Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[BoLevi]

"greed" in the form most people describe it is too limited a framework to be useful in most discussions. It's not the animating force behind capitalism.

Capitalism is driven by self -interest which is a broader more useful framework. The reason progressives and socialists (and anti capitalists in all forms) confuse the two concepts is they do not understand that two self interested parties can collaborate in a way that is multiplicative of wealth and human well being.

Put simply, the effects of self -interest ("greed" if you must), when spread over populations is constructive not destructive. You can consider greed to be a negative quality of an individual while simultaneously acknowledging it is a positive quality of a population.

[Julio]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"greed" in the form most people describe it is too limited a framework to be useful in most discussions. It's not the animating force behind capitalism.

Capitalism is driven by self -interest which is a broader more useful framework. The reason progressives and socialists (and anti capitalists in all forms) confuse the two concepts is they do not understand that two self interested parties can collaborate in a way that is multiplicative of wealth and human well being.

Put simply, the effects of self -interest ("greed" if you must), when spread over populations is constructive not destructive. You can consider greed to be a negative quality of an individual while simultaneously acknowledging it is a positive quality of a population.

Apparently Gorden Gekko is alive and well on CP?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Julio

Apparently Gorden Gekko is alive and well on CP?

Gordon Gekko's problem was the psychopathy not the greed. One does not require the other.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"greed" in the form most people describe it is too limited a framework to be useful in most discussions. It's not the animating force behind capitalism.

Capitalism is driven by self -interest which is a broader more useful framework. The reason progressives and socialists (and anti capitalists in all forms) confuse the two concepts is they do not understand that two self interested parties can collaborate in a way that is multiplicative of wealth and human well being.

Put simply, the effects of self -interest ("greed" if you must), when spread over populations is constructive not destructive. You can consider greed to be a negative quality of an individual while simultaneously acknowledging it is a positive quality of a population.

Son of a bitch.

This guy managed to come up with the most pro-Union post that’s ever been made on this forum.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree greed in some forms is not good in society. The Monopoly end point of capitalism is a result of unmitigated greed. I don’t think catering to greed is the correct way of framing this. It’s designing policy with the recognition that greed exists to get the desired outcomes you want.

How does capitalism work without self interest though (unless you distinguish self interest from greed). The entire basis is a system of people pursuing profit to benefit themselves and that self interest allocates resources to the ideas that produce the most surplus. It’s why pollution taxes work and are necessary as capitalism will always ignore things that don’t have a monetary cost.

I think creating a monetary cost for the negative aspects of greed whether that be regulation, tax, or Social coercion is the only way to manage it. I see it has the driving force in the capitalist system and the reason why capitalism needs to be regulated

The great irony of capitalism is that it actually kills innovation and creativity. In a perfectly efficient market everyone makes a normal profit. There is no reason to invent something new because everyone will copy it until the profit margin is the same as anything else.

The actual incentives to innovate and create in capitalism are than you get a break from the competitive market - in the forms of patents and copyrights. You get ahead of the market because the government grants you a monopoly over your inventions and creations.

But capitalism can actually work without self-interest. An altruistically-motivated billionaire could allocate capital better than a self-interested one, as they could consider externalities even without being forced to. People could still be motivated to increase productivity not for themselves but for the good they could do with it.

Reducing greed would likely make the system work better, not worse, because you'd reduce scams, get more considerations of externalities, less anti-competitive behaviour, less rent-seeking, etc.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Son of a bitch.

This guy managed to come up with the most pro-Union post that’s ever been made on this forum.

Nothing wrong with unions. People should have the freedom of association.

Unions shouldn't be protected by law or regulation though.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Nothing wrong with unions. People should have the freedom of association.

Unions shouldn't be protected by law or regulation though.

Re-read what you wrote, very slowly, and let me know if you can figure out where you completely contradicted yourself.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Re-read what you wrote, very slowly, and let me know if you can figure out where you completely contradicted yourself.

I don't think I did, unless I wasnt clear in my point.

There is nothing wrong with unions. But they should not be protected from Union bushing activities.

Nor should they be exempt from taxes.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Nothing wrong with unions. People should have the freedom of association.

