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?

 

[BradStevens]

View embedded media

I'm really hoping he does buy it.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

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."

Hold on. Collectivism and individualism have actual definitions. I'm not making anything up. It has to do with primacy in a social order. Do we place primacy on the individual acting of his own behest (which inadvertently advances the benefits of the group) or do we place primacy on the collective or the group (which inadvertently advances the benefits of the individuals within it).

You act as if this is something I just came up with. It's not. And, yes, I do think that Obama's speech was a paean to collectivism. So, BTW, was JFK's famous words ("Ask not..."). In reality, we shouldn't be asking what we can do for our country or what our country can do for us....what we should be asking is how our country benefits by us all pursuing our own ends.

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.

Pretty much every market failure I'm aware of was the result of unsound intervention, not the market. Markets, left to their own devices, never really "fail"...they just adapt and adjust by way of pricing signals and the like.

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.

Maybe. But capitalism isn't unfair. People may not like the outcomes. Sometimes I don't like the outcomes. But open competition within a set of sensible rules and guardrails is about as close to fair as fair can get.

To my ears, people who complain about fairness are virtually always just losers who are trying to deflect blame for losing -- and they often blame systems.

The fact is, these things all exist on a continuum.

Well, that's true. But it doesn't really address the point I'm making.

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.

Not unless the restrictions are keeping people from screwing over somebody else. But, here again, I'll entertain examples of things where you've realized this.

I'm sure Obama, for example, didn't spend years studying Rand and Objectivism and laissez-faire.

Oh, I'd never recommend somebody studying Ayn Rand. In fact, there's nothing really to study. No if somebody is interested in learning about the virtues of free markets and why they're so preferable to the alternative, I'd guide them to some other people.

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.

If they'd have learned the right lessons from that, they'd learn that the crash had to do with well-meaning interventions upon markets.

But a lot of people went way out of their way to learn the wrong lessons from it. Maybe it's not a good idea to forcibly remove barriers to lending that existed for a good reason....as I've called it before, it was an economic Chesterton's Fence scenario.

"Say, why are these barriers here that make it harder for people to qualify for a mortgage. Let's get rid of them, they're preventing home ownership!"

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.

That's a straw man, then -- because the opposing argument is not that we shouldn't make self-sacrifice on behalf of society.

The actual opposing argument is that we make too much of it, it's absurdly inefficient, and society is being made poorer by the burdens. Anybody who takes that argument and says "Oh, so you're saying we shouldn't pay taxes, eh?" is being disingenuous.

Now, we can disagree about which direction of on the spectrum we need to shift to make things better for ourselves. That's fine.

That's what I'm trying to do. And you seem to be suggesting I think we should have a society free of taxes or laws, or some such. No, I'm just criticizing collectivism -- which, again, is about the order of things.

No, what we should do is pay attention to what Milei is doing in Argentina and learn. Watch what happens there in the next decade or two. I'll say it right now: it's going to prosper immensely.

Any nation that wants to similarly prosper will watch carefully what he's doing.

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.

I'm not sure I've ever met anybody who doesn't think we should have taxes. Collectivism is about valuing the collective interests over the individual's. We shouldn't do that -- societies gain most by letting individuals freely pursue their own interests. And I say this as somebody who lives near New Harmony and has learned the lessons well of trying to do things the other way.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

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?

I don't think it's greedy for prices to reflect the realities of supply and demand during a demand shock. I know why it sounds like greed -- people are in a crisis, it's heartless to raise prices, etc. But prices are the tool we use to balance these out as efficiently as possible.

What government can and should do is marshal its resources to increase that scarce supply. I also think that most people in these situations will leave their self-interest mode (to an extent, of course) and get closer to the altruistic zone.

But let's look at it outside of a crisis situation. Would you consider it greedy for hotels to increase room rates when, say, the Super Bowl is in town? Why or why not? If a hotel can be profitable charging $200/night for a room most of the year, is it not greedy of them to jack it up to $500 when demand is high?

