It would happen even in a moneyless society just as trade would still occur in moneyless societies, even if it is made illegal. Thus if it isn't money, it will be some commodity, some opportunity, some benefit. Money is only A means to bribe, not the ONLY means to bribe, buy or sway.
I think libertarians are opposed to preemptively initiating force on the people who MAY initiate force or fraud.
These companies are lying, so after lying, they should be punished. We should not support them being punished prior to them actually committing a crime.
Cigarette companies do shitty stuff to get people addicted, but wouldn't it be better if the government just acted as a watchdog and also offered services to quit smoking?
Banning cigarettes keeps people from doing what they want. I hear they are doing something similar for all drugs in Portugal.
Countries should import only those goods which are very essential for survival..not all goods..this not only will help saving fuels but also reduce pollution and green house effect,,it will also boost local employment.
Lord have mercy! Can he at least manage to take the curser of his screen? What a doofus! Sorry, I was hoping for something interesting and engaging, not some loud mouth hot head ranting into his video cam.
@kevinwayne50 Economists do not have the luxury of perfect models, so any observation of current reality is going to be all screwed up. That is why I prefer theoretical arguements rather then empirical ones. Cause you have to know WHAT you are looking for and what can be ignored. Logical-positivism is nonsense.
The profit motives drives fraud and it also prevents fraud. One person can see a benefit in committing fraud and another person can see something to be lossed if committing fraud fails.
Your point on lobbying is a complete red herring. Lobbying has no place in free market theory, That is a problem of statism.
It's always other people who are "sheep". People love to create huge generalizations and the create an exception for themselves.
This video fails as its just a ad hominem attack using already well discredited arguments about selffishness vs altruism.Ayn Rand dealt with this in "The virtue of selfishness".
@Riellysdad I don't understand how someone can agree with Richard Dawkins in the Selfish gene and not also agree by definition that people are selfish, and that selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing.
This video's arguments are terrible. You don't understand anything Shanedk is saying. I wouldn't know where to begin, and to be honest I don't want to respond to your points because you've done a good job flagging the other critical comments as spam. How Ironic.
Most of your disagreements with shanedk can be settled by introducing my concept of perceived utility, That is, consumers, governments, and firms make decisions based on what they perceive to be best for themselves. So, CEOs can hoard money and wreck the economy because they think maximizing short-term profits is good, a government can regulate business because it thinks a non-volatile market is good in the long-term, and people can be charitable because it makes them happy. What do you think?
Says the guy who has a Socialist brain of a Liberal Democrat cartoon as the background for his own page. At least the last guy bothered to make an argument.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2:59, again you're not looking at in terms of the long run.
4:20, of course they are. No economist is going to argue against that. What they will say though is that profit signals other competitors into the market until there is no excessive profit. Profit can be both bad and good.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
2:47, that is just not common sense dude. No one could possibly know what is in your self-interest better than yourself.
What makes more sense. Having a few men plan the economy in hopes of satisfying people's self-interests or have the people themselves engage in voluntary transactions in pursuit of their self-interest?
1:37, actually it does. The profit motive is the primary deterent to fraud. Frauding customers is bad for your business in the long-run. For war or force, any economist will tell you if people had to pay for the costs of war themselves, war would not happen or at least would only sporadicly.
@DaveDoggOwns Do you think that all people always think about the long run? there will always be fraud because there is always people looking to make a quick buck! the "free market" will not stop this.
It is a balance, we need regulations / government but too much of it is also bad.
@ceezmad1 The point is any conflict is sporadic and sporadic conflict is better than guaranteed tyranny. As soon as you start frauding people the free market will ostrasize you economicly.
What you call "regulation" is just an euphamism for government controls.
And you also straw manned me. No where did I say fraud would not exist in a free market, I said the profit motive is the primary deterent to fraud.
@DaveDoggOwns no straw man I did not quote you I just asked a question. Believe me I do not think that full communism works and full "free markets" also does not work. But hey It is OK for people to push for both, we will meet somewhere in between and legislate like that, that is the beauty of the USA.