Unions shouldn't be protected by law or regulation though.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't think I did, unless I wasnt clear in my point.

There is nothing wrong with unions. But they should not be protected from Union bushing activities.

Nor should they be exempt from taxes.

Freedom of association wasn’t given to us through divine intervention.

Assuming you meant to write union busting activities, well that right there is a direct attack on people’s freedom of association.

[Fuzz]

Corporations are people and have the right to defend their profits from attack.

[powderjunkie]

whatsya maja dude? Gordon Wood. Economic modalities. How bout dem apples. Gordon Wood.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

The great irony of capitalism is that it actually kills innovation and creativity. In a perfectly efficient market everyone makes a normal profit. There is no reason to invent something new because everyone will copy it until the profit margin is the same as anything else.

The actual incentives to innovate and create in capitalism are than you get a break from the competitive market - in the forms of patents and copyrights. You get ahead of the market because the government grants you a monopoly over your inventions and creations.

But capitalism can actually work without self-interest. An altruistically-motivated billionaire could allocate capital better than a self-interested one, as they could consider externalities even without being forced to. People could still be motivated to increase productivity not for themselves but for the good they could do with it.

Reducing greed would likely make the system work better, not worse, because you'd reduce scams, get more considerations of externalities, less anti-competitive behaviour, less rent-seeking, etc.

The problem is then your system relies on non-universal traits. The acting in monetary self interest seems pretty universal with a little altruism thrown in but not sufficient altruism to solve acid rain, ozone depletion or global warming. The tragedy of the commons is baked into our psyche even in the most collectivist versions of our societies. As soon as we get large enough to not know everyone self-interest over takes collectivism.

The issue though is you can’t change people. The system has to work with people as they come and not however like people to act.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Freedom of association wasn’t given to us through divine intervention.

Assuming you meant to write union busting activities, well that right there is a direct attack on people’s freedom of association.

haha, no none of this involves a burning bush.

As for freedom of association being a right - yes absolutely it is. It is not, however, your "right" for that freedom of association to be effective.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

haha, no none of this involves a burning bush.

Huh?

As for freedom of association being a right - yes absolutely it is. It is not, however, your "right" for that freedom of association to be effective.

You’ll have to elaborate on what you’re trying to say here in this context.

It sounds like you’re saying that you want people to be able to form unions but not have any regulations, is that accurate?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by SebC

The great irony of capitalism is that it actually kills innovation and creativity. In a perfectly efficient market everyone makes a normal profit. There is no reason to invent something new because everyone will copy it until the profit margin is the same as anything else.

The actual incentives to innovate and create in capitalism are than you get a break from the competitive market - in the forms of patents and copyrights. You get ahead of the market because the government grants you a monopoly over your inventions and creations.

But capitalism can actually work without self-interest. An altruistically-motivated billionaire could allocate capital better than a self-interested one, as they could consider externalities even without being forced to. People could still be motivated to increase productivity not for themselves but for the good they could do with it.

Reducing greed would likely make the system work better, not worse, because you'd reduce scams, get more considerations of externalities, less anti-competitive behaviour, less rent-seeking, etc.

It's a circular argument to say that an altruistic billionaire can allocate capital better than a self-interested one. The billions were accumulated by the billionaire through either her self interest or someone else's self interest. Altruistic allocation of the capital will lead to a depletion of the capital as it is out-competed by more efficiently allocated capital (ie capital with more self-interest associated). This is effectively the socialist concept: gov'ts are a better distributor of capital because they can observe and address the greater good. In practice the idea is a massive flop every time it is tried, without fail.

Patents and copyrights are similar to true monopolies, but not the same. IP laws are a function of an agreement between the aggregate of competitors in a marketplace, which is then facilitated and enforced by the government. That is, we all agree that there is a benefit to the gov't being an arbiter for IP based innovations, but the gov't doesn't create it in the sense you are suggesting. There is no requirement for gov't to function in this capacity, and they regularly don't - see China. Ultimately, it is the consumer that demands the protections for innovation because it is in their self interest to do so.

