Higher Ideals than The Profit Motive
Higher ideals than the profit motive exist, don't they? I mean, thinking about it a little, I don't really know what's human rationality without ideals?
I studied some economics in my 20's, and with it got the 101 intro into game theory. Game theory is a strange field that reduces human rationality to a calculus of evaluating decisions on a hedonic basis of what's best for myself or for a party of interests. By definition if you calculate all the interested participants you have a profit motive behind the scenes evaluating the vector of directionality for the highest gains or oligopolies maintaining a profit motive, that eventually is called a strategy. In this motloch of interests there is a tendency of fitness of the most efficient or productive participants in a game theoretic scenario who achieve the goal of the game at a higher rate than perhaps, uninformed or poorly performing participants.
I'm a bit rough on game theory, now in my early 30's; but, am saddened that homo economicus has been reduced to this automatic strategos looking out for who's #1. While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work.
If any of the above is true, then how the fuck do we get out of this dogmatization of human behavior through "game theory"?
I studied some economics in my 20's, and with it got the 101 intro into game theory. Game theory is a strange field that reduces human rationality to a calculus of evaluating decisions on a hedonic basis of what's best for myself or for a party of interests. By definition if you calculate all the interested participants you have a profit motive behind the scenes evaluating the vector of directionality for the highest gains or oligopolies maintaining a profit motive, that eventually is called a strategy. In this motloch of interests there is a tendency of fitness of the most efficient or productive participants in a game theoretic scenario who achieve the goal of the game at a higher rate than perhaps, uninformed or poorly performing participants.
I'm a bit rough on game theory, now in my early 30's; but, am saddened that homo economicus has been reduced to this automatic strategos looking out for who's #1. While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work.
If any of the above is true, then how the fuck do we get out of this dogmatization of human behavior through "game theory"?
Comments (49)
It depends a lot the breach between north and south European countries but yes, this is an interesting point of view
.Quoting Shawn
I would sound like a dreamer but I guess the only way possible is trying to develop a new economical system. You clearly explained previously that one of the nature human interests is to develop, at least some profit. There are some countries which are happy with this system because it helps them a lot. But others, obviously not.
If we want another system and then changing the human behaviour, we have to try to change our educational system. Since Spinoza method, we are humans made to be practical not intellectual.
When you are practical, you want to be the number one in everything. What if we try and change this values? Probably we would get a different human behaviour.
What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals.
Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person.
If only the meaning of those wouldn't be so easy to define in accordance with the motive for profit ...
Just don't though.
Good answer. I've known many people who have chosen those values over making money many times over.
It's not either or, as the sooner (profit) allows the later (virtues).
It was for the people I know, but I take your point.
Of course, what else would ideals be used for?
Hasn't capitalism brought more humans out of poverty than any other system? I'm not defending the late-stage capitalism we have today. I mean in the 20th century. Compared to, say, the massive impoverishment and death caused by socialist movements in the USSR and China.
I'd say there's nothing wrong with profit motive. It's a sentiment that defines life itself - we need to a get a little more out of something than you put in. If not, forget about economy, survival itself would be impossible.
Thus, by higher ideals, we shouldn't be looking for a replacement ideology for profit motive. What I recommend though are ancilliary ideas that can take profits, an acceptable portion of it of course, and use them to bring about desired outcomes. Such an approach seems more realistic and also likely to satisfy all parties involved. Game theoretically, it makes more sense than alternatives that aim to supplant the profit motive with higher ideals that don't give due consideration to an instinct as old as the human race itself.
For the purposes of argument, let's say it has. Let's also admit that, other things being equal, wealth is preferable to poverty. Still one might prefer poverty in a healthy environment to wealth in a toxic environment, or poverty in freedom to wealth under coercion, and so on. This is not a notion invented by postmodern far left politically correct weirdos, it dates back 2000 years or so.
[quote=Mark 8:36]For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul?[/quote]
There's also a contradiction in your reply in that what you consider worthwhile appears to be the reduction of poverty but this is merely ancillary to a profit motive, even if it were the underlying cause, because the profit motive doesn't aim at reducing poverty whatsoever. The higher ideal then already seems to be reducing poverty, as opposed to a profit motive.
Considering Marx' work and his criticism of the consequences of the capitalist mode of production, I think your view of early 20th century capitalism is romanticised. The "late-stage" capitalism of today is as exploitive as it was back then.
So manipulation is a higher purpose than profit?
No. Manipulation is something one does, not an ideal or a purpose. This dialogue is not interesting me.