@DaveDoggOwns I read the comments again and I see how you took my comment as a straw argument, i did not mean it that way. you said profit motive is the primary deterrent to fraud, ok this we can agree, most people want to be fair and know that ripping off customers is bad for business in the long run, we agree, that is under all systems, but I was just adding to this point that there will always be fraudsters that will defraud other people, that is why I made the question to make sure.
@DaveDoggOwns the profit motive is the primary deterrent to fraud.
This is simply ludicrous. The desire fir profit - IE greed is a powerful corrupting agent. Catholics even consider it a deadly sin. It compels some to steal, to lie, to cheat even to murder. Wars gave been waged on nothing more than greed for wealth, land, or slaves.
If profits alone regulate the economy, then corruption becomes the rule. And free markets insist all we need are profits.
@CodeNameDoug Of course you think it is. That's because you are only looking at the negatives of the profit motive.
Well, the Catholics are full of shit. There is nothing wrong with greed. People who complain about greed and profit are hypocrites.
The profit motive also compells someone to provide a service, defend someone, not commit fraud, etc. Again, you're only looking at the negatives of the profit motive.
@CodeNameDoug I'm not. I said "the profit motive is the primary deterent to fraud". You took this as an absolutist statement that profit could in no way be negative.
And no I don't vote. I don't have a right to choose your master.
@CodeNameDoug For every negative action caused by the profit motive there are numerous more positive actions caused by it.
If profits ran the world, there would be just as many people challanging corruption for every "corrupt" individual there is. Free market just means individual sovereignity, freedom of association, freedom of contract, freedom of trade, etc. It doesn't say profits are all we need. That's a straw man.
2:25,that's becuase it is human nature to only engage in transactions that are beneficial for you. It's not becuase someone is forcing them the transactions to be mutual. You are really stretching the definition of "force".
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
1:20, that is not what Thunderfoot said. Thunderfoot said that "profitability is the ONLY metric for success". He did not say capitalism promotes greed as a civic virtue. Both you and Shanek are misquoting Thunderfoot. Your misquote is a hell of a lot worse than Shanek's though.
2:17, no he does not prove Thunderfoot position. Thunderfoot said profit was the ONLY measure of success. Shanek's statement here makes no implication that profitability is the only measure of success.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
0:23, fallacy of composition. Just because Thunderfoot has an advanced education and critical thinking skills doesn't mean he is an expert at economics.
0:50, it doesn't make difference how he quoted him. Thunderfoot is wrong either way. Profit is not the only measure of success in a capitalistic society. Profit is not the only good
Some people do seek profit. But not all people, all the time. Even one individual can have a verity of motivations at work at one time, both short term and long term. At work, it may be closing that account; at home he could popping the question.
People are complicated. How many lives have been destroyed over gold lust, drugs, fanaticism, infidelity, the list could go on.
The mistake is to build an economy on a false assumption: IE that all people are only seeking profits.
@CodeNameDoug Let me ask you this: can you name for me all of the different things required for a free market to work? I doubt it, but if so then you have something to say.
An argument from authority is me stating something is right because some one who is an authority on the subject said so, and yeah that's not logical. But I'm not saying anything is right or wrong based on anyone's authority. I'm stating what his thesis was, which is in a nutshell "people seek profit in every situation, accept it or don't it happens anyway". Is that statement not true?
I don't believe that is the definition of capitalism given in his video. The way I heard it he defined capitalism as the acknowledgment that people seek profit in all situations. I rephrased it as organisms seek what they want. Is that not true? Where did your definition of capitalism come from? I'm currently studying socialism and is sound, kind of Marxist, is that the source?
Science doesnt come with preachers and it never has a message. For one thing Capitalism is nether an organism, nor is it a natural construct. If it was, we would expect to see capitalism exist in nature. We dont.
A correction however, progressives support capitalism. I just have doubts about the free market. There are alternatives to free markets in capitalism that make a lot more sense.
