Buying vs Saving Economic Theory
-
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The problem with the 2% working with 98% not theory is that it doesn't accommodate for the human desire for power. It would be an amazing situation to be in except for the fact that some people will not be content with what they receive and not interested in earning more. If everyone lived free from fear, then it will work, but very few people do, and that leads to seeking power to insulate from fear.
That's true, except that nearly all of the 98% don't have power. The majority of people don't seek to be leaders and fewer still manage to be. Those getting power from work are the few, not the many. And many that do use it for evil, so curtailing that has a major positive benefit. Few people derive power from work, and given the protection of the system it removes much of the need for power.
I don't know that removing the economic factor affects the desire for power. I'm not addressing power via work, but desire for power over others in general. Gangs do not exist to commit crimes. They exist because of fear, and people control others or allow themselves to be controlled to mitigate fear. Economics play into it, but are not the primary motivator.
We may not remove the desire for power, but does it encourage it? Social structures will exist just the same. Power tiering will still be there just like before.
That is my point. the 2/98 theory does not account for that, and is likely to breakdown like most social structures that ignore this aspect of humanity, a la Soviet Russia.
My point was that the same power structures will be there that are there now, the issues you are concerned about exist today. This isn't an economic model designed to fix them, but it might help them. I don't see the reason to feel that it would hurt them. And remember that it's not like soviet Russia, it is not a planned economy. People are totally free to pursue ambitions, so all current outlets for power will still exist, none removed. So none of your concerns would apply like they would in polar opposite models. Soviet Russia provided everyone's jobs, 100% workers, it's the extreme opposite from an economic model.
I'm not equating economic models. I was comparing social structures that ignore fear and power as basic human motivations. The reason that properly checked capitalism has been so stable (in general) is that it accounts for these things. It assumes that everyone is fundamentally greedy and self-centered, and works accordingly. Any social or economic structure that ignores this aspect of the human experience has failed, sometime spectacularly. And before there is any possibility of drawing this conclusion, we are not functioning in a truely capitalistic society in the US today, so I am not advocating that where we are today is a good place either socially or economically.
Question - Does greed still exist as a massive motivator when, with a good enough public handout, there is little want? Let me put this another way, if people in general are able to scratch just about any itch they have, is there any significant reduction in the issues you're worried about?
We only have one real category that has this state currently. Do the hyper-rich, who want for nothing, cease to be greedy or stop wanting to exert power over others?
I can understand the power thing - it's the greed thing that I can't. Greed to me requires an illegal/immoral act, the simple desire to acquire more is not greed (to me). So someone like Warren Buffet doesn't appear to be greedy, he's just wildly successful, and that success has granted him the ability to gather insane amounts of wealth.
On the other hand, warlords gain their wealth (and typically power also) through illegal and immoral means. -
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The problem with the 2% working with 98% not theory is that it doesn't accommodate for the human desire for power. It would be an amazing situation to be in except for the fact that some people will not be content with what they receive and not interested in earning more. If everyone lived free from fear, then it will work, but very few people do, and that leads to seeking power to insulate from fear.
That's true, except that nearly all of the 98% don't have power. The majority of people don't seek to be leaders and fewer still manage to be. Those getting power from work are the few, not the many. And many that do use it for evil, so curtailing that has a major positive benefit. Few people derive power from work, and given the protection of the system it removes much of the need for power.
I don't know that removing the economic factor affects the desire for power. I'm not addressing power via work, but desire for power over others in general. Gangs do not exist to commit crimes. They exist because of fear, and people control others or allow themselves to be controlled to mitigate fear. Economics play into it, but are not the primary motivator.
We may not remove the desire for power, but does it encourage it? Social structures will exist just the same. Power tiering will still be there just like before.
That is my point. the 2/98 theory does not account for that, and is likely to breakdown like most social structures that ignore this aspect of humanity, a la Soviet Russia.
My point was that the same power structures will be there that are there now, the issues you are concerned about exist today. This isn't an economic model designed to fix them, but it might help them. I don't see the reason to feel that it would hurt them. And remember that it's not like soviet Russia, it is not a planned economy. People are totally free to pursue ambitions, so all current outlets for power will still exist, none removed. So none of your concerns would apply like they would in polar opposite models. Soviet Russia provided everyone's jobs, 100% workers, it's the extreme opposite from an economic model.
