Psuedo call out thread, I guess? I don't get it. There are a number of things I respect your opinion on, and rely on as a resource the itermittent (and hopefully not rare) moments I need it, such as colloquial and literal English->Russian translations, and your insights on various topics like in logistics and the like (Techforge being a good example). But politically? I feel like we're at opposing ends, and it's frustrating -- not because of policital disagreement or philosophical differences, but of fundamental differences of worldview. And while one could argue this should have been a PM conversation, I feel like I have to say, 'Dude. Really?' -- and yet, while this is a Red Room kind of thread, I realize that such nature invites the commentary from those that would naturally needlessly polarize the conversation to find what common ground, if it even exists, there is (I'm looking at you, @Tererun and @Diacanu). Ultimately, my view is this: We help Humanity as a Whole, to the best of our ability (and this is coming from someone jaded by working retail and dealing with Ken and Karen on a far too regular basis), or we just Bring On The Asteroid per Lanz. Yet it seems your approach comes preserving and promoting Yourself at the expense of Everyone Else. I submit, without substantial proof to sufficiently persuade you, admittedly, you would do better to preserve and promote yourself if you worked to elevate Everyone Else, even if it's at the Government's Behest. Yes, yes, I'm familiar with the Slippery Slope arguments. They have their place -- but I don't believe for a moment enough consideration's been given to international efforts, particularly that of our allies. Ultimately, I don't think the Winner Take All approach is sustainable in any measure, and investing so heavily into it will ultimately be self-defeating. That is, of course, @Lanzman's Asteroid Attractor finally works. In that case, all bets are off
I don't usually respond to callouts, but... This is not just a false dilemma, but an unrealizable one. You don't (and wouldn't want to) live just for the benefit of others; that's slavery. And destruction of humankind isn't the only alternative. Anyway, taking care of our own needs and desires generally serves humanity as well. Paying your own way? Then no one else has to subsidize you. Earning a salary? Then you have to contribute something of value to society, and you pay taxes that (well, at least partially) contribute to the common good. Buy yourself a big screen TV? You're (partially) enabling Best Buy to stay open and all of its employees to earn their living. I'm a product of the Scottish Enlightenment. I believe that we human beings are not only imperfect but, really, not very malleable as we're driven by our biology and our rational consideration of the world. About the best a state can do, is to arrange things such that our rational self-interest is channelled toward productive enterprise (see "the invisible hand"). I believe that's why capitalism--for all its excesses and inequality--works the best for the most while socialism--despite its lofty pretensions for universal justice--does not. The former aligns human nature with the creation of prosperity and abundance, the latter does not. The latter also falls victim to the "power corrupts" syndrome more readily. Really? It's true I want to hold on to what I have--I worked long and hard to get it--but how is that at anyone else's expense? No one else was there with me studying, or working late nights, or persevering in the face of all kinds of adversity. I paid for it. I'll wager I pay more taxes than most here, and probably a lot more than many of you. To the extent you consider taxes to be for the common good, aren't I doing quite a lot? That I don't wish to pay more is selfish? At what point do others' demands on the fruits of my labor become selfish for them? I believe working at the Market's Behest does that. The government is a schizophrenic mass of competing control freaks serving often contradictory agenda and, ultimately, having little interest in the betterment of individuals. The market very effectively communicates what people actually want and need and shows this by--wait for it--enabling them to choose with their own money. You might not think the latest iPhone, or a candy bar, or a snazzy new car makes people's lives better, but the people spending their money for it do. I'm not going to talk explicitly about what I do for a living, but, I believe my efforts make all kinds of positive difference in the world. I believe that's been the case with every job I've ever had. I've been a part of creating things that are useful. I believe the more distant a government is from the people it ostensibly serves, the more likely it is to be bloated, ineffective, and self-serving. International efforts have done little to raise living standards, but the spread of entrepreneurialism has raised hundreds of millions out of poverty. That isn't my philosophy and it isn't what capitalism is. The competition to be a winner, though, has been and continues to be a very powerful driver of prosperity. The TLDR version: I earned what I have, I believe my efforts make plenty of positive difference for society, I contribute directly and indirectly more than most already, I have too much experience with government to put much faith in it, markets let people choose.
Translation: I read Adam Smith in Econ 101, and then I peaced out. "No! You're wrong, Dickynoo! I'll fight you with facts and logic! I'll save Paladin!! Here come my arguments, I'm lining them up...here we go...". "Oh. ". Yeah.