 

[hoosboot]

I don't think it's greedy for prices to reflect the realities of supply and demand during a demand shock. I know why it sounds like greed -- people are in a crisis, it's heartless to raise prices, etc. But prices are the tool we use to balance these out as efficiently as possible.

What government can and should do is marshal its resources to increase that scarce supply. I also think that most people in these situations will leave their self-interest mode (to an extent, of course) and get closer to the altruistic zone.

But let's look at it out of a crisis situation. Would you consider it greedy for hotels to increase room rates when, say, the Super Bowl is in town? Why or why not? If a hotel can be profitable charging $200/night for a room most of the year, is it not greedy of them to jack it up to $500 when demand is high?

But the crisis situation (and the temporary nature of that crisis situation) is very much the point of the example, so looking at it outside of the crisis situation makes no sense. A Super Bowl is an extremely predictable event. An earthquake is not. In that situation I highlighted, the price of those same jugs of water went back down to $1.50 just a couple of days later when the "crisis" was over.

You've indicated here that this situation "sounds like greed", which leads me to believe you think it isn't actually greed. I'm very interested in examples of what you would identify as greed. Can greed ever exist in a capitalist market?

 

[mcmurtry66]

But the crisis situation (and the temporary nature of that crisis situation) is very much the point of the example, so looking at it outside of the crisis situation makes no sense. A Super Bowl is an extremely predictable event. An earthquake is not. In that situation I highlighted, the price of those same jugs of water went back down to $1.50 just a couple of days later when the "crisis" was over.

You've indicated here that this situation "sounds like greed", which leads me to believe you think it isn't actually greed. I'm very interested in examples of what you would identify as greed. Can greed ever exist in a capitalist market?

The water is price gouging and against the law. Very different than what Harris wanted to declare price gouging. Fwiw outside of the scope of the thread

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm very interested in this concept of greed vs. self-interest

BTW, to me the dividing line between greed and self-interest can best be seen by what comes of the other guy. Did he walk away with something truly equitable or did he get hosed? It's a very subjective question, of course. And there really is no perfect way to answer it.

People may have buyer's remorse and feel like they overpaid for something. Does that make the guy they bought it from greedy? Maybe. But, again, it's subjective. What about the opposite situation? What about somebody who lowballs something and buys it for below market value? Is it the buyer, in this case, that is greedy?

Most successful real estate investors I know insist that they make their money on the buy, not the sale. But if the seller they bought it from was agreeable to it and the price bore some resemblance to its comparables, isn't that the definition of an equitable trade?

I don't know. In a public policy setting, though, I've always like Sowell's comment about greed -- considering the way the term is most frequently used:

 

[DANC]

Maybe Musk will do the same to MSNBC?

View embedded media

Big boys don't cry

 

[hoosboot]

BTW, to me the dividing line between greed and self-interest can best be seen by what comes of the other guy. Did he walk away with something truly equitable or did he get hosed? It's a very subjective question, of course. And there really is no perfect way to answer it.

People may have buyer's remorse and feel like they overpaid for something. Does that make the guy they bought it from greedy? Maybe. But, again, it's subjective. What about the opposite situation? What about somebody who lowballs something and buys it for below market value? Is it the buyer, in this case, that is greedy?

Most successful real estate investors I know insist that they make their money on the buy, not the sale. But if the seller they bought it from was agreeable to it and the price bore some resemblance to its comparables, isn't that the definition of an equitable trade?

I don't know. In a public policy setting, though, I've always like Sowell's comment about greed -- considering the way the term is most frequently used:

What I hear you saying is that there is no real, qualitative difference between greed and self-interest. It's all a subjective evaluation that is in the eye of the beholder. Is that correct?

McM seems to think that what the seller of the water did was illegal and that it should be seen as such. Do you agree?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Can greed ever exist in a capitalist market?

Of course. The most obvious examples involve fraud and deception.

Don Lapre, the infomercial huckster, was greedy. Why? Because he sold people a total load of tosh. He benefitted greatly, his victims (suckers though they were) didn't gain the benefits they were promised at all.

