Why has Capitalism failed to produce optimal value everywhere?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Normally not. But if the coherent theory is wrong, doing so could not possibly worsen anything.

I think you have a duty to prove it's wrong instead of just pushing an incoherent theory onto people.

I believe that if two competent parties, both fully aware of all relevant circumstances, argree to any deal, that deal cannot possibly be unfair. From your earlier posts, you'd disagree violently with this, so I do not expect to find any common ground here.

The subject matter is a discussion on whether or not that is the case.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


I think you have a duty to prove it's wrong instead of just pushing an incoherent theory onto people.

I'm not pushing any theory on anyone; you are. It's up to you to prove that yours is correct; I pointed out that showing that it's coherent doesn't achieve that (still less does merely claiming it's coherent, which seems to be your strategy).

The subject matter is a discussion on whether or not that is the case.

I'm taking it as axiomatic, and therefore consider any economo-ethical theory that contradicts it necessarily wrong.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

I'm not pushing any theory on anyone; you are. It's up to you to prove that yours is correct; I pointed out that showing that it's coherent doesn't achieve that (still less does merely claiming it's coherent, which seems to be your strategy).

I don't expect to prove anything. I achieve to be coherent and reasonable. Those to goals I believe I have achieved.

I'm taking it as axiomatic, and therefore consider any economo-ethical theory that contradicts it necessarily wrong.

Any axiom should be tested against real world situations. One obvious situation where you would be wrong to make such an assumption is the case where a person does not believe that the wage is fair, but takes the job anyway for any number of reasons including the hopes of getting a better job in the future. Is it impossible for you to see such a situation?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I don't expect to prove anything. I achieve to be coherent and reasonable. Those to goals I believe I have achieved.

Reasonable is always debateable, but I would generally accept that. Where I think you're wrong is not a matter of lack of coherence, just different assumptions about the world.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Any axiom should be tested against real world situations. One obvious situation where you would be wrong to make such an assumption is the case where a person does not believe that the wage is fair, but takes the job anyway for any number of reasons including the hopes of getting a better job in the future. Is it impossible for you to see such a situation?

It is strange you mention testing here, when you claim above to only want to be coherent and reasonable.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drogue

Reasonable is always debateable, but I would generally accept that. Where I think you're wrong is not a matter of lack of coherence, just different assumptions about the world.


It is strange you mention testing here, when you claim above to only want to be coherent and reasonable.

I expect my assumptions to be tested. That's reasonable.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Any axiom should be tested against real world situations. One obvious situation where you would be wrong to make such an assumption is the case where a person does not believe that the wage is fair, but takes the job anyway for any number of reasons including the hopes of getting a better job in the future. Is it impossible for you to see such a situation?

It's only all to easy. But that the situation sucks from the POV of the employee doesn't mean its unfair.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

It's only all to easy. But that the situation sucks from the POV of the employee doesn't mean its unfair.

Let's see how far you will take it. If a family needed money to pay rent would you purchase their family car for pennies on the dollar?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The value of land is speculative value though. Land doesn't provide more utility than food.

This is like saying that all land has the same value or that more land has the same value as less land.

In other words, what you said is nonsense.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


This is like saying that all land has the same value or that more land has the same value as less land.

In other words, what you said is nonsense.

How so? Obviously land has different values. Different speculative values that is. We don't get real use value for land. It's really a parameter for creating utility.

[Agathon]

What kind of cretin thinks that value is subjective? I don't think that subjectivity really exists anyway, but that's another story....

It's relative to persons, but that is not the same thing as being whatever I happen to value it at a particular time.

One way of understanding the value of an object is what I would be prepared to trade for it if I was fully informed as to my own needs and fully informed as to how the object would meet those needs. But these two conditions are almost never fulfilled.

Simply put, what I happen to want at any given time may not be in fact what I really want as I can be mistaken about my own needs and the capacities of objects to satisfy them.

[Kidlicious]

That complicates things a bit

[Agathon]

Of course it does. But many economically inclined people tend to dismiss such obvious features of reality out of hand.

Every human being pursues some conception of the good, but people tend to have a very vague and often contradictory idea of what that is. Even if the good is relative to different persons, that does not entail that what any person pursues at any given time is identical with the good.

People can be wrong about what is in fact good for them. In many cases other people are better at determining what is good for you than you are. People don't like this, but that doesn't stop it being true.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Let's see how far you will take it. If a family needed money to pay rent would you purchase their family car for pennies on the dollar?

I'm not familiar with that idiom, but assuming it means buying it far below the price it might normally be expected to fetch, sure. I'm better off, they're better off, both parties volunteered to the deal.

Edit: The scenario is rather odd, tho; why couldn't they fetch the market price for it?

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Agathon
It's relative to persons, but that is not the same thing as being whatever I happen to value it at a particular time.

One way of understanding the value of an object is what I would be prepared to trade for it if I was fully informed as to my own needs and fully informed as to how the object would meet those needs. But these two conditions are almost never fulfilled.

Simply put, what I happen to want at any given time may not be in fact what I really want as I can be mistaken about my own needs and the capacities of objects to satisfy them.

I would agree. When I say subjectively, I mean different for each person, and different at different points in time. Simply that you can't put an objective, overall value on a good.

It's an interesting point though, as when using it in a model, what someone thinks they value is the important measure, as that's what they will buy, and is how to predict their behaviour. However a government may want to guide people to choosing things that are of a higher value to them, but which they don't necessarily think are. Moreover, how do you know what is of value, since no-one has perfect information? Without those two conditions being fulfilled, how can we improve choices to make cumulative value increase?

[Agathon]

I would agree. When I say subjectively, I mean different for each person, and different at different points in time. Simply that you can't put an objective, overall value on a good.

Although it is true that things may become more or less valuable to people given different circumstances, this isn't logically sufficient to entail what many people believe: namely that there is not one proper conception of the good for human beings.

My own view is that there are slight differences between people, but that the similarities are overwhelming, so personal relativism isn't really the big deal that people think it is. Moreover, the similarities between people are such that we really do know more about people's preferences than we think we do.

It's an interesting point though, as when using it in a model, what someone thinks they value is the important measure, as that's what they will buy, and is how to predict their behaviour. However a government may want to guide people to choosing things that are of a higher value to them, but which they don't necessarily think are. Moreover, how do you know what is of value, since no-one has perfect information? Without those two conditions being fulfilled, how can we improve choices to make cumulative value increase?

My own view is rather less elevated. People spend vast sums of effort in order to obtain things that they don't really need. A few people are completely ignorant of this, but most would probably admit it if questioned, and are genuinely puzzled at why such a thing should happen. And yet everybody does it and continues to do so.

This seems to be a perverse feature of our economy, which is encouraged by it being a relative free-for-all.

Weird...