The Onion buys Infowars

[crazed_hoosier2]

Obama was a communitarian. I'm guessing if you put away the pejoratives and the black and white thinking about individualism v. collectivism and actually read what he said, read about communitarianism as a set of ideas, you might find them pretty agreeable.

To me, the subtext of what Obama said was that the spoils of successful businesses should be spread around -- because lots of people played a part in that success.

So, let's start there: would you agree with me that this is the subtext of what he was saying?

If not, how not? If so, then let's dive into this deeper...

When we make a transaction with any other human being (assuming certain things, like it's of free will, etc.), I pretty much take it for granted that both parties are pursuing their own interests. This includes buying/selling goods, performing a job, hiring somebody to perform a job, making an investment, receiving an investment, lending, borrowing, renting, etc. etc. These interactions of the exchange of value can take many forms -- but, for the most part, I think all parties involved seek to gain from doing so.

I say "for the most part" because it is simultaneously true that people do things without any (overt, anyway) expectation of gain. But this is something that is clearly secondary -- and really only made possible by people having gained through self-interested activities enough to have some level of surplus resources to do things where the benefit all flows in one direction.

So, in the context of my business, when transactions occur with our customers, vendors, lenders, insurers, accountants, lawyers, subcontractors, etc., each and every one of them are acting out of their own interest -- not in the interest of my company. And that includes our employees, too. Their employment and compensation are predicated upon doing gainful things for the business. We do use incentive pay -- but make no mistake that the purpose of our doing this (like the purpose of pretty much everything else we do) is to drive profits. We don't do that so employees can make more money -- it's the other way around.

So...if they're interacting with our company out of their own interests, what sense does it make that the success of the business (and thus some claim to its profits) is due in some part to these other actors? None of them are shouldering the risks, after all. Everybody wants a part of the spoils of success. But nobody wants a piece of the losses. And you really can't divorce these two things. Others will go and take better offers when they come around (which they should!). They'll leave you for competitors. It's really not wrong to say that, at some level, an enterprise competes with the people it transacts business with. That's why we haggle over prices, salaries, etc.

A person is in charge of their own success -- whatever their endeavor. Yes, anybody who ever did anything of worth only did so by interacting with other people. Anybody who has ever thought or suggested they could be successful as Robinson Crusoe is an idiot. But I think that's a red herring -- because I don't know of anybody who has ever suggested that.

But the other people weren't acting in the interest of that person's success, they were pursuing their own needs and wants in doing so. And that's what we should expect them to do. A society -- a group at any level -- is just a collection of individuals (primarily, not exclusively) pursuing their own wants and needs and interacting and transacting with others also pursuing their own wants and needs.

 

[BradStevens]

I’ll have some more thoughts tomorrow on all this.

But I’d be interested to hear of an example, hypothetical or real, of an unfair outcome produced by markets, who sits as the arbiter of what makes a market outcome fair or unfair to one or more participants, and how and why they ascended to this position.

You need to read more if you don't know of any of those examples.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You need to read more if you don't know of any of those examples.

You're the one who mentioned them. So you should be prepared to offer some examples of what you mean.

But, honestly, I'm not that surprised that you'd demur on it -- which is not a comment against you, but against the sentiment.

Outside of things like fraud and such, markets don't produce unfair outcomes.

 

[All4You]

Musk has bought twitter and the presidency. He's ensuring the legislators who will rubber stamp the agenda that will be favorable to his businesses and ideology are in office. Whether he actually buys MSNBC or not, he's most definitely going to try.

Elon Musk is an oligarch.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You need to read more if you don't know of any of those examples.

You're the one who mentioned them. So you should be prepared to offer some examples of what you mean.

But, honestly, I'm not that surprised that you'd demur on it -- which is not a comment against you, but against the sentiment.

Outside of things like fraud and such, markets don't produce unfair outcomes.

Crazed is more correct than not. The notion that free markets and capitalism produce unfairness is a canard. Unfairness exists and shows itself in a number of ways. Some unfairness is the result of human nature and greed, other unfairness is entirely happenstance ( like unfair jury verdicts).

Capitalism and free markets operate in an environment that is by nature unfair. In my view, free markets and capitalism provide a path away from unfairness.

Finally I should also mention that some will use fraud and other means to provide an advantage in a capitalist or free markets system. We do and should have laws to address that.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Crazed is more correct than not. The notion that free markets and capitalism produce unfairness is a canard. Unfairness exists and shows itself in a number of ways. Some unfairness is the result of human nature and greed, other unfairness is entirely happenstance ( like unfair jury verdicts).

Capitalism and free markets operate in an environment that is by nature unfair. In my view, free markets and capitalism provide a path away from unfairness.

Finally I should also mention that some will use fraud and other means to provide an advantage in a capitalist or free markets system. We do and should have laws to address that.

Well, it would be tough to produce an example of free markets producing an unfair outcome that didn't involve some kind of malfeasance or deception. But markets, of course, have to be couched in a body of laws that guards against that. Go refer to Lincoln's great quote about "the legitimate object of government" for a really good reference point in that. He ends that quote by saying that, if people weren't always trying to lie, cheat, and steal, there wouldn't be much need for government at all. And he was right about that.

So, if an example of an "unfair outcome" has something to do with lying, cheating, and stealing, then it's a bad example -- because one shouldn't mistake a free market from a free-for-all where anybody can do anything to anybody else. Two different things.

Any example that isn't based on this would be subject to being torn to shreds -- which is why it's advisable if you're going to mention this as an argument in favor of government intervention to put the burden on the other guy to determine what you mean by "unfair outcomes".