His fundamental message, or that of his video, is that capitalism is nothing more than the acknowledgment of the inevitable. You can either accept that it happens or not, but it really doesn't matter, it will happen anyway.
Actually you do see capitalism in nature, organisms seek what they want. It's hard to argue that they don't, but I'd love to see an example of why that isn't true.
I don't think it matters who supports what, but I'd love to hear some examples of what your talking about.
Capitalism is defined as the privet ownership of the means of production (but what is production?). With rare exception, animals to not produce any thing, but only consume from their environment. And ownership is strictly a human concept. By definition, capitalism can not be found in nature.
There is such a thing as natural economics, which can be observed in natural environments. But this has very little to so with pre-conceived notions of fiscal economics.
His fundamental message, or that of his video, is that capitalism is nothing more than the acknowledgment of the inevitable. You can either accept that it happens or not, but it really doesn't matter, it will happen anyway.
This is called a plea from authority, which demands skepticism.
I think you miss the fundamental message. Capitalism occurs whether you want it to or not. It doesn't matter what you describe good or bad, it just happens, just like anything else in nature. People (all organisms for that matter) tend to seek what they want, be it love or money or power. Not everyone but enough to make reasonably accurate predictions. That makes it scientifically viable. I'd be interested in your suggestion something that can make predictions as well.
You do recognize that Economics, as any social study, is a soft science, right? You cannot imply that everything in economics is on a aposteriori basis; the Nazis and Mussolini did this and look where that got them. In that time, it was called logical positivism.
Regardless, your views are simply religious simply because Altruism doesn't exist. To claim that it does, since some follow it, would be to claim that, since the Pope follows Christianity, Christianity exists. All you do is cherry-pick
But human behavior is complex. Not every one is motivated only by self interest. In fact research shows that a majority of people are empathetic and collaborative. Altruism exists.
How sound can an economic philosophy be if it ignores all aspects of human nature, save greed? One doesnt have to ignore the motivations of self interest, but would not a better philosophy also seek to harness and reword more altruistic motivations?
Are you familiar with the story of Thanksgiving? There was a drought and for the first 3 years there was a terrible famine and many people died. During those first 3 years everyone got an equal share of the harvest and women and children refused to work. They young worked no harder than the old. The 4th year, everyone got to keep their own harvest. The drought was worse than the first 3 years and there was a bountiful harvest. Women, young and children all worked very hard for themselves.
What is greed? Do you think Socialist Russia was not greedy? Do you think Hitler wasn't greedy? Do you think present-day Europe isn't greedy? Do you think a president isn't greedy? I think you have a very distorted view on what is greed.
Greed is usually tempered by fear of loss or by the greed of others. Say you have a market for a widget and it is incredibly profitable. Other people will move in and undercut you to achieve very good profits then you cut then they cut... Often, businesses deliberately keep profit margin low to keep competitors out. The free market isn't perfect, but
1) It's the best thing we have ever come up with
2) Far better than government
3) It has produced the wealthiest people the earth has ever known.
What exactly is wrong with profit wealth and gain? We all want "stuff" and the only way we get is with productivity gains, after all without productivity gains we would still be toiling all day long for the most basic needs of life. But because of the profit motive, we have all kinds of "stuff" from clothes, homes, cars, computers, games, sports... None of this would be possible without the productivity gains of capitalism. People won't work harder without an incentive.
This is a circular argument. If I dont want more stuff, how why else would I acquire more stuff? Free markets exist only to generate profit, and their fore material gain is the only relevant measure of productivity.
But real economics is much more complicated. There are social, ethical, and moral dimensions, limitations of natural resource, consequences of pollution and waste, and reasonable use of finite resources that all come into play that exist outside monetary gain.
There needs to be regulations that protect the natural resources of the world and protect the air, land and seas (as well as fresh water sources) as well as humans and other life forms. If gov actually did their jobs instead of selling out to people who want profit at any expense we wouldn't have these problems. The politicians (who only care about reelection) sell out the interest of the nation for the interest of an industry. The problem is government ineffectiveness and greed.
