@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

magitweeter

@magitweeter@mastodon.social

Game theory for the left. Se habla español.

Profile pic: a Tweeter (a bird-like creature from the game Super Mario Bros. 2) wearing a wizard hat.

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

eniko, to random
@eniko@peoplemaking.games avatar

this sounds promising https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/04/15/vaccine-breakthrough-means-no-more-chasing-strains

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@eniko Sounds almost too good to be true. I wish i knew anyone with relevant background i could ask about this

FantasticalEconomics, to Economics
@FantasticalEconomics@geekdom.social avatar

(Neoliberal) Evonomic Theory: the pursuit of profits will ensure resources are put to their most efficient use, best meeting the needs of society.

Capitalism in Practice: potato-chip-holster-boots.

https://www.axios.com/2024/04/16/pringles-crocs-swicy-chips

#economics #capitalism #TeachEcon

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@jackofalltrades

«If someone makes it and someone buys it then it's clearly a good use.»

No one really believes this, and for good reason. Counterexamples abound, from homeopathy to NFTs to timeshares.

One doesn't need a “better notion” of value to realize that price is a horribly flawed measure of value.

@FantasticalEconomics @droidboy

Vincarsi, to random
@Vincarsi@mastodon.social avatar

The idea that it's justifiable to let unspeakable suffering within your community continue when you have enough excess (meaning losing it wouldn't affect your overall quality of life) resources to stop it, just because those resources "belong" to you and you shouldn't be expected to give them up unless you get something better in return, is absolutely the most selfish, morally bankrupt and evil foundation for a society that always leads to fascism eventually.

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

«People who provide more utility to society should have access to more resources since they have proven to be more effective in converting resources to utility.»

Someone who believes this ought to support a very different system from modern-day “capitalism”.

For example, one should support taxing inheritance at 100%, since proof of effectiveness at converting resources to utility is not hereditary.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

One would also have to support the abolition of rentier income of all kinds, because mere ownership of a resource does not contribute to the productive process.

Whether or not rentier income can in practice be clearly distinguished from productive profit does not detract from the point that rentier income is incompatible witht he principle of distribution based on effectiveness at converting resources to utility.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

Yes, of course, a landlord does managerial work that should be compensated. But ownership of the building is not necessary for the ability to do that managerial work, nor is doing that work required for the legal entitlement of the collection of rent.

The landlord isn't even usually the person who built the building or repairs the fences.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

«In which case the person who owns the land is providing the utility of selecting/screening the most effective managerial service.»

Of course, but that work could be provided by anyone. The tenant. The government. A tenants' union. It takes no special skill and neither does it require ownership of the building.

The only reason it's the owner who gets to do that job is that they're legally entitled to. And somehow that entitles them to rent.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

You're making a very strong assumption that resources would get distributed to whoever can best turn them into utility.

Do you have a specific mechanism in mind through which this happens? Or is it just magic?

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

«a free market (a market where utility is the determiner of profit...)»

This sounds like an incredibly difficult, if not impossible, thing to achieve. I for one don't see a way to achieve it without outright abolishing private property as we know it.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

Let me clarify what i meant. I didn't mean just that it would be difficult in practice. What i meant is that not even in theory is it clear how «a market where utility is the determiner of profit» could be made to work.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

Given your stated willingness to answer my questions, let me rephrase my last few replies in the form of a question:

How does it come to be that utility is the determiner of profit in a “free market”, whatever that means?

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

Those are all practical policy recommendations which may or may not help make utility the determiner of profit. I can even grant that they do. My question is about something different.

Is it wrong of me to assume that you're taking for granted that production and distribution are organized around markets as they're typically understood? Markets in goods and services, markets in labor and capital, supply and demand—that sort of context?

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

No, i haven't posed an argument so far, i have only expressed my objections to your position. If i had to make an argument, it would look something like this:

Wealth affects agents' ability to pay for a resource, therefore their willingness to pay. Thus wealth inequality distorts demand, and so distorts prices, and so distorts profit. Thus someone commited that «utility should be the determiner of profit» should take a stand against inequality.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

Also, please, don't mistake granting a statement with agreement.