Bernie Madoff, the Enron guys, Mickey Monus, anybody else who cooked the books to enrich themselves at the expense of others. That's greed. And the list of people who did this is long.

What might look like greed, but isn't? Well, I saw British Airways is advertising a 1st Class cabin on the A380 that will cost over $100K. Would I ever pay this? No. Is it absurd? Yes.

But is it greedy? Man...that's between them and the people buying it. You'll have to ask both of them. If the people who buy it think it was a proper value, more power to them. And if British Airways can sell a seat for a hundred grand, more power to them as well.

All I'm saying is that most allegations of greed aren't actually greed. They're just self-interest. And it's a good thing to know there is a difference and to try to distinguish them.

 

[mcmurtry66]

What I hear you saying is that there is no real, qualitative difference between greed and self-interest. It's all a subjective evaluation that is in the eye of the beholder. Is that correct?

McM seems to think that what the seller of the water did was illegal and that it should be seen as such. Do you agree?

I didn’t say it should be seen as such. Only that it is price gouging and illegal. Whether people think it should or shouldn’t be is a different matter

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What I hear you saying is that there is no real, qualitative difference between greed and self-interest. It's all a subjective evaluation that is in the eye of the beholder. Is that correct?

McM seems to think that what the seller of the water did was illegal and that it should be seen as such. Do you agree?

No, I don't. I think buyers and sellers should be able to haggle in any circumstance.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

What I hear you saying is that there is no real, qualitative difference between greed and self-interest. It's all a subjective evaluation that is in the eye of the beholder. Is that correct?

McM seems to think that what the seller of the water did was illegal and that it should be seen as such. Do you agree?

Let me ask you this.

Say you've got one bottle of water to give in an emergency situation. You're already properly hydrated. And you've got two people who need it....and sharing it isn't possible. Or say it's 5 people. Point is: more demand than supply.

How do you decide? And is deciding in some way other than price somehow more moral than using price? If so, why?

 

[DANC]

I think that's fair. Ultimately we don't know how it'll play out, but I do think things will be put to the test.

Government regulations (or lack thereof) can have too big of an impact on Musk's businesses for there not to be some eventual conflicts of interests in his DOGE role - I guess we'll see how it goes.

Pretty funny to hear a Democrat complaining about government involvement in business regulations.

 

[hoosboot]

Of course. The most obvious examples involve fraud and deception.

Don Lapre, the infomercial huckster, was greedy. Why? Because he sold people a total load of tosh. He benefitted greatly, his victims (suckers though they were) didn't gain the benefits they were promised at all.

Bernie Madoff, the Enron guys, Mickey Monus, anybody else who cooked the books to enrich themselves at the expense of others. That's greed. And the list of people who did this is long.

What might look like greed, but isn't? Well, I saw British Airways is advertising a 1st Class cabin on the A380 that will cost over $100K. Would I ever pay this? No. Is it absurd? Yes.

But is it greedy? Man...that's between them and the people buying it. You'll have to ask both of them. If the people who buy it think it was a proper value, more power to them. And if British Airways can sell a seat for a hundred grand, more power to them as well.

All I'm saying is that most allegations of greed aren't actually greed. They're just self-interest. And it's a good thing to know there is a difference and to try to distinguish them.

That's interesting. You seem to be indicating that you don't see examples of greed outside of fraud. Does that mean that we are legislating against greed? Or can you think of examples of what you would call greed outside of things that are illegal?

 

[BradStevens]

Hold on. Collectivism and individualism have actual definitions. I'm not making anything up

Then provide them or a link. I think you'll find they vary by source.

In reality, we shouldn't be asking what we can do for our country

I'm glad people didn't think like this during WW 2. Making it more general, do you think people should ask themselves what they can do to help their fellow man or contribute to the common good?

Pretty much every market failure I'm aware of was the result of unsound intervention, not the market. Markets, left to their own devices, never really "fail"...they just adapt and adjust by way of pricing signals and the like.