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Some unfairness is the result of human nature and greed

I think people are often guilty of mistaking self-interest (which is a very health thing) with greed (which is not). They're related concepts, of course. Greed insinuates exchanges that aren't essentially equitable. Would this be an unfair outcome? Well, that would depend.

We hear a lot about price gouging -- be it during Covid, or during a natural disaster, etc. Is it greedy for, say, a hotel to increase its rates during periods of very high demand? Well, does it depend on why the demand is high? I don't think so. Sellers compete with each other, but so do buyers. And different circumstances are going to result in different prevailing prices. As such, I don't really think it's any more greedy for a buyer to use situational leverage during low demand to get a price lower than it is for a seller to do the opposite during period of high demand.

What greed is not (but is a term often used for) is somebody who has made lots of money by being highly productive -- as if it's a measure of how much they earn or have. One's income/wealth is a product of how much value they've produced for other people at a profitable and equitable price -- and it's hardly greedy for somebody to have produced a lot of value and to have become wealthy for it....irrespective how much of it they give away (and I absolutely do think people should be charitable).

Greed has to do with screwing somebody else: like voting for politicians who pledge to tax somebody else to benefit yourself at their expense.

 

[BradStevens]

Well, it would be tough to produce an example of free markets producing an unfair outcome that didn't involve some kind of malfeasance or deception. But markets, of course, have to be couched in a body of laws that guards against that. Go refer to Lincoln's great quote about "the legitimate object of government" for a really good reference point in that. He ends that quote by saying that, if people weren't always trying to lie, cheat, and steal, there wouldn't be much need for government at all. And he was right about that.

So, if an example of an "unfair outcome" has something to do with lying, cheating, and stealing, then it's a bad example -- because one shouldn't mistake a free market from a free-for-all where anybody can do anything to anybody else. Two different things.

Any example that isn't based on this would be subject to being torn to shreds -- which is why it's advisable if you're going to mention this as an argument in favor of government intervention to put the burden on the other guy to determine what you mean by "unfair outcomes".

You and CoH are just redefining things to meet your conclusions. Everything that is reasonable meets your definition; everything that is not is what you are arguing against. So individualism includes more than just concern for the individual; and laissez faire capitalism also includes all the regulations that might defeat any unfairness or market failures to be "real" capitalism. Whatever the perfect balance is, that's what you're for and anyone who errs on the side of the regulation or the community/public good is a "collectivist."

By the way, you can read "unfair" as unjust or undesirable--market failures, for example, unfairly place the cost of an activity on people who disproportionately did not cause it or benefit from the conduct that caused it. I think you're being coy about not acknowledging any, or just redefining them out of your definition, as described in the above paragraph. The knocks against capitalism are many.

The fact is, these things all exist on a continuum. Getting the exact balance correct is difficult, if not impossible. As I've become older and read more, I realize that unintended consequences of regulations are much more important than I believed in my teens and 20s. However, I've also realized just how many other community restrictions there are on individuals, self interest, etc. and that in a lot of instances, those are good things. (By the way, I think Obama's evolution was on a similar track, if not identical to mine. I'm sure Obama, for example, didn't spend years studying Rand and Objectivism and laissez-faire).

Obama's arguments were made at a time and in an environment of the post 2008 market crash, when even people like Dick Posner were questioning their previous assumptions. His arguments are nothing more than a repackaging of the arguments about why a progressive tax is justified on moral and political philosophical grounds. But he also made it clear that we, as a society, need to start paying more attention to our communities, and that some self-sacrifice for the greater good is still a desirable thing. Indeed, I'd argue that's what it means to be a patriot.

Now, we can disagree about which direction of on the spectrum we need to shift to make things better for ourselves. That's fine. But I'm not sure how you can argue that people who think individuals might need to sacrifice their own money through taxes in order to make the nation better are somehow more "collectivist" than the person who thinks we should have a military draft, for example, to ensure the safety of the nation.

 

[hoosboot]

I think people are often guilty of mistaking self-interest (which is a very health thing) with greed (which is not). They're related concepts, of course. Greed insinuates exchanges that aren't essentially equitable. Would this be an unfair outcome? Well, that would depend.

We hear a lot about price gouging -- be it during Covid, or during a natural disaster, etc. Is it greedy for, say, a hotel to increase its rates during periods of very high demand? Well, does it depend on why the demand is high? I don't think so. Sellers compete with each other, but so do buyers. And different circumstances are going to result in different prevailing prices. As such, I don't really think it's any more greedy for a buyer to use situational leverage during low demand to get a price lower than it is for a seller to do the opposite during period of high demand.

What greed is not (but is a term often used for) is somebody who has made lots of money by being highly productive -- as if it's a measure of how much they earn or have. One's income/wealth is a product of how much value they've produced for other people at a profitable and equitable price -- and it's hardly greedy for somebody to have produced a lot of value and to have become wealthy for it....irrespective how much of it they give away (and I absolutely do think people should be charitable).

Greed has to do with screwing somebody else: like voting for politicians who pledge to tax somebody else to benefit yourself at their expense.

I'm very interested in this concept of greed vs. self-interest and how the government should react to it. As an example, I'd love your perspective on a real life situation.

Big earthquake. Water and power service interrupted. Lots of damage, but it's not the end of society. However, it's probably several days until water and power are restored and there certainly is much uncertainty in the population, even if it's mostly unfounded. Local grocery store takes the price of water jugs from $1.50 to $25 each. Where does this fall in the greed vs. self-interest spectrum? And should government have any impact on it?