Noooo. Nash said Smith was incomplete regarding certain decision-making, but remember the upshot of Nash's work was still to provide an individual with the strategies that maximize their own self-interested outcomes. I don't claim that Smith has the answer to every problem (even the economic ones) but that his understanding of economic fundamentals was and is correct. Which is why he is still taught.
Did you read Smith, or just the Econ 101 summary that Dicky refers to? He did not say what you and others represent him as saying.
I read much of The Wealth of Nations a very long time ago (and many other books concerning classical economics since). What have I misrepresented? Edit: some of what I was referring to about the Scottish Enlightenment is more properly attributed to Hume. But I haven't misattributed anything to Smith as far as I can tell. My example of "the invisible hand" may have made it look like I was attributing something of Hume's to Smith.
Incomplete as in it takes and entire society. Individuals working in their own interests will always fuck things up. Nash proved that an entire society working together is the only way capitalism works.
Huh? I need a link for that. (Yes, I know you've probably gotten this idea from the movie A Beautiful Mind. Uh, hate to break it to you but... that's really not a good source [though the episode with the blonde is a good illustration]. Nash didn't overturn people acting in their own self-interest; he showed them how to do it better. ["We all get laid."]) Through his contributions to game theory, Nash undoubtedly enabled all entities (businesses, states, militaries, diplomats, individuals) operating in non-cooperative environments to make better decisions and achieve better outcomes, but those entities existed before him. Capitalism was loooong established by the time Nash's ideas emerged.
You’re in luck. Not only can I not remember the name of the paper to google it, if I google Nash proves Smith wrong, all I get are references to the movie. However, if Nash didn’t publish the paper, someone else did. Smith has been proven incomplete for the size of the population.
Have fun with beating your head against the wall, but @Paladin has been honest with who he is, that he is happy with it, and that he has no reason to change. I accept that, and that is polarizing to the extent that he is a scumbag who I have no reason to compromise with. There is no distance I can go with a Trumpanzee that would please them. I am also not willing to compromise on certain beliefs. His racism and ideas that it is great to be able to piss on people are just not things I am willing to compromise on. He has also shown again and again that he will not let his ability to be prejudice and piss on people go. You are the one who wants him to change, and he is telling you who he is and wants to be. He is not the person you want him to be, and he is not willing to be that person. I do not think that will change just because you desire it. I have often heard people ask me why I have to be who I am because they would prefer it if I was not such a girl at times because they are uncomfortable with it. I am not here to be who they want me to be, and Paladin is not here to be who you want him to be. Your problem with the situation is yours. At this point of so many years of him being him you should just judge who you do n0ot like, and why you do not like them, and be done with it. That may mean you just accept him as he is and do not try and change it. Enjoy beating your head against that wall. Don't blame me because Paladin is who he is because I did not make him that way. I do not insult him because I want him to change. I insult him because he is a fucking racist trumpanzee.
Sure, and that's because he doesn't (at least not in general). The film makes an example but draws the wrong conclusion from it. In the blonde episode, they all want the blonde (and who wouldn't? she's stunning) but Nash realizes that acting in self-interest alone--without taking into account what others are doing--is likely to result in a less than optimal outcome. Smith: self-interest => individual best result + societal benefit Nash: self-interest + accounting for other actors' decisions => individual best result + societal benefit Eh, he's still the father of economic thought, and his ideas remain as the foundation of economics. The most one could say is that Smith's invisible hand doesn't always produce benefits for society, but no one really claimed that it did, only that it tended to.
Newtonian Mechanics are also taught in high schools and even in some college classes and for the same reasons. They are simplistic (and thus easy to teach) and generally correct (so not sending kids down a totally wrong path) AND are the bases on which the modern fields are built upon so a great starting place. But Newton won’t get you an accurate GPS coordinate. And neither will Smith, Ricardo or Hume help you navigate modern political economics.
Newtonian mechanics will suffice for all but the most extreme scenarios involving relative motion or gravitation. That doesn't make Newton wrong or useless, only limited to the vast, vast majority of actual applications. Smith doesn't have all the answers, but classical economics has very good predictive value. Most of Smith's insights still hold true and that's why they're still taught. And, empirically, economies in line with Smith's principles far outperform those that aren't.
This thread doesn't seem necessary, Paladin has well explained his positions in many threads. To me the best summary of his approach was when in a climate change thread he stated that preventative action wasn't necessary because it can be left for the future to deal with.
That's a mischaracterization of what I said. I said that humans have the capacity to adapt, and should, and that future technologies may make dealing with CO2 easier. I never said no preventative action was necessary or even desirable.