I'm not equating economic models. I was comparing social structures that ignore fear and power as basic human motivations. The reason that properly checked capitalism has been so stable (in general) is that it accounts for these things. It assumes that everyone is fundamentally greedy and self-centered, and works accordingly. Any social or economic structure that ignores this aspect of the human experience has failed, sometime spectacularly. And before there is any possibility of drawing this conclusion, we are not functioning in a truely capitalistic society in the US today, so I am not advocating that where we are today is a good place either socially or economically.
Question - Does greed still exist as a massive motivator when, with a good enough public handout, there is little want? Let me put this another way, if people in general are able to scratch just about any itch they have, is there any significant reduction in the issues you're worried about?
HOw does that play in today? There is greed today, yet it doesn't entice many to do much. It's not a major motivator.
If we provide a baseline income, does it reduce greed? No, but it encourages the only moderately greedy to care less. But more importantly, does it increase greed? No.
-
But back to the power thing - interesting - I wonder how many people of the ultra rich really want power over other people? Or are simply viewed as such because of their position. That combined with the typical extreme outward self confidence easily makes these people appear to be power grubbing megalomaniacs.
-
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The problem with the 2% working with 98% not theory is that it doesn't accommodate for the human desire for power. It would be an amazing situation to be in except for the fact that some people will not be content with what they receive and not interested in earning more. If everyone lived free from fear, then it will work, but very few people do, and that leads to seeking power to insulate from fear.
That's true, except that nearly all of the 98% don't have power. The majority of people don't seek to be leaders and fewer still manage to be. Those getting power from work are the few, not the many. And many that do use it for evil, so curtailing that has a major positive benefit. Few people derive power from work, and given the protection of the system it removes much of the need for power.
I don't know that removing the economic factor affects the desire for power. I'm not addressing power via work, but desire for power over others in general. Gangs do not exist to commit crimes. They exist because of fear, and people control others or allow themselves to be controlled to mitigate fear. Economics play into it, but are not the primary motivator.
We may not remove the desire for power, but does it encourage it? Social structures will exist just the same. Power tiering will still be there just like before.
That is my point. the 2/98 theory does not account for that, and is likely to breakdown like most social structures that ignore this aspect of humanity, a la Soviet Russia.
My point was that the same power structures will be there that are there now, the issues you are concerned about exist today. This isn't an economic model designed to fix them, but it might help them. I don't see the reason to feel that it would hurt them. And remember that it's not like soviet Russia, it is not a planned economy. People are totally free to pursue ambitions, so all current outlets for power will still exist, none removed. So none of your concerns would apply like they would in polar opposite models. Soviet Russia provided everyone's jobs, 100% workers, it's the extreme opposite from an economic model.
I'm not equating economic models. I was comparing social structures that ignore fear and power as basic human motivations. The reason that properly checked capitalism has been so stable (in general) is that it accounts for these things. It assumes that everyone is fundamentally greedy and self-centered, and works accordingly. Any social or economic structure that ignores this aspect of the human experience has failed, sometime spectacularly. And before there is any possibility of drawing this conclusion, we are not functioning in a truely capitalistic society in the US today, so I am not advocating that where we are today is a good place either socially or economically.
Question - Does greed still exist as a massive motivator when, with a good enough public handout, there is little want? Let me put this another way, if people in general are able to scratch just about any itch they have, is there any significant reduction in the issues you're worried about?
We only have one real category that has this state currently. Do the hyper-rich, who want for nothing, cease to be greedy or stop wanting to exert power over others?
Actually, on average, the ultra rich are the least greedy and do the least to attempt to exert power. A few ARE really powerful, of course, and greedy and we see them in the public eye all the time and this is misleading. But studies show that those that are most likely to vote and act greedy are the poor statistically, not the rich. The rich are the most likely to push for heavier taxes, more social programs and such. It is the poor that control the vote and generally stop them thinking that they will lose out, somehow.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The problem with the 2% working with 98% not theory is that it doesn't accommodate for the human desire for power. It would be an amazing situation to be in except for the fact that some people will not be content with what they receive and not interested in earning more. If everyone lived free from fear, then it will work, but very few people do, and that leads to seeking power to insulate from fear.