Quoting unenlightened
Followed by:
Quoting unenlightened
So your stance is something like:
Truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for person (which can mean anything to anyone) are higher ideals than the profit motive. The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.
Yes?
Yes, but I don't accept your proposal that they mean whatever you want to make them mean. They are well understood by very ordinary folks.
The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.[/quote]
Yes. But it is a silly question and thus a misleading answer. If you are so depraved as to think that ideals are something to use, then I cannot imagine any other use for them than to manipulate other people. Hence my question to you as to what else you think an ideal could be used for? which you didn't answer. All clear now?
Quoting baker
Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not.
Yeah.
Quoting unenlightened
Is the argument here that Stalin, who killed 40 million and enslaved and impoverished the rest; and Mao, who killed 40 million, were the exemplars of non-capitalism you'd like to put up against 20th century capitalism? Or Castro's Cuba?
I hardly need to respond. The mass murder and mass impoverishment brought about by communism are a matter of historical record; as is the prosperity brought about by free market capitalism. And the economic welfare of all IS the point of capitalism. It flows naturally out of the private profit motive, as Adam Smith pointed out.
No.
Quoting fishfry
You hardly have. Respond to Jesus, the communists aren't posting.
As far as I can tell from the responses to my initial remark, the communists ARE posting. I truly wish that people longing for socialism/communism or the abolishment of the free market will take an honest look at the actual track records of China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba in the 20th century. Not only in economics, but in terms of human rights and outright mass murder of their own citizens. Coming soon to a bankrupt neo-socialist empire near you.
What about democracy? Typically, it's easier to exclude the US from analysis of this feature of wealth or poverty.
How is that qualified or evaluated?
The behavior of people who actually believe in the cited values is--taken as a pattern--different than those who do not actually believe in those values. One would expect more fraudulent behavior, illegal behavior, cruelty, terror, and so on from someone who thinks truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for persons are meaningless words.
As for the meaning of these -- or any other words -- there are reference sources which report how the meanings of these words have been defined in social processes. "Truth" wasn't defined on Mt. Olympus. "Truth" was defined by discussion and by people using the word in ways that others found understandable and acceptable. That's how most words come to have meaning. A few, like using "charm" to name a quark, are arbitrary.
This was an old multi-purpose lifestyle quote doing the rounds decades ago and generally applied to personalties. I have always considered myself someone who works to live. But what the hell does this really mean? I suspect it is about satisfaction with moderation.
I consider myself financially prosperous (I have no debts) and that is partly because I have never had much of an appetite for material things. Frugality is my modes operandi and I was a minimalist before this was just another commodified wankfest chasing authenticity in the absence of God. I think much of the juxtaposition of ideals versus profit depends upon your personal appetites and situation. In Western culture it may be easier to be virtuous if you are comfortable and happy in yourself. If you have an insatiable thirst for material goods, with a need to show off, it must surely be more tempting to sell out and suppress ideals.
The best sense I can make of this is that you reject ideals completely in favour of some pragmatic measures. But I find it very odd, because i do not think that capitalism can function at least as you see it in the US for example, without a commitment to truth, justice, democracy, respect for persons, and kindness. Rather, the lack of these guiding principles results in exactly the tyrannical state capitalism of China and Russia that you condemn.
You say that like it's a bad thing. In which body part do you construct your arguments? Sorry couldn't resist that one.
Quoting Benkei
Can you remind me of the context? I was just struck by the anti-capitalist sentiment expressed here, such as the idea that even though capitalism has lifted billions out of poverty, that's no point in its favor because that's not its primary intent. I can't fathom the motive of such an argument, especially in contrast to the murderous and impoverishing reigns of Stalin and Mao. I don't remember if this particularly pertains to anything you said. If not, no offense given; and if it does, no offense intended.
I do take issue with the fairy tale that capitalism lifted people out of poverty. It's just propaganda, which tot apparently believe. I would argue that despite capitalism several social and industrial developments, and indeed policy decisions, caused a reduction in poverty. Simply put, it's not profitable to reduce poverty so capitalism doesn't cause it.
I believe that I lumped your response in with someone else's, and my remarks were probably aimed more at the other poster than you.
Quoting Benkei
So whose system do you prefer? Stalin's, or Mao's? Or is Castro's impoverishment of Cuba more to your liking? I'll give Castro one thing, he murdered orders of magnitude fewer people than Stalin or Mao.
I'll take the American system of the 20th century, warts and all.
