Economics Discussion Thread

[36 Camera Perspective]

Seriously?

Yes.

Do you or do you not believe that economic growth - or some other goal that depends on economic values - is a normative good?

I'm morally obligated to do whatever promotes economic growth? That is quite a theory, hardly self-evident as you describe it.

[Constantinopolis]

MTV is the most correct--it most accurately describes the actual process of price discovery.
Free markets are correct--it produces the most resources.
Your opinion can be discarded without anybody worthwhile caring--if you got your way a lot of people would die.

QED

I did A, B, and C just a minute ago

And you were illogical in doing so.

[Taihei Tengoku]

I did A, B, and C just a minute ago

And you were illogical in doing so.

I don't see how "being right" is illogical. All three points I have posited are empirically true.

[Constantinopolis]

Yes.

Do you or do you not believe that economic growth - or some other goal that depends on economic values - is a normative good?

I'm morally obligated to do whatever promotes economic growth? That is quite a theory, hardly self-evident as you describe it.

Not you in particular, but all people with power to decide policy.

Let me rephrase my question: Do you or do you not believe that governments are morally obligated to adopt policies that promote economic growth, or some other goal that depends on economic values?

[36 Camera Perspective]

I'm morally obligated to do whatever promotes economic growth? That is quite a theory, hardly self-evident as you describe it.

Not you in particular, but all people with power to decide policy.

Let me rephrase my question: Do you or do you not believe that governments are morally obligated to adopt policies that promote economic growth, or some other goal that depends on economic values?

Not necessarily.

What if I'm a deontologist and the best policy to promote economic growth is to kill somebody else?

[Hydesland]

I mean, to an extent you're correct.

No. Constantinopolis is not correct at all; this is the farthest you can be from correct.

Well he's wrong about it being "absurd", but correct with at least some of those implications.

[Constantinopolis]

And you were illogical in doing so.

I don't see how "being right" is illogical. All three points I have posited are empirically true.

Moral good and moral evil are not empirical questions. It can't be "empirically true" that a policy is good. It can only be empirically true that a policy achieves goal X. Then that policy is good if X is good. Which is not an empirical question.

[36 Camera Perspective]

It is not possible to hold the following three beliefs at the same time:

(a) economic value is subjective
(b) economic growth (or some other goal that depends on economic values) is a normative good
(c) normative good is objective (i.e. it does not depend on people's opinions)

If economic value is subjective, and depends on people's subjective valuations, then economic goals must also depend on people's subjective valuations. So, if a certain economic goal is a normative good, then this normative good depends on people's subjective valuations. So it cannot be objective. It would change if people's opinions (i.e. subjective valuations) would change.

By the way, this only precludes some notion of absolute morality, not objective morality. For example, you could be a utilitarian who believes that it's objectively right to maximize human happiness for the greatest number of people, but clearly, the meaning of that obligation will variate depending on people's subjective preferences (what makes them happy).

[Taihei Tengoku]

I don't see how "being right" is illogical. All three points I have posited are empirically true.

Moral good and moral evil are not empirical questions. It can't be "empirically true" that a policy is good. It can only be empirically true that a policy achieves goal X. Then that policy is good if X is good. Which is not an empirical question.

It can be empirically true that marginal and subjective theory is right as it can be empirically true that Newtonian gravitation is. Observations of the world overwhelmingly confirm that economic decision-making relies on subjective marginal valuations and not Marxian labor theory. It can be empirically proven that markets produce better outcomes across the board over command economies. It can be empirically proven that your policies have led to mass death wherever it was attempted.

It is entirely consistent to both believe in universal moral principles ("killing people is bad," "people not starving is good"), to believe free markets achieve them, and to believe individual goods are valued by individual purchasers on a subjective basis.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Anyways good shitpost you've generated a page and a half of discourse

[Constantinopolis]

Not you in particular, but all people with power to decide policy.

Let me rephrase my question: Do you or do you not believe that governments are morally obligated to adopt policies that promote economic growth, or some other goal that depends on economic values?

Not necessarily.

What if I'm a deontologist and the best policy to promote economic growth is to kill somebody else?

Then you would presumably adopt the second-best policy to promote economic growth.

Now you're the one committing a fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocating between "a moral good" and "THE ONLY moral good".

The statement "governments are morally obligated to adopt policies that promote economic growth" (a) is not the same as the statement "governments are ONLY morally obligated to adopt policies that promote economic growth and NOT obligated to do anything else, such as refraining from killing people" (b). I asked you about statement A and you responded about statement B.

[36 Camera Perspective]

Then you would presumably adopt the second-best policy to promote economic growth.

I'll rephrase. What if there is no other way for the government to promote economic growth than to violate one person's innate dignity as a human being (i.e. Kantian ethics). It would not be obvious to me that I am morally obligated to promote economic growth in this case.

[Constantinopolis]

It is entirely consistent to both believe in universal moral principles ("killing people is bad," "people not starving is good"), to believe free markets achieve them, and to believe individual goods are valued by individual purchasers on a subjective basis.

