GM Loses Another $16 Billion -- Bankrupt?

[KrazyHorse]

I've defined what I think is a reasonable definition of the ideal of "fair" in terms of economics:

That economic outcomes are due solely to moral inputs of the individual, and are not due to talents, circumstances of birth or luck.

There are a few pieces of low-hanging fruit here. We can stop children starving on the street, provide a modicum of free education and take care of the severely disabled. The rest of it seems to be prohibitively expensive and/or impossible to even approximate.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Arrian
Good questions. I don't have good answers.

The best I can do:

It is important that the people believe that our society is reasonably fair. If/when that is not so, it seems to me that problems arise. Problems that get bloody.

-Arrian

Aha. So now we have reached the Straussian justification!

[snoopy369]

KH: I suggest that people have the innate ability to develop later abilities, or talents, or whatever you want to call them; and that, while the sum total of those 'talents' as you call them might not be equal, they are generally above a certain line that I would define as 'adequate to live comfortably'. Those that are not I would suggest are 'disabled', ie those with down's syndrome and such. If you are born theoretically normal, but do not have the potential to develop abilities adequate to live a comfortable life with hard work and education, then you are no better off than someone with down's syndrome, and probably should be categorized as such.

'Fairness' is not, in my definition, the equality of outcomes (or probable outcomes). That is, shockingly, 'equality'. Fairness is having the potential to arrive at a satisfactory outcome with a reasonable amount of effort. Not all satisfactory outcomes, and not even equally satisfactory; but simply, a satisfactory outcome, with a reasonable amount of effort (not requiring herculean effort, but not guaranteed without effort either). The definition of satisfactory is a bit malleable, but I'd say it could reasonably be defined as a comfortable life with no lack of food, water, housing, and luxuries up to a certain point (not 5 BMW's and a 3 acre ranch, but something that I'd probably define as 'middle to upper middle class' by 40, say, something on the order of a family of 4 making $120k total per year.

Arrian, I suggest that capitalism is actually designed to allow equality of opportunity - in that it the free market works off of products (whether that be actual products, or services, or labor) competing equally with no restrictions (thus, no limitations of opportunity). The equality of opportunity is really freedom of opportunity - having 100% opportunity for all is equality, is it not?

[Aeson]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
It is not merely PART of your definition. It is the ONLY part of your definition.

I actually didn't define any specific part of the definition. (As you went so far as to note in fact, with "We are discussing how to design a legal system, not how to enforce it.") I gave a guideline for specific parts to follow. You gave an analogy to the type of requirement, but it wasn't as encompassing. Thus it is only a "part of" such a definition, not the entire definition.

I essentially said, "even legal playing field". You said, "everyone free to starve". Are you claiming that "everyone free to starve" encompasses the entirety of "even legal playing field"?

I apologise for misreading your post as describing your own definition.

Apology accepted.

Which is why it is not "fair".

"Fair" has many possible uses, as you alluded to by calling it "emotive" and asking for more specific definitions of it's use by other posters. (Though I don't agree that it's restricted entirely to "emotive" usage.) I gave an example of one such use of the term in regards to a specific ideology. You don't have to accept that it's fair (your own personal view), or even that it's relevant. But it is along the lines of what is "fair" in a purely capitalist viewpoint.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
I've defined what I think is a reasonable definition of the ideal of "fair" in terms of economics:

That economic outcomes are due solely to moral inputs of the individual, and are not due to talents, circumstances of birth or luck.

There are a few pieces of low-hanging fruit here. We can stop children starving on the street, provide a modicum of free education and take care of the severely disabled. The rest of it seems to be prohibitively expensive and/or impossible to even approximate.

Your definition is rather circular, though, in that it encodes your opinion of the matter into the definition...

It is patently false, in any event. I think it is flagrantly harmful to equalize talents, for example; that would be effectively like a tariff, neutralizing the comparative advantage of the user's innate talents. Luck is silly to attempt to neutralize - that would be like taking a game of Civ and removing the RNG. You might as well become a Calvinist, if you want to go that route. Luck is what it is, and you must accept that sometimes you will be lucky and get the job because the manager was having a good day when he interviewed you, and sometimes he will have just been served divorce papers and you don't get the job. Circumstances of birth, though, are the one that can and should be normalized to some extent; I think it is harmful to overly normalize that (you would have to eliminate parents raising their own children, which is not a beneficial outcome in my opinion), but rather than bringing down some, you can instead bring up those below a reasonable standard of 'circumstances of birth' up to said reasonable standard. We attempt to do that to some extent (both with direct need-based aid such as AFDC, and with more indirect actions such as public education), but certainly we could attempt to do more.

However, I still think your definition is simply flawed; it assumes that the ultimate outcome must be equal (given equal effort). That is not fairness, that is equality, and they are entirely different concepts. I do not believe a system should strive for equality of outcome in any degree.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
To Aggie: if I cared about fairness and thought that our system was anything close to fair then I would despise the poor (poor after redistribution) for their moral failings.

Then you have a strange understanding of what counts as fair. I dislike John Rawls intensely, but he more than anyone else demonstrated that this mode of thinking is obsolete.

Outcomes and morality are virtually uncorrelated under any reasonable definition of either. This is not "fair".

Given that Rawls conception of justice is justice as fairness, and he explicitly allows that outcomes will be unequal (and that some people will be very rich). Dworkin does the same (in a slightly different way). There's a very strong correlation between our modern societies and the kind of society Rawls describes.

Being committed to fairness does not mean that everyone has to have the same income or that some people won't be far richer than others. To assume so is to assume a conception of fairness that is at odds with the liberal tradition (which is fine by me, but most people are going to disagree with me on that because I'm a communist, and hold heterodox views).

On the other hand, you can make the case that MARGINALLY expected outcomes and morality are strongly correlated. This is mandated by efficiency, not fairness.

This is just wrong. Efficiency is a weak normative value. Justice is a strong normative value, as is welfare.

The reason we have the welfare state is because the market doesn't satisfy certain preferences (for strong values) as efficiently as state action. That includes various preferences that can be collected under "justice". As any economist would tell you, we are always confronted with scarcity. We can't make everything fair, because fairness is not the only value we have. Sometimes even the worst off people are better off with respect to welfare if we have a slightly "unfair" society. Sometimes it is politically difficult to make things fair. There are many problems.

But it doesn't change the fact that fairness operates to shape our economy, primarily in its contribution to the form of the welfare state. If you aren't a Rawlsian this is obviously true but depressing, but if you are a Rawlsian (or you accept something like it, which most people in liberal democracies do) then the kind of society we have is more or less fair, and can be justified in moral terms.

[Arrian]

Arrian, I suggest that capitalism is actually designed to allow equality of opportunity - in that it the free market works off of products (whether that be actual products, or services, or labor) competing equally with no restrictions (thus, no limitations of opportunity). The equality of opportunity is really freedom of opportunity - having 100% opportunity for all is equality, is it not?

I really don't want to have a cap/com debate here (with me on the dark side), but come on. Don't go 'round using some idealized version of capitalism that does not, has not, and will not ever exist.

KH, I don't know Strauss. Have I invoked him?

-Arrian

[Ming]

Gee... really missed this one.
It's WAY over 500 posts... Continue in a new thread.