It's Econ 101 that externalities can produce market failures. Pollution is a prime example. You're thinking on this is utopian and naive--even Friedman admitted there were no easy answers here and hard questions to ask. So yes, that is unfair if a person has to bear the brunt of pollution he did not cause and it has nothing to do with unsound intervention--intervention is needed to prevent it or make the polluter pay.

Well, that's true. But it doesn't really address the point I'm making.

That's what I'm trying to do. And you seem to be suggesting I think we should have a society free of taxes or laws, or some such. No, I'm just criticizing collectivism -- which, again, is about the order of things.

So the reference to a continuum doesn't address the point you're making, but that's what you're trying to do? That's self-contradictory.

To my ears, people who complain about fairness are virtually always just losers who are trying to deflect blame for losing -- and they often blame systems.

Ad hominem. Irrelevant.

That's a straw man, then -- because the opposing argument is not that we shouldn't make self-sacrifice on behalf of society.

Collectivism is about valuing the collective interests over the individual's. We shouldn't do that -- societies gain most by letting individuals freely pursue their own interests.

The two above are inconsistent. You say it's a strawman, then end by saying we shouldn't value the collective interest over the individual's without qualification--but when one engages in self-sacrifice for the collective good, that's exactly what he or she is doing.

I can't respond point by point anymore because I can't follow what you're arguing in that way. Let's try this to find some common ground:

We both agree, I think, that individual self-interest and the community's self-interest can conflict. Once we recognize that very obvious fact, we can define two poles--one is that you always do what's in your own individual self-interest, the community's be damned. That's roughly "individualism." (yes I know there's more to it than that). The other pole is that you always do what is in your community's (i.e. the common good) best interest, your own interest be damned. That is roughly "collectivism." There is a spectrum of decision making to balance those two interests, which would place a system or even a decision somewhere between those two poles. Milei obviously talks as if he is at the "individualism" pole.

Are you in agreement with this so far? If you want to swap out the two words "individualism" and "collectivism," have at it, but are you in agreement with the general paradigm expressed above?

 

[hoosboot]

Let me ask you this.

Say you've got one bottle of water to give in an emergency situation. You're already properly hydrated. And you've got two people who need it....and sharing it isn't possible. Or say it's 5 people. Point is: more demand than supply.

How do you decide? And is deciding in some way other than price somehow more moral than using price? If so, why?

It's an interesting question (even though the "sharing isn't possible" restriction isn't realistic.)

Much depends on the details of the situation, but I suspect that most people would make the decision on feeling. Is the lack of water a death sentence or merely discomfort? What is the future we are preparing for? Who else in the group is properly hydrated? Lots would go into that decision for me.

I don't think deciding based on price is necessarily less moral, but I suppose it could be depending on what your values are. Do you think that deciding in some way other than price is less moral?

 

[hoosboot]

I didn’t say it should be seen as such. Only that it is price gouging and illegal. Whether people think it should or shouldn’t be is a different matter

Sorry for misrepresenting your perspective. So, you are saying it is illegal, but don't have an opinion on whether it should be? Do you have an opinion on whether you view it as greed?

 

[BradStevens]

Let me ask you this.

Say you've got one bottle of water to give in an emergency situation. You're already properly hydrated. And you've got two people who need it....and sharing it isn't possible. Or say it's 5 people. Point is: more demand than supply.

How do you decide? And is deciding in some way other than price somehow more moral than using price? If so, why?

You're baking in "need" there, then asking about morality. That's begging the question. An individual's "need" is not a requirement in a capitalist system for selling. Sellers don't care why buyers want it or what he will be using it for, buyers only care who provides the best price.

So ask yourself the hard question: would it be moral to sell to Elon Musk in that situation who already has 1,000 bottles of water but who is offering you twice as much because he likes to collect water bottles, instead of to the mother who can only afford to give you $1 but wants to use that water to give to her dehydrated baby?

 

[DANC]

Reading it is one thing. Hearing him deliver it on the stump is another.

View embedded media

"You didn't build that - somebody else made that happen"

That's a direct quote. Not sure how that's to be interpreted, other than you're not responsible for your own success.