No it's not. What if people want to die - for example, what if people want to drink poison in order to die and be picked up by an alien spaceship?

My whole point is that you can't believe in universal moral principles and at the same time believe that it's good to always give people what they want. And, according to your own theory, the statement "free markets are good" implies that it's good to always give people what they want. Your entire argument is that free markets are good because you believe they give people what they want.

[Hydesland]

Moral good and moral evil are not empirical questions. It can't be "empirically true" that a policy is good. It can only be empirically true that a policy achieves goal X. Then that policy is good if X is good. Which is not an empirical question.

This sounds a lot like something an ethical subjectivist or moral skeptic would say!

[Taihei Tengoku]

It is entirely consistent to both believe in universal moral principles ("killing people is bad," "people not starving is good"), to believe free markets achieve them, and to believe individual goods are valued by individual purchasers on a subjective basis.

No it's not. What if people want to die - for example, what if people want to drink poison in order to die and be picked up by an alien spaceship?

My whole point is that you can't believe in universal moral principles and at the same time believe that it's good to always give people what they want. And, according to your own theory, the statement "free markets are good" implies that it's good to always give people what they want.

Yes, the Jonestown cultists are bad and Jim Jones the worst of all. It does not condemn Smith or Ricardo or Cobden or Bastiat or Menger or Marshall or Hayek or Friedman.

[36 Camera Perspective]

[

Now you're the one committing a fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocating between "a moral good" and "THE ONLY moral good".

When you state that economic values determine our normative values, you are, in effect, establishing economic values as the good. You're making economic progress your moral barometer and claiming this to be self-evident, when this is far from self-evident.

[Constantinopolis]

It is not possible to hold the following three beliefs at the same time:

(a) economic value is subjective
(b) economic growth (or some other goal that depends on economic values) is a normative good
(c) normative good is objective (i.e. it does not depend on people's opinions)

If economic value is subjective, and depends on people's subjective valuations, then economic goals must also depend on people's subjective valuations. So, if a certain economic goal is a normative good, then this normative good depends on people's subjective valuations. So it cannot be objective. It would change if people's opinions (i.e. subjective valuations) would change.

By the way, this only precludes some notion of absolute morality, not objective morality. For example, you could be a utilitarian who believes that it's objectively right to maximize human happiness for the greatest number of people, but clearly, the meaning of that obligation will variate depending on people's subjective preferences (what makes them happy).

Fair enough. This is true.

But my argument is ultimately one about moral intuitions. Most people have the moral intuition that sometimes, what people want - or what makes them "happy" - is a bad thing. For example, many people want to use cocaine. It makes them "happy" in this sense. But I've never met a utilitarian who would bite the bullet and accept the conclusion that it's good to provide cocaine addicts with cocaine. When faced with cases like this, utilitarians generally adjust their definition of "happiness" so as to allow for the possibility that what someone wants and what makes him "happy" can be different things.

Then you would presumably adopt the second-best policy to promote economic growth.

I'll rephrase. What if there is no other way for the government to promote economic growth than to violate one person's innate dignity as a human being (i.e. Kantian ethics). It would not be obvious to me that I am morally obligated to promote economic growth in this case.

Ok, but that's only because one moral imperative (economic growth) was outweighed by another, superior moral imperative (not violating a person's innate dignity).

But, to be clear, I'm not arguing that it's impossible for people to not consider economic growth a moral good. I'm only arguing that, in practice - especially in debates about economics - all sides start from the common premise that economic growth (as well as a host of other economic goals) are good.

[

Now you're the one committing a fallacy of equivocation. You are equivocating between "a moral good" and "THE ONLY moral good".

When you state that economic values determine our normative values, you are, in effect, establishing economic values as the good. You're making economic progress your moral barometer and claiming this to be self-evident, when this is far from self-evident.

It sure appears to be self-evident to every free-market advocate that I've ever debated!

Just two days ago, in this very thread, Sanctissima was criticizing me for failing to regard economic progress as the most important goal of economic policy (because I regard equality as more important, and growth as still-important-but-secondary).

In my experience, free-market advocates are downright obsessed with economic growth as a massively important thing, worth pursuing at the expense of sacrificing all sorts of other things (such as poor people's healthcare).

[Orostan]

1)LTV does not require an omniscient designer, use values can exist in a product even if the designer did not design a product to accomplish that use value. The designer just tries to make a product that has a specific use value. A steel beam can be used to support a building as well as to be a battering ram, but the designers did not intend for the beam most likely to be used as a battering ram so it will probably have less use value as a battering ram then something designed to be a battering ram.

2)Fungible goods can have multiple uses, yes. That refutes nothing.

3)Non-fungible commodities are valued by supply and demand. There is a reason art is a frequent subject of bidding wars.