Last comment:
a lot of those examples on the bottom seem to piss you off for government involvement lol
this guy messed up and now the government bailed them out!
that's the government, not the free market.
It may be that the free market holds sway over government, but there's no reason to believe that wouldn't happen in anything but a moneyless society.
darris321 4 months ago
@darris321
It would happen even in a moneyless society just as trade would still occur in moneyless societies, even if it is made illegal. Thus if it isn't money, it will be some commodity, some opportunity, some benefit. Money is only A means to bribe, not the ONLY means to bribe, buy or sway.
utubehayter 1 month ago
I think libertarians are opposed to preemptively initiating force on the people who MAY initiate force or fraud.
These companies are lying, so after lying, they should be punished. We should not support them being punished prior to them actually committing a crime.
darris321 4 months ago
Cigarette companies do shitty stuff to get people addicted, but wouldn't it be better if the government just acted as a watchdog and also offered services to quit smoking?
Banning cigarettes keeps people from doing what they want. I hear they are doing something similar for all drugs in Portugal.
darris321 4 months ago
I disagree that building policy around "the desire for profit" necessarily promotes greed as a virtue.
To the next argument, he said he wasn't saying all men are only after profits rather enough of them are to make a difference.
I don't think he was using the Libertarian thing to prove that libertarianism is a better system. I think he was just using it as an example.
darris321 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Countries should import only those goods which are very essential for survival..not all goods..this not only will help saving fuels but also reduce pollution and green house effect,,it will also boost local employment.
udennyn 9 months ago
Free Markets and Marxism fits Karl Popper's definition of pseudoscience.
Nihm420 9 months ago
Yeah... it sux. But thinking about it... government sux even more.
ShwangShwing 9 months ago
great video - I agree. Economists make better historians than futurists.
jamied007 11 months ago
Lord have mercy! Can he at least manage to take the curser of his screen? What a doofus! Sorry, I was hoping for something interesting and engaging, not some loud mouth hot head ranting into his video cam.
So little time, so many sophmoric fools....
braeun6 1 year ago
@braeun6 So many ad homs, so little actual debate
lo2enge 1 year ago
@kevinwayne50 Let me ask you this. If there is all this fraud that is going on in the market place what exactly do you want to do about it?
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@kevinwayne50 Economists do not have the luxury of perfect models, so any observation of current reality is going to be all screwed up. That is why I prefer theoretical arguements rather then empirical ones. Cause you have to know WHAT you are looking for and what can be ignored. Logical-positivism is nonsense.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@kevinwayne50 The populist view results in a couple men deciding things. There is no such thing as a truely direct democracy anyway.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@kevinwayne50 People are people dofuss.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
The profit motives drives fraud and it also prevents fraud. One person can see a benefit in committing fraud and another person can see something to be lossed if committing fraud fails.
Your point on lobbying is a complete red herring. Lobbying has no place in free market theory, That is a problem of statism.
It's always other people who are "sheep". People love to create huge generalizations and the create an exception for themselves.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
This video made me facepalm three times, and not at the video it was responding to either...
HeyItzMeDawg 1 year ago
So do you want to force people not to smoke by simply out lawing cirgurettes or something like that.
mrphoo67 1 year ago
This video fails as its just a ad hominem attack using already well discredited arguments about selffishness vs altruism.Ayn Rand dealt with this in "The virtue of selfishness".
Riellysdad 1 year ago
@Riellysdad I don't understand how someone can agree with Richard Dawkins in the Selfish gene and not also agree by definition that people are selfish, and that selfishness isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Wcoltd 1 year ago
This video's arguments are terrible. You don't understand anything Shanedk is saying. I wouldn't know where to begin, and to be honest I don't want to respond to your points because you've done a good job flagging the other critical comments as spam. How Ironic.