That's true, except that nearly all of the 98% don't have power. The majority of people don't seek to be leaders and fewer still manage to be. Those getting power from work are the few, not the many. And many that do use it for evil, so curtailing that has a major positive benefit. Few people derive power from work, and given the protection of the system it removes much of the need for power.
I don't know that removing the economic factor affects the desire for power. I'm not addressing power via work, but desire for power over others in general. Gangs do not exist to commit crimes. They exist because of fear, and people control others or allow themselves to be controlled to mitigate fear. Economics play into it, but are not the primary motivator.
We may not remove the desire for power, but does it encourage it? Social structures will exist just the same. Power tiering will still be there just like before.
That is my point. the 2/98 theory does not account for that, and is likely to breakdown like most social structures that ignore this aspect of humanity, a la Soviet Russia.
My point was that the same power structures will be there that are there now, the issues you are concerned about exist today. This isn't an economic model designed to fix them, but it might help them. I don't see the reason to feel that it would hurt them. And remember that it's not like soviet Russia, it is not a planned economy. People are totally free to pursue ambitions, so all current outlets for power will still exist, none removed. So none of your concerns would apply like they would in polar opposite models. Soviet Russia provided everyone's jobs, 100% workers, it's the extreme opposite from an economic model.
I'm not equating economic models. I was comparing social structures that ignore fear and power as basic human motivations. The reason that properly checked capitalism has been so stable (in general) is that it accounts for these things. It assumes that everyone is fundamentally greedy and self-centered, and works accordingly. Any social or economic structure that ignores this aspect of the human experience has failed, sometime spectacularly. And before there is any possibility of drawing this conclusion, we are not functioning in a truely capitalistic society in the US today, so I am not advocating that where we are today is a good place either socially or economically.
Question - Does greed still exist as a massive motivator when, with a good enough public handout, there is little want? Let me put this another way, if people in general are able to scratch just about any itch they have, is there any significant reduction in the issues you're worried about?
HOw does that play in today? There is greed today, yet it doesn't entice many to do much. It's not a major motivator.
If we provide a baseline income, does it reduce greed? No, but it encourages the only moderately greedy to care less. But more importantly, does it increase greed? No.
This was my point.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
But back to the power thing - interesting - I wonder how many people of the ultra rich really want power over other people? Or are simply viewed as such because of their position. That combined with the typical extreme outward self confidence easily makes these people appear to be power grubbing megalomaniacs.
Look at Bill Gates as an anecdotal example. Insanely rich, super kind, uses his "power" for some of the greatest good ever done. Warren Buffet, similar. Are all the ultra rich like the top few, no. But statistically, they are pretty good.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Look at Bill Gates as an anecdotal example. Insanely rich, super kind, uses his "power" for some of the greatest good ever done
Never took you for a windows fan Scott
-
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
We only have one real category that has this state currently. Do the hyper-rich, who want for nothing, cease to be greedy or stop wanting to exert power over others?
The problem with this question is that if we take it at the surface value, the answer is yet. Becoming crazy rich does generally make people relax and stop wanting more and more. So it seems to be a slam dunk for my point.
However, the real issue is that only certain type(s) of people can become ultra rich, so by the time we are looking at that pool we've already filtered out 99.9% of all humanity and so judging that the people who manage to become rich do one thing or another doesn't suggest that it is being rich that does that, only that whatever it is about them that got them rich correlates with that.
For example, if all super rich people like chocolate ice cream and hate strawberry, we'd never guess that chocolate is a byproduct of being rich, we'd assume either total coincidence or, more likely, that something about a person that makes them viably rich also makes them like chocolate. So they would like chocolate, or be altruistic, even when poor.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Look at Bill Gates as an anecdotal example. Insanely rich, super kind, uses his "power" for some of the greatest good ever done
Never took you for a windows fan Scott
Microsoft is a UNIX vendor, too. Both traditional UNIX and Linux
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@Kelly said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
The problem with the 2% working with 98% not theory is that it doesn't accommodate for the human desire for power. It would be an amazing situation to be in except for the fact that some people will not be content with what they receive and not interested in earning more. If everyone lived free from fear, then it will work, but very few people do, and that leads to seeking power to insulate from fear.