I see plenty of problems with the ideas of free education, welfare in general, conditional welfare in particular, law in general, and anti-trust law in particular, both in the context of the “free market” and beyond.

I'm just not interested in discussing them right now because, like i said, my question is about something different.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

I should clarify that i'm not interested in achieving “a fair market”. I am, at best, agnostic about markets.

I should also emphasize that inequality is a spectrum. Taking a stand against inequality doesn't mean advocating perfect equality, it just means prefering less inequality rather than more. It means that inequality should be (perhaps ambiguously) undesirable on principle, rather than an unambiguously good outcome of “healthy capitalism”.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

It has nothing to do with what i want. Perfect wealth equality is unachievable even if inequality is undesirable.

Neither does one need to be committed to perfect wealth equality to agree that, for example, a billion dollars is too much wealth for anyone to have.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

“as close to 100% as reasonable” is very generous and arguably passed by any given system. Maybe someone considers any attempt at wealth redistribution unreasonable, and therefore complete laissez-faire is to them as close to 100% equality as it reasonably gets.

Rather, i believe that relative equality would be the outcome of the system doing other things well, rather than a goal to pursue in spite of other concerns.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

Well, i never said anything about power vacuums. You must be mistaking me with another commenter.

Insofar as concentration of wealth leads to concentration of power, the ideal system leads to relative wealth equality in particular because it's good at preventing concentration of power in general.

@aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@freemo

That's where i disagree. You see a degree of inequality as a necessary condition for the sorts of incentives that drive your ideal system, while i see it as an inevitable consequence of there being a multitude of people appraising a multitude of goods in unequal ways. Which is why i emphasize the relativity of it all.

I'm heading off for the night. With apologies to @aeleoglyphic @Radical_EgoCom @Vincarsi whose notifications we've probably blasted full by now.

magitweeter, to random
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

😣🖐️ cops
😌👉 co-ops

davidho, to random
@davidho@mastodon.world avatar

Half of the world’s population depends on synthetic fertilizers for food.

We need to phase out fossil fuels but to doubt the importance of Haber-Bosch to humanity is unserious.

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@NMBA I'm wondering about the politics of a “birth control and management” policy as a substitute for agricultural industry.

I ask because in my experience “birth control and management” always has unpleasant eugenicist and borderline fascistic undertones.

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@NMBA In this thought experiment, you're the one making rules for everyone else to follow, rather than the one following them

and insofar as you follow them, it's because they're what you would have done anyway—getting a vasectomy, if you're male—and you probably believe you would easily get licensed if you wanted children.

The problem with rules is that other people have to follow them. That's not to say let's have no rules ever, but you have to be careful about what rules you propose.

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@NMBA No. Do you support forcing women to end their pregnancies unless they're qualified for parenthood?

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@HeavenlyPossum I think you're wasting your time trying to talk sense into this person. I'm muting this thread.

Daojoan, to random
@Daojoan@mastodon.social avatar

The American dream didn't die.

That makes it sound like a natural event.

Like it was inevitable.

Here's the truth:

It was fucking murdered.

By greedy, unchecked corporations, bought and paid for politicians, and every coked-up asshole on Wall Street.

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@Pineywoozle

«Thousands»? For each hour of theirs? Seriously?

Let's say they work a week for you, 40 hours. That means you've done the equivalent of some multiple of 40 thousand hours of work throughout that same week?

That's an absurdity.

@HeavenlyPossum

magitweeter,
@magitweeter@mastodon.social avatar

@Pineywoozle

You also said «for every hour». That implies some kind of proportionality. Like every hour of their present effort multiplies the value of your past effort rather than adding to it.

I think it's very telling that you value your past effort in the thousands of hours while calling the present effort of laborers “just labor” worth only a fraction of yours.

It makes me suspect that whatever wage you had in mind would not be a “good” wage for their effort.

@HeavenlyPossum

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • JUstTest
  • kavyap
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • InstantRegret
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • rosin
  • tacticalgear
  • mdbf
  • Durango
  • megavids
  • modclub
  • osvaldo12
  • ethstaker
  • cubers
  • normalnudes
  • everett
  • tester
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Leos
  • cisconetworking
  • provamag3
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •