project imho and therefore our systems of management must be also.

The thing with markets is that they are a sum of hundreds, thousands or even billions of individual decisions. The wisdom of crowds is incredibly powerful. I'm not sure if you've seen the research on things like guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar or the weight of a bull at country fairs.

Individual guesses are terrible. The average of all the guesses are very accurate given a large enough number.

That's the power of free markets IMHO. Lots of people trying to do the best thing get it right between them on average, most of the time.

The market is an amoral mechanism, you are right although it requires a certain amount of morality behind it such as trust and respect for property rights.

It is interesting, to me at least, that the world's great philanthropists are usually the people that made the money rather than the sons and daughters of the people that made the money.

The big problem I have with socialism is the degree of coercion involved by necessity. If people don't want to buy your sandwich in a free market then they can buy someone else's. If all sandwiches are provided by HM Nutritional Agency (Pre-Pack Fast Food Sub Division VIa.2013) then you have Hobson's choice.

Perhaps that isn't a problem when it comes to sandwiches. When it comes to important stuff like educating my children or getting a doctor to make me well then I don't want to be forced to chose from a menu of what a bureaucrat thinks is good for me, sometimes at the threat of imprisonment if I disagree even in a free country like the UK.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

The thing with markets is that they are a sum of hundreds, thousands or even billions of individual decisions. The wisdom of crowds is incredibly powerful. I'm not sure if you've seen the research on things like guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar or the weight of a bull at country fairs.

Individual guesses are terrible. The average of all the guesses are very accurate given a large enough number.

That's the power of free markets IMHO. Lots of people trying to do the best thing get it right between them on average, most of the time.

The market is an amoral mechanism, you are right although it requires a certain amount of morality behind it such as trust and respect for property rights.

It is interesting, to me at least, that the world's great philanthropists are usually the people that made the money rather than the sons and daughters of the people that made the money.

The big problem I have with socialism is the degree of coercion involved by necessity. If people don't want to buy your sandwich in a free market then they can buy someone else's. If all sandwiches are provided by HM Nutritional Agency (Pre-Pack Fast Food Sub Division VIa.2013) then you have Hobson's choice.

Perhaps that isn't a problem when it comes to sandwiches. When it comes to important stuff like educating my children or getting a doctor to make me well then I don't want to be forced to chose from a menu of what a bureaucrat thinks is good for me, sometimes at the threat of imprisonment if I disagree even in a free country like the UK.

in some ways i do agree with you gen. i have the same issue with coercive socialism. i'd also say we've never seen a truly socialist state in the marxist sense of the word - and doubt that one can ever exist. marxist theory suggests socialism will arise from the will of the people (the 'oppressed' ones anyway). for me that means if any of the oppressed people are not entirely convinced and have to be further oppressed for the system to work then it's not really socialism. as such coercive socialism is an oxymoron - and non-coercive socialism is maybe not achieveable / a utopian ideal.

interesting what you say about the guess the jelly beans scenario. i wonder how that would fit with the fact that the majority of individuals will follow the herd? surely that would influence decision making in markets? most people in market scenarios are not making decision on an individual basis ( a la "guess the beans") but more in a potential copycat / keep up with the joneses / every one else is running so i will too sort of way.

for me two of my biggest influences are dawkins selfish gene principle combined with game theory. by viewing evolutionary dynamics at the level of genes dawkins shows how altruism / co-operation frequently benefits genetic survival. similarly game theory (e.g. prisoners dilemma) demonstrates how i'll scratch your back / you scratch mine is often the most effective strategy.

my view is that too many economists (free market ones) have a misunderstanding of darwinism that echoes through into their economic thinking. this means they see "survival of the fittest" to mean individuals battling it out to pass on their genes - a constant war of each for himself. this really isn't the story of evolution. the story of evolution is the story of genes. their amoral "will" to survive is what shapes us and our behaviours - and these frequently manifests as co-operative strategies at the level of hosts. in the genetic game of replication there are times when it makes sense for individuals (hosts) to sacrifice. it's this deep failing to see the need for co-operation that blinkers proponents of free markets to the inherent failures of capitalism.

at the same time i'm a determinist. that is i believe everything is the result of preceding events. as such i see the capitalist system as an inevitability as much as i sense its demise is also inevitable.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

my view is that too many economists (free market ones) have a misunderstanding of darwinism that echoes through into their economic thinking. this means they see "survival of the fittest" to mean individuals battling it out to pass on their genes - a constant war of each for himself. this really isn't the story of evolution. the story of evolution is the story of genes. their amoral "will" to survive is what shapes us and our behaviours - and these frequently manifests as co-operative strategies at the level of hosts. in the genetic game of replication there are times when it makes sense for individuals (hosts) to sacrifice. it's this deep failing to see the need for co-operation that blinkers proponents of free markets to the inherent failures of capitalism.
.