1) Then its use as a battering ram is valued subjectively. Even steel beams used in construction are bought by the contractors until the point which the next one is no longer needed in which case its price remains the same but it remains unsold. MTV provides a wholly satisfactory explanation (people buy until the marginal cost exceeds marginal benefit) while LTV has to do this convoluted explanation that presupposes the buyer or retailer cares what the designer thinks of him miles and years away.
2) see 1)
3) ok

As soon as I make a product, it is supposed to have a use value, it is also often designed to fufill a specific use value. There can be secondary use values. If I want to sell a wooden box as a construction component, it still will have very little use value as construction component as a wooden box can't support the same weight as a brick. Because it's best use value is storage, I'd want to sell the box as a storage unit. I don't care if the designer of the box wanted it to be a hollow brick for whatever reason, it's use value is best as a box.

All I mean is that products are ususally designed to have specific use value(s) but can have other use values which can be unintended.

[Taihei Tengoku]

But I've never met a utilitarian who would bite the bullet and accept the conclusion that it's good to provide cocaine addicts with cocaine.

Now you have. (A case study in incentives and externalities)

1) Then its use as a battering ram is valued subjectively. Even steel beams used in construction are bought by the contractors until the point which the next one is no longer needed in which case its price remains the same but it remains unsold. MTV provides a wholly satisfactory explanation (people buy until the marginal cost exceeds marginal benefit) while LTV has to do this convoluted explanation that presupposes the buyer or retailer cares what the designer thinks of him miles and years away.
2) see 1)
3) ok

As soon as I make a product, it is supposed to have a use value, it is also often designed to fufill a specific use value. There can be secondary use values. If I want to sell a wooden box as a construction component, it still will have very little use value as construction component as a wooden box can't support the same weight as a brick. Because it's best use value is storage, I'd want to sell the box as a storage unit. I don't care if the designer of the box wanted it to be a hollow brick for whatever reason, it's use value is best as a box.

All I mean is that products are ususally designed to have specific use value(s) but can have other use values which can be unintended.

You have no idea whether anyone buying the box is using it for storage or to use it as a brick. How can the "designed use value" be of any use to you when for all you know you are running a wooden brick store?

[Orostan]

But I've never met a utilitarian who would bite the bullet and accept the conclusion that it's good to provide cocaine addicts with cocaine.

Now you have. (A case study in incentives and externalities)

As soon as I make a product, it is supposed to have a use value, it is also often designed to fufill a specific use value. There can be secondary use values. If I want to sell a wooden box as a construction component, it still will have very little use value as construction component as a wooden box can't support the same weight as a brick. Because it's best use value is storage, I'd want to sell the box as a storage unit. I don't care if the designer of the box wanted it to be a hollow brick for whatever reason, it's use value is best as a box.

All I mean is that products are ususally designed to have specific use value(s) but can have other use values which can be unintended.

You have no idea whether anyone buying the box is using it for storage or to use it as a brick. How can the "designed use value" be of any use to you when for all you know you are running a wooden brick store?

A brick made of wood has less utility than a box made of wood, any idiot can tell you that. One wooden box has two use values in this situation, a brick and a box. It preforms the job of wooden box better than the job of wooden brick, so therefore its use value as a wooden box is higher than its use value as a wooden brick.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Now you have. (A case study in incentives and externalities)


You have no idea whether anyone buying the box is using it for storage or to use it as a brick. How can the "designed use value" be of any use to you when for all you know you are running a wooden brick store?

A brick made of wood has less utility than a box made of wood, any idiot can tell you that. One wooden box has two use values in this situation, a brick and a box. It preforms the job of wooden box better than the job of wooden brick, so therefore its use value as a wooden box is higher than its use value as a wooden brick.

Of course, but you do not know whether your customers are wooden brick users or wooden box users. Only your customers know whether they are, and therefore they pay the price that satisfies their needs and go somewhere else if it doesn't.

[Orostan]

A brick made of wood has less utility than a box made of wood, any idiot can tell you that. One wooden box has two use values in this situation, a brick and a box. It preforms the job of wooden box better than the job of wooden brick, so therefore its use value as a wooden box is higher than its use value as a wooden brick.

Of course, but you do not know whether your customers are wooden brick users or wooden box users. Only your customers know whether they are, and therefore they pay the price that satisfies their needs and go somewhere else if it doesn't.

A wooden brick can't do the job a stone brick or a clay brick can. Why would anyone want to buy a wooden brick when a wooden brick just can't do the job that a normal brick can? If there is a demand for wooden bricks I could fill that demand with a wooden brick store but I'd make way more money selling the wooden bricks as wooden boxes instead. In fact, the use value of a wooden brick and a wooden box determines the demand for both products. Because a wooden box has a higher use value than a wooden brick the demand for a wooden box will be higher.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Of course, but you do not know whether your customers are wooden brick users or wooden box users. Only your customers know whether they are, and therefore they pay the price that satisfies their needs and go somewhere else if it doesn't.

A wooden brick can't do the job a stone brick or a clay brick can. Why would anyone want to buy a wooden brick when a wooden brick just can't do the job that a normal brick can?

Who knows? 7/11 sells ping-pong balls but I assure you they aren't being used for the designed use of table tennis.

[Republic of Keshiland]

They are voting to postpone the vote till monday on the tax bill

[Taihei Tengoku]

we have not spoken of the devil and yet he appears