 

[The Original Happy Goat]

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 was going to say, pretty much any time a cost is externalized, that's an unfair outcome, and free markets produce that result all the time.

 

[Ohio Guy]

Pretty funny to hear a Democrat complaining about government involvement in business regulations.

You must have trouble keeping hats on for all the stuff that blows over your head.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sorry for misrepresenting your perspective. So, you are saying it is illegal, but don't have an opinion on whether it should be? Do you have an opinion on whether you view it as greed?

It’s a state issue so I can’t comment other than to generalize. I believe rising prices that Harris/Biden bitched about attendant to inflation is simply the market and we have to adjust. Price gouging that you noted with the water is within the context of an emergency wherein vulnerable groups are exploited. An anomalous occurrence. I view same as unethical and agree with enacting price gouging laws. I don’t agree with Harris trying to limit prices during generalized inflation etc

 

[DANC]

You're baking in "need" there, then asking about morality. That's begging the question. An individual's "need" is not a requirement in a capitalist system for selling. Sellers don't care why buyers want it or what he will be using it for, buyers only care who provides the best price.

So ask yourself the hard question: would it be moral to sell to Elon Musk in that situation who already has 1,000 bottles of water but who is offering you twice as much because he likes to collect water bottles, instead of to the mother who can only afford to give you $1 but wants to use that water to give to her dehydrated baby?

Whose morals?

 

[DANC]

You must have trouble keeping hats on for all the stuff that blows over your head.

I'm enjoying watching you try to engage in a philosophical debate that's so far beyond you.

Quite entertaining!

 

[BradStevens]

Whose morals?

Are you a moral relativist?

If so, your own. Or what you think the majority of people in the US or world would answer.

 

[DANC]

Are you a moral relativist?

If so, your own. Or what you think the majority of people in the US or world would answer.

Just pointing out that there is no universal acceptance of morality. You decide morality through your own eyes, which is fine, just as I do.

I think it's always dicey to declare an issue based morality as if it was a decided thing.

 

[BradStevens]

Just pointing out that there is no universal acceptance of morality. You decide morality through your own eyes, which is fine, just as I do.

I think it's always dicey to declare an issue based morality as if it was a decided thing.

I tend to agree, based on the issue. But I also think there are some moral intuitions that are nearly universal, as data has shown.

But I didn't ask the morality question, crazed did. The point is, if you're going to ask about it, you can't limit it--indeed by baking in the "need," he's implicitly admitting that that is a moral consideration and that a market doesn't take it into account.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I'm glad people didn't think like this during WW 2. Making it more general, do you think people should ask themselves what they can do to help their fellow man or contribute to the common good?

Meh. I’m talking about ordinary situations, not extraordinary ones.

In general, I think the best thing people can do for their country/community is to be productive and prosperous. You can’t make money without satisfying needs of others.

When you do things in service to your own interests, you not only benefit the people you transact with, you benefit society at large.

It's Econ 101 that externalities can produce market failures. Pollution is a prime example.

And, yet, this bears no resemblance to the bellyaching we typically hear about the unfairness of free enterprise. So what’s its value to us here?

No, what we typically hear are just the pangs of envy…having nothing to do with pollution. And Obama’s speech fed right into them, by design.

He wasn’t addressing anything that was actually unfair. He was addressing people who think they’ve gotten screwed - and hope to encourage redistribution through public policy.

So the reference to a continuum doesn't address the point you're making, but that's what you're trying to do? That's self-contradictory

What I’m trying to do is advocate for more individual freedom and less societal imposition…recognizing that these exist on a continuum.

Ad hominem. Irrelevant.

But not inaccurate.

The two above are inconsistent. You say it's a strawman, then end by saying we shouldn't value the collective interest over the individual's without qualification--but when one engages in self-sacrifice for the collective good, that's exactly what he or she is doing.

I’m saying that the interests of a group are normally best served by individuals within the group acting upon and pursuing their own self-interest.

We both agree, I think, that individual self-interest and the community's self-interest can conflict.

It can. But it’s the exception and not the rule. On a normal day by day basis, the community’s best interests are advanced by people harnessing their nature to act in regard to their self-interest.