Skyler827 1 year ago
Most of your disagreements with shanedk can be settled by introducing my concept of perceived utility, That is, consumers, governments, and firms make decisions based on what they perceive to be best for themselves. So, CEOs can hoard money and wreck the economy because they think maximizing short-term profits is good, a government can regulate business because it thinks a non-volatile market is good in the long-term, and people can be charitable because it makes them happy. What do you think?
ProfMike789 2 years ago 2
This video presents is quite possibly the most juvenile and amusing video I've seen all month.
TheRingil 2 years ago
Says the guy who has a Socialist brain of a Liberal Democrat cartoon as the background for his own page. At least the last guy bothered to make an argument.
Thanks for the insult.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're welcome.
TheRingil 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think I"m going to stop commenting since you're obviously a nit picker who doesn't quite understand the concepts Shanek is talking about.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2:59, again you're not looking at in terms of the long run.
4:20, of course they are. No economist is going to argue against that. What they will say though is that profit signals other competitors into the market until there is no excessive profit. Profit can be both bad and good.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
2:47, that is just not common sense dude. No one could possibly know what is in your self-interest better than yourself.
What makes more sense. Having a few men plan the economy in hopes of satisfying people's self-interests or have the people themselves engage in voluntary transactions in pursuit of their self-interest?
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
1:37, actually it does. The profit motive is the primary deterent to fraud. Frauding customers is bad for your business in the long-run. For war or force, any economist will tell you if people had to pay for the costs of war themselves, war would not happen or at least would only sporadicly.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
@DaveDoggOwns Do you think that all people always think about the long run? there will always be fraud because there is always people looking to make a quick buck! the "free market" will not stop this.
It is a balance, we need regulations / government but too much of it is also bad.
ceezmad1 1 year ago
@ceezmad1 The point is any conflict is sporadic and sporadic conflict is better than guaranteed tyranny. As soon as you start frauding people the free market will ostrasize you economicly.
What you call "regulation" is just an euphamism for government controls.
And you also straw manned me. No where did I say fraud would not exist in a free market, I said the profit motive is the primary deterent to fraud.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns no straw man I did not quote you I just asked a question. Believe me I do not think that full communism works and full "free markets" also does not work. But hey It is OK for people to push for both, we will meet somewhere in between and legislate like that, that is the beauty of the USA.
ceezmad1 1 year ago
@ceezmad1 Well, you sure implied that I held an absolutist position: that fraud would not exist in the free market; a position I did not hold.
Yeah, it's okay for people to disagree except when it comes to paying their taxes and obeying the dictates of authority they do not recognize.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns I read the comments again and I see how you took my comment as a straw argument, i did not mean it that way. you said profit motive is the primary deterrent to fraud, ok this we can agree, most people want to be fair and know that ripping off customers is bad for business in the long run, we agree, that is under all systems, but I was just adding to this point that there will always be fraudsters that will defraud other people, that is why I made the question to make sure.
ceezmad1 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns the profit motive is the primary deterrent to fraud.
This is simply ludicrous. The desire fir profit - IE greed is a powerful corrupting agent. Catholics even consider it a deadly sin. It compels some to steal, to lie, to cheat even to murder. Wars gave been waged on nothing more than greed for wealth, land, or slaves.
If profits alone regulate the economy, then corruption becomes the rule. And free markets insist all we need are profits.
CodeNameDoug 1 year ago
@CodeNameDoug Of course you think it is. That's because you are only looking at the negatives of the profit motive.
Well, the Catholics are full of shit. There is nothing wrong with greed. People who complain about greed and profit are hypocrites.
The profit motive also compells someone to provide a service, defend someone, not commit fraud, etc. Again, you're only looking at the negatives of the profit motive.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@DaveDoggOwns While you are ignoring the negatives of greed. Let me guess - your a "values voter."
CodeNameDoug 1 year ago
@CodeNameDoug I'm not. I said "the profit motive is the primary deterent to fraud". You took this as an absolutist statement that profit could in no way be negative.