That's true, except that nearly all of the 98% don't have power. The majority of people don't seek to be leaders and fewer still manage to be. Those getting power from work are the few, not the many. And many that do use it for evil, so curtailing that has a major positive benefit. Few people derive power from work, and given the protection of the system it removes much of the need for power.
I don't know that removing the economic factor affects the desire for power. I'm not addressing power via work, but desire for power over others in general. Gangs do not exist to commit crimes. They exist because of fear, and people control others or allow themselves to be controlled to mitigate fear. Economics play into it, but are not the primary motivator.
We may not remove the desire for power, but does it encourage it? Social structures will exist just the same. Power tiering will still be there just like before.
That is my point. the 2/98 theory does not account for that, and is likely to breakdown like most social structures that ignore this aspect of humanity, a la Soviet Russia.
My point was that the same power structures will be there that are there now, the issues you are concerned about exist today. This isn't an economic model designed to fix them, but it might help them. I don't see the reason to feel that it would hurt them. And remember that it's not like soviet Russia, it is not a planned economy. People are totally free to pursue ambitions, so all current outlets for power will still exist, none removed. So none of your concerns would apply like they would in polar opposite models. Soviet Russia provided everyone's jobs, 100% workers, it's the extreme opposite from an economic model.
I'm not equating economic models. I was comparing social structures that ignore fear and power as basic human motivations. The reason that properly checked capitalism has been so stable (in general) is that it accounts for these things. It assumes that everyone is fundamentally greedy and self-centered, and works accordingly. Any social or economic structure that ignores this aspect of the human experience has failed, sometime spectacularly. And before there is any possibility of drawing this conclusion, we are not functioning in a truely capitalistic society in the US today, so I am not advocating that where we are today is a good place either socially or economically.
Question - Does greed still exist as a massive motivator when, with a good enough public handout, there is little want? Let me put this another way, if people in general are able to scratch just about any itch they have, is there any significant reduction in the issues you're worried about?
We only have one real category that has this state currently. Do the hyper-rich, who want for nothing, cease to be greedy or stop wanting to exert power over others?
Actually, on average, the ultra rich are the least greedy and do the least to attempt to exert power. A few ARE really powerful, of course, and greedy and we see them in the public eye all the time and this is misleading. But studies show that those that are most likely to vote and act greedy are the poor statistically, not the rich. The rich are the most likely to push for heavier taxes, more social programs and such. It is the poor that control the vote and generally stop them thinking that they will lose out, somehow.
Well, I also believe that most people don't want a simple hand out - people want to feel needed. And working fills that void for them.
It's really hard to think that 98% of humans not offering anything of real value to the world. Sure you can argue that arts and humanitarian efforts have value, but many will disagree with you.
Instead of a wonderful world of not working and doing whatever you want. I'm reminded of two movies - Wall-e where all of the people became lazy fat people in their floaty chairs or the Matrix when Mr Smith was explaining to Neo that the first edition of the Matrix was a perfect world, but people's brains refused to accept it - they kept waking up.
I tend to think the second is more likely the case, at least for many hundreds of years. I feel this way because we just have to look at the nightly news, listen to the radio, etc - they are all covered in stories of bad things, with a minor sprinkling of good news.
Now I'll admit that the perception of more bad vs good news might be a bias I unintentionally bring to the table - that my personally might dwell more on the bad than than the good - but then I look at so many conversations, both overheard and participated and again, they seem to drift more toward the negative.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Well, I also believe that most people don't want a simple hand out - people want to feel needed. And working fills that void for them.
But we specifically educate them to feel that way. Stop teaching them that nonsense and that goes away.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
It's really hard to think that 98% of humans not offering anything of real value to the world. Sure you can argue that arts and humanitarian efforts have value, but many will disagree with you.