Hmm...well...yes. But even simpler is the is misinterpretation of ''survival of the fittest'' than how you are expressing IMO, and I'm not going to try and second guess whether that's expression or interpretation. It forms a big part of my thinking too...in why choice and variety of outcome is so healthy and important.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Hmm...well...yes. But even simpler is the is misinterpretation of ''survival of the fittest'' than how you are expressing IMO, and I'm not going to try and second guess whether that's expression or interpretation. It forms a big part of my thinking too...in why choice and variety of outcome is so healthy and important.

that's more about ideology than efficiency then? greater variety and choice is not necessarily efficient allocation of resources. to my mind it often means increased waste....but maybe not necessarily so? perhaps it is a progressive process also. markets often seem to throw up limited choices to start with, then a proliferation, then more limited ones again (as choices become standardized and certain providers push others out).

i'm also not convinced that choice is always a good thing.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

that's more about ideology than efficiency then? greater variety and choice is not necessarily efficient allocation of resources. to my mind it often means increased waste....but maybe not necessarily so? perhaps it is a progressive process also. markets often seem to throw up limited choices to start with, then a proliferation, then more limited ones again (as choices become standardized and certain providers push others out).

i'm also not convinced that choice is always a good thing.

Efficiency? Yes...I think efficiency is vital to the part where choice is important, choice means variety. Ask the peppered moths! (I think the peppered moths would be honoured to know they are such a frequent example). Now while I'm not suggesting quite the same physical duress here, I apply a similar, though not identical logic to choices we make. Choice make a species, though not necessarily an individual,(and that part is very important, and the bit I think I might be meant to understand when you talk about the way ''survival of the fittest'' is most commonly misunderstood) efficient: under a variety of circumstances some will be better equipped to succeed.

I think you are correct in that total free choice (and of course I'm not talking about genetics any more!) is not sustainable nor desirable. To some degree markets and resources control this: we do not all drive sports cars/Bentleys for example. However, examples where free choice might be argued to be unsucessful as a method of ''natural levelling'' is population increase in poverty striken countries. Ironically, its argued gene pass on is a strong subconscious and physiological force for reproducing under extreme pressure for resource.

ninky_2

lostinrates wrote: »

Efficiency? Yes...I think efficiency is vital to the part where choice is important, choice means variety. Ask the peppered moths! (I think the peppered moths would be honoured to know they are such a frequent example). Now while I'm not suggesting quite the same physical duress here, I apply a similar, though not identical logic to choices we make. Choice make a species, though not necessarily an individual,(and that part is very important, and the bit I think I might be meant to understand when you talk about the way ''survival of the fittest'' is most commonly misunderstood) efficient: under a variety of circumstances some will be better equipped to succeed.

I think you are correct in that total free choice (and of course I'm not talking about genetics any more!) is not sustainable nor desirable. To some degree markets and resources control this: we do not all drive sports cars/Bentleys for example. However, examples where free choice might be argued to be unsucessful as a method of ''natural levelling'' is population increase in poverty striken countries. Ironically, its argued gene pass on is a strong subconscious and physiological force for reproducing under extreme pressure for resource.

yes that is sort of how i meant it. although genes of course don't care about the species. they just are and they merely replicate according to their dominant characteristics and interactions with other genes. the reality is that we share the majority of our genes with every other human on the planet (and some of them with many non human creatures too). genes don't care that they throw up choices which create adaptability for the human race as a whole - it's just what happens. of course as individuals few would probably self select for the genes that give us autism for example and yet the increase in autism suggests some of the characteristics might actually be a bonus in a shifting environment (possibly).

this to me suggests that a conscious choice is not necessarily a positive as it can lead to a 'wrong' choice - if humans could choose their own genes the species would be extinct so what does that say about other conscious choices......then again i'm going to contradict myself because i don't think there really is such a thing as a conscious choice (free will) anyway.

don't you find if you think about this stuff too much you end up feeling a few steps closer to the madhouse......need to get back to some formulaic tv scripts methinks.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

and some of them with many non human creatures too

I used to lecture on taster courses sometimes (we all had to take a turn but I loved taster courses, the enthusiasm was great). I used to love telling 16 and eighteen year olds how huge the percentage of genes we shared with various other species they'd be studying