And no I don't vote. I don't have a right to choose your master.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@CodeNameDoug For every negative action caused by the profit motive there are numerous more positive actions caused by it.
If profits ran the world, there would be just as many people challanging corruption for every "corrupt" individual there is. Free market just means individual sovereignity, freedom of association, freedom of contract, freedom of trade, etc. It doesn't say profits are all we need. That's a straw man.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
@ceezmad1 Oh yeah like the goverment IS caring about the long run. No evidence whatsoever that it is.
DaveDoggOwns 1 year ago
2:25,that's becuase it is human nature to only engage in transactions that are beneficial for you. It's not becuase someone is forcing them the transactions to be mutual. You are really stretching the definition of "force".
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
1:20, that is not what Thunderfoot said. Thunderfoot said that "profitability is the ONLY metric for success". He did not say capitalism promotes greed as a civic virtue. Both you and Shanek are misquoting Thunderfoot. Your misquote is a hell of a lot worse than Shanek's though.
2:17, no he does not prove Thunderfoot position. Thunderfoot said profit was the ONLY measure of success. Shanek's statement here makes no implication that profitability is the only measure of success.
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
0:23, fallacy of composition. Just because Thunderfoot has an advanced education and critical thinking skills doesn't mean he is an expert at economics.
0:50, it doesn't make difference how he quoted him. Thunderfoot is wrong either way. Profit is not the only measure of success in a capitalistic society. Profit is not the only good
DaveDoggOwns 2 years ago
Some people do seek profit. But not all people, all the time. Even one individual can have a verity of motivations at work at one time, both short term and long term. At work, it may be closing that account; at home he could popping the question.
People are complicated. How many lives have been destroyed over gold lust, drugs, fanaticism, infidelity, the list could go on.
The mistake is to build an economy on a false assumption: IE that all people are only seeking profits.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
psst...
Motivations = profits.
Guest655321 2 years ago
@CodeNameDoug Let me ask you this: can you name for me all of the different things required for a free market to work? I doubt it, but if so then you have something to say.
Skyler827 1 year ago
Why do people not inherently seek profit?
thestuart 2 years ago
An argument from authority is me stating something is right because some one who is an authority on the subject said so, and yeah that's not logical. But I'm not saying anything is right or wrong based on anyone's authority. I'm stating what his thesis was, which is in a nutshell "people seek profit in every situation, accept it or don't it happens anyway". Is that statement not true?
thestuart 2 years ago
I do not believe it is true. No.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
I don't believe that is the definition of capitalism given in his video. The way I heard it he defined capitalism as the acknowledgment that people seek profit in all situations. I rephrased it as organisms seek what they want. Is that not true? Where did your definition of capitalism come from? I'm currently studying socialism and is sound, kind of Marxist, is that the source?
thestuart 2 years ago
Fundamental message? From whom?
Science doesnt come with preachers and it never has a message. For one thing Capitalism is nether an organism, nor is it a natural construct. If it was, we would expect to see capitalism exist in nature. We dont.
A correction however, progressives support capitalism. I just have doubts about the free market. There are alternatives to free markets in capitalism that make a lot more sense.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
His fundamental message, or that of his video, is that capitalism is nothing more than the acknowledgment of the inevitable. You can either accept that it happens or not, but it really doesn't matter, it will happen anyway.
Actually you do see capitalism in nature, organisms seek what they want. It's hard to argue that they don't, but I'd love to see an example of why that isn't true.
I don't think it matters who supports what, but I'd love to hear some examples of what your talking about.
thestuart 2 years ago
Capitalism is defined as the privet ownership of the means of production (but what is production?). With rare exception, animals to not produce any thing, but only consume from their environment. And ownership is strictly a human concept. By definition, capitalism can not be found in nature.
There is such a thing as natural economics, which can be observed in natural environments. But this has very little to so with pre-conceived notions of fiscal economics.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
His fundamental message, or that of his video, is that capitalism is nothing more than the acknowledgment of the inevitable. You can either accept that it happens or not, but it really doesn't matter, it will happen anyway.