Whoa, did you just equate economic development to human value? I certainly said the opposite and talked about how they'd be free to stop wasting time and pursue valuable things like art, leisure, research, assisting others and other things more important than economic growth.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
Instead of a wonderful world of not working and doing whatever you want. I'm reminded of two movies - Wall-e where all of the people became lazy fat people in their floaty chairs or the Matrix when Mr Smith was explaining to Neo that the first edition of the Matrix was a perfect world, but people's brains refused to accept it - they kept waking up.
Don't let pop culture determine your economics. And if anything, wouldn't the opposite happen? Work keeps us from exercising and learning. Do all retired people just stop existing? No, most do more than before they retired because now they can do things that they care about. And that's for people who are older. Imagine the same effect on younger people!
-
I think robotics will take away a lot of jobs, eventually forcing a change in the way we view jobs or work economically. I think a lot of the highly educated positions will most likely exist for much longer, but a janitor, taxi driver, cashier, etc will probably not exist for much longer.
If this is true then I think creative pursuits will become hugely important.
-
@Dashrender said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I tend to think the second is more likely the case, at least for many hundreds of years. I feel this way because we just have to look at the nightly news, listen to the radio, etc - they are all covered in stories of bad things, with a minor sprinkling of good news.
Now I'll admit that the perception of more bad vs good news might be a bias I unintentionally bring to the table - that my personally might dwell more on the bad than than the good - but then I look at so many conversations, both overheard and participated and again, they seem to drift more toward the negative.
The flaw here is to assume that "change" and "intentionally improving things" will cause bad things to happen and that "status quo" and "not intentionally improving things" will not cause bad things to happen. No matter if you are an optimist or a pessimist, you are making an illogical connection. No matter how much you think that bad things will happen, that doesn't imply that attempting to do better than not to do better while make them worse than the alternative.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I think robotics will take away a lot of jobs, eventually forcing a change in the way we view jobs or work. I think a lot of the highly educated positions will most likely exist for much longer, but a janitor, taxi driver, cashier, etc will probably not exist for much longer.
Already tons of places cashier is gone. Janitors are already phasing out. Taxi driver we know when that will go away, Tesla already has their replacements driving on the streets.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@wirestyle22 said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I think robotics will take away a lot of jobs, eventually forcing a change in the way we view jobs or work. I think a lot of the highly educated positions will most likely exist for much longer, but a janitor, taxi driver, cashier, etc will probably not exist for much longer.
Already tons of places cashier is gone. Janitors are already phasing out. Taxi driver we know when that will go away, Tesla already has their replacements driving on the streets.
That's why I used them as examples
-
BBC has demonstrated the replacement for chefs now. You can't tell me that McD's isn't ready to pull the trigger on automated burger and fry cooking. I proposed that twenty years ago when I worked managing fast food, even then we know that it was all going to be trivially automated at a fraction of the cost, risk and problems of people.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@wirestyle22 said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I think robotics will take away a lot of jobs, eventually forcing a change in the way we view jobs or work. I think a lot of the highly educated positions will most likely exist for much longer, but a janitor, taxi driver, cashier, etc will probably not exist for much longer.
Already tons of places cashier is gone. Janitors are already phasing out. Taxi driver we know when that will go away, Tesla already has their replacements driving on the streets.
At what point will we realize we can't have a normal economy anymore because there are actually not enough jobs due to automation? I wonder how bad it's going to need to be.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@scottalanmiller said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
@wirestyle22 said in Buying vs Saving Economic Theory:
I think robotics will take away a lot of jobs, eventually forcing a change in the way we view jobs or work. I think a lot of the highly educated positions will most likely exist for much longer, but a janitor, taxi driver, cashier, etc will probably not exist for much longer.
Already tons of places cashier is gone. Janitors are already phasing out. Taxi driver we know when that will go away, Tesla already has their replacements driving on the streets.
At what point will we realize we can't have a normal economy anymore because there are actually not enough jobs due to automation? I wonder how bad it's going to need to be.
Most economists have already realized that and many are pushing for a UBI. The US was moving in that direction, albeit slowly, but recent events may have changed that.