How externalities are handled in a capitalist system isn't really a valid criticism of the concept of self-interest. Indeed, externalities are simply repackaged reflections of the self-interest of others. Climate change is a perfect example. The arguments against climate change may be morally correct, or not, but they are certainly a reflection of self interest, even if it is the self-interest of future generations. This is also why climate change policy will never gain any traction in any useful way globally. One person's "externality" in the west, is another population's crisis of existence in an impoverished area where cheap energy is the prerequisite for them to have and feed children.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by iggy_oi

Huh?



You’ll have to elaborate on what you’re trying to say here in this context.

It sounds like you’re saying that you want people to be able to form unions but not have any regulations, is that accurate?

Much of the power of unions comes from the regulations which protect them from activities which would dissuade the formation of the union. I'm speaking about activities that would otherwise be legal and within the rights of the people trying to dissuade the unions, I'm not talking about physical violence.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's a circular argument to say that an altruistic billionaire can allocate capital better than a self-interested one. The billions were accumulated by the billionaire through either her self interest or someone else's self interest. Altruistic allocation of the capital will lead to a depletion of the capital as it is out-competed by more efficiently allocated capital (ie capital with more self-interest associated). This is effectively the socialist concept: gov'ts are a better distributor of capital because they can observe and address the greater good. In practice the idea is a massive flop every time it is tried, without fail.

Patents and copyrights are similar to true monopolies, but not the same. IP laws are a function of an agreement between the aggregate of competitors in a marketplace, which is then facilitated and enforced by the government. That is, we all agree that there is a benefit to the gov't being an arbiter for IP based innovations, but the gov't doesn't create it in the sense you are suggesting. There is no requirement for gov't to function in this capacity, and they regularly don't - see China. Ultimately, it is the consumer that demands the protections for innovation because it is in their self interest to do so.

How externalities are handled in a capitalist system isn't really a valid criticism of the concept of self-interest. Indeed, externalities are simply repackaged reflections of the self-interest of others. Climate change is a perfect example. The arguments against climate change may be morally correct, or not, but they are certainly a reflection of self interest, even if it is the self-interest of future generations. This is also why climate change policy will never gain any traction in any useful way globally. One person's "externality" in the west, is another population's crisis of existence in an impoverished area where cheap energy is the prerequisite for them to have and feed children.

I'd love to hear what you think is non-self interest, because I can't think of a better example than sacrificing your current luxuries and excess in life for the benefit of future people you have no invested interest in for a benefit. Where is the self-interest part(without resorting to your own biases around the assumption they do it for the feels).

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd love to hear what you think is non-self interest, because I can't think of a better example than sacrificing your current luxuries and excess in life for the benefit of future people you have no invested interest in for a benefit. Where is the self-interest part(without resorting to your own biases around the assumption they do it for the feels).

Externalities as a concept is just another word for acknowledging someone else's self interest. People act against their own self interest all of the time - especially when it comes to their kids. But that's an act that depends on wealth creation. Wealth must be created before it can be allocated after all. And the mechanism for wealth creation is the efficient allocation of capital driven by... self interest.

With respect to climate change policy in particular: it has failed because the majority of the human population sees carbon emissions as having a net positive utility for them and their future generations. Only a select portion of the world population sees carbon emissions as having a net negative utility for them and their future generations.

[PepsiFree]

A lot of word salad being thrown around here, but yet “greedflation” and the concept of excess profits contributing to inflation is still effectively undisputed.

[Fuzz]

[QUOTE=BoLevi;9292684]Externalities as a concept is just another word for acknowledging someone else's self interest. People act against their own self interest all of the time - especially when it comes to their kids. But that's an act that depends on wealth creation. Wealth must be created before it can be allocated after all. And the mechanism for wealth creation is the efficient allocation of capital driven by... self interest.

With respect to climate change policy in particular: it has failed because the majority of the human population sees carbon emissions as having a net positive utility for them and their future generations. Only a select portion of the world population sees carbon emissions as having a net negative utility for them and their future generations.[/QUOTE]
https://ourworldindata.org/climate-change-support
You seem to say and believe a lot of things that have no grounding in reality.


Also didn't answer my question.