“We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love.”

Once we recognize that very obvious fact, we can define two poles--one is that you always do what's in your own individual self-interest, the community's be damned. That's roughly "individualism." (yes I know there's more to it than that). The other pole is that you always do what is in your community's (i.e. the common good) best interest, your own interest be damned. That is roughly "collectivism."

Mmm, not how I understand these opposing concepts. It’s just a matter of priority — which needs are assigned higher value.

When I act out of my self-interest, I don’t sit there and 20% ponder what it will mean for society, 80% ponder what it means for me. Anybody who does is weird.

Are you in agreement with this so far? If you want to swap out the two words "individualism" and "collectivism," have at it, but are you in agreement with the general paradigm expressed above?

No, not really. There is a continuum in terms of policies - such as how much income is taxed vs. kept with its earner. But it seems binary to me whether a society’s general ethos favors the individual or collective higher.

I would agree there are some situations where people will subordinate their own needs, either to others in particular or to society at large. But I also think this is kind of irrelevant to what Obama was saying, and thus what we’re debating.

I think he was talking about Situation Normal. And I think the thrust of his message was that successful people should spread their earnings more than they do, to better reflect (in his view, not mine) the true provenance of its origin.

And I simply reject that view - which is not the same thing as saying that nobody should pay taxes or that all of society’s needs can be met without them.

There is a legitimate object of government. And I can’t express it any better than Abe did. So why try?

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I was going to say, pretty much any time a cost is externalized, that's an unfair outcome, and free markets produce that result all the time.

OK. But doesn’t it say something that this is the only example of an unfair outcome anybody can name?

Do you think this is what Obama had in mind when he was chiding entrepreneurs for not properly recognizing the contributions of other people in the success of their enterprises? I don’t.

In fact, I don’t even think he was even really talking to the entrepreneurs themselves. I think he was stoking resentment against them among people who might be persuaded that rich people have screwed them…and that justice can be served by some form or another of increased redistribution.

 

[DANC]

In fact, I don’t even think he was even really talking to the entrepreneurs themselves. I think he was stoking resentment against them among people who might be persuaded that rich people have screwed them…and that justice can be served by some form or another of increased redistribution.

Exactly. He wasn't making some big social, philosophical, or economic statement It was entirely for his political purposes.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

I’ve read this post several times and thought about while out and about. I still can’t figure out what you mean by free market failures or unfair results. I fully understand that people have different skills, abilities, and attitudes about work and achievement. Those differences certainly show up in a free market environment but I wouldn’t call differences in results unfairness. Obviously some who have disabilities, should have assistance. Also the adverse results stemming from skin color, sex or other forms of discrimination need to be eliminated. In general though, I think differences are healthy for a vibrant society and economy because of the social and economic mobility it provides.

The differences between individualism and collectivism is not very troublesome for me. I think any vibrant economic and social system must begin with the notion that all of us are entitled to keep, use, and enjoy the fruits of our labor and talents. This is rule #1 for me. That is individualism. This is a reason slavery is so abhorrent and comes before racism because not all slaves have been racial minorities. Collectives operate on the principle that a separate entity owns your labor and it is to be used for the common good. I’m thinking the Virginia Colonies, Soviet Collective farms and feudalism here. That system is destined to fail.

The problems obviously arise when we decide how much and for whose benefit do we impinge on rule #1 for those who can’t make a life in the free market environment. I think I can safely say that we all agree that some impingement is necessary and just. The scope of this I think is for a different thread.

Along these lines, I don’t believe government, taxes, and providing for the general common good, is a problem nor is it collectivism. Police, fire roads, military, and other spending for the general common good is universally accepted. The problems arise when we spend for the specific benefit of a select few (EV subsidies) or target others for special burdens or benefits.

Relating all of this back to Obama’s remarks. There is no doubt in my mind that he was extolling the benefits of collective government which “allows” free market entrepreneurs to operate. He wasn’t focused on Rule #1 and the idea that government exists and should be limited to what free market participants need.