This is called a plea from authority, which demands skepticism.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
Who am I claiming is my authority?
thestuart 2 years ago
Hum, no one. Its just the type of argument. To categorically state something is true.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
I think you miss the fundamental message. Capitalism occurs whether you want it to or not. It doesn't matter what you describe good or bad, it just happens, just like anything else in nature. People (all organisms for that matter) tend to seek what they want, be it love or money or power. Not everyone but enough to make reasonably accurate predictions. That makes it scientifically viable. I'd be interested in your suggestion something that can make predictions as well.
thestuart 2 years ago
You do recognize that Economics, as any social study, is a soft science, right? You cannot imply that everything in economics is on a aposteriori basis; the Nazis and Mussolini did this and look where that got them. In that time, it was called logical positivism.
Regardless, your views are simply religious simply because Altruism doesn't exist. To claim that it does, since some follow it, would be to claim that, since the Pope follows Christianity, Christianity exists. All you do is cherry-pick
Offatwork 2 years ago
Altruism doesn't exist.
Some arguments practical debunk them selves.
How do you enplane the existence of non-profit groups then? Or why do people give to charities?
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
because it makes them feel good, that is their profit.
thestuart 2 years ago
TEH THREE MAURKET IZ EVUIWL!
Apptendo 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Apptendo,
Haha! I know, right?
Offatwork 2 years ago
But human behavior is complex. Not every one is motivated only by self interest. In fact research shows that a majority of people are empathetic and collaborative. Altruism exists.
How sound can an economic philosophy be if it ignores all aspects of human nature, save greed? One doesnt have to ignore the motivations of self interest, but would not a better philosophy also seek to harness and reword more altruistic motivations?
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
Are you familiar with the story of Thanksgiving? There was a drought and for the first 3 years there was a terrible famine and many people died. During those first 3 years everyone got an equal share of the harvest and women and children refused to work. They young worked no harder than the old. The 4th year, everyone got to keep their own harvest. The drought was worse than the first 3 years and there was a bountiful harvest. Women, young and children all worked very hard for themselves.
christo930 2 years ago
What is greed? Do you think Socialist Russia was not greedy? Do you think Hitler wasn't greedy? Do you think present-day Europe isn't greedy? Do you think a president isn't greedy? I think you have a very distorted view on what is greed.
Offatwork 2 years ago
Present day Europe painted with the same brush as Socialist Russia and Hitler.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
Greed is usually tempered by fear of loss or by the greed of others. Say you have a market for a widget and it is incredibly profitable. Other people will move in and undercut you to achieve very good profits then you cut then they cut... Often, businesses deliberately keep profit margin low to keep competitors out. The free market isn't perfect, but
1) It's the best thing we have ever come up with
2) Far better than government
3) It has produced the wealthiest people the earth has ever known.
christo930 2 years ago
What exactly is wrong with profit wealth and gain? We all want "stuff" and the only way we get is with productivity gains, after all without productivity gains we would still be toiling all day long for the most basic needs of life. But because of the profit motive, we have all kinds of "stuff" from clothes, homes, cars, computers, games, sports... None of this would be possible without the productivity gains of capitalism. People won't work harder without an incentive.
christo930 2 years ago
This is a circular argument. If I dont want more stuff, how why else would I acquire more stuff? Free markets exist only to generate profit, and their fore material gain is the only relevant measure of productivity.
But real economics is much more complicated. There are social, ethical, and moral dimensions, limitations of natural resource, consequences of pollution and waste, and reasonable use of finite resources that all come into play that exist outside monetary gain.
CodeNameDoug 2 years ago
There needs to be regulations that protect the natural resources of the world and protect the air, land and seas (as well as fresh water sources) as well as humans and other life forms. If gov actually did their jobs instead of selling out to people who want profit at any expense we wouldn't have these problems. The politicians (who only care about reelection) sell out the interest of the nation for the interest of an industry. The problem is government ineffectiveness and greed.
christo930 2 years ago