Quoting Benkei
It's extremely profitable to increase the economic well being of your potential customers. So you're factually wrong on this point. Postwar capitalism, Levittown, See the USA in your Chevrolet, all of that. Customers with money to buy stuff from corporations. Name a single country whose economic system works better. The problem with socialism is the truly awful economic and human rights record of every country that ever tried it.
I'm not defending whatever happened in the past 30 years. What did happen was that the globalists decided to sell out the US manufacturing base to China and hollow out the heartland of this country. Hence Trump and his deplorables. And hence the next Trump who will have a smoother personality and won't rage-tweet so much.
And may I note, in case this point isn't clear: Hence Bernie. The right wing populist Trump and the left wing populist Sanders together have far FAR more support in this country than the neocon/neoliberal center. In fact my idea, which was too brilliant to actually happen, was for Trump to dump Pence and offer Bernie the vice presidency. A Trump/Bernie ticket would have taken fifty states.
Of course you will argue (correctly) that it's capitalism that decided to ship the heartland jobs abroad. That's late-state capitalism, or global capitalism. Marx was right about that. But for a while, capitalism worked great. And socialism never worked and never will.
You're such a child at times. Red herring and all that.
Quoting fishfry
Alleviating world poverty would cost about 1% of GDP of Western countries. If it was profitable, it would've been done by now. It isn't profitable because the system of capitalism requires the exploitation of natural resources (hello climate crisis) and people. All capitalism provide a mechanism to move wealth from one place to another or from future times to present times, without any consideration for ethics.
Whatever positive developments arose while capitalism spread was a consequence of social policy (eg. wealth redistribution, healthcare, worker protections, minimum wages ,etc.) and industrial and technical developments specifically leading to increased personal wealth. The washing machine created time for women to be productive in other areas, the combustion and steam engine allowed you to travel larger distances to get better jobs etc. etc. Capitalism has zero to do with poverty reduction.
The problem with people like you is that they don't stand in the way of "more capitalism" at the expense of people and the environment because you actually believe capitalism solves social problems without realising it causes most of them.
I asked you to name a country in which socialism has done better for its people in terms of human rights and economic well being, and you call me a child. Is that because you have no answer? Stalin and Mao are the datapoints of anti-capitalism in the 20th century. Your argument is stuck with them because they are what actually happened when communism took over countries. Look at the incredible ethnic diversity of the US. Look past the nonsense about this being a racist country. It's the least racist, most diverse country in the history of the world. Why? Because capitalists sell to anyone. The profit motive causes them to look past ideology to see markets. You honestly don't see this?
Quoting Benkei
How so? Run me the numbers. I don't believe you. Are you saying we should just mail a percentage of our GDP to the poor people? Lay out your scenario, not just a slogan.
Quoting Benkei
And how exactly are you planning to feed, clothe, and shelter the seven billion? Be specific. Or are you one of these globalists who dreams of massive population reduction? Kill a few billion poor and the world's problems go away. That's the actual dream of many radical environmentalists. Is that where you're coming from?
Quoting Benkei
You liked it better when women stayed home and used scrub boards? You are not making rational sense.
Quoting Benkei
I ask again: How are you going to feed, clothe, and shelter the seven billion? What system would you like to rule the world with. The trouble with "people like you" is that in the name of compassion you produce misery but feel good about yourselves.
And "people like you" are unable to hold an intellectual conversation without personalizing it You can have the last word. I'm out. Get some fucking manners and learn to argue with your mind and not your tantrums. I don't like personalized insult-fests and apparently that's all you've got.
:ok:
Sigh. Of course, you don't believe me because you already bought into the capitalism is good nonsense.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0143036580/ref=as_li_qf_sp_asin_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=visofear03-20&linkCode=as2&camp=217145&creative=399381&creativeASIN=0143036580
175 billion USD.
Quoting fishfry
Be specific? Like how you say "capitalism alleviated poverty" without proof? You think spending 175 billion USD on poverty alleviations is going to bring the whole system down to the point where we'll have trouble feeding, clothing ahd sheltering people and then have the audacity to imply I'm in favour of murdering a cool billion. Not only does it demonstrate your complete lack of knowledge about the problem of poverty but also is just another asshole comment.
Quoting fishfry
Read again. I pointed to the washing machine as one of the most important inventions that created wealth for ordinary people. My point is that specific inventions and specific policies alleviated poverty, where capitalism is only a system that transfers wealth from one place to another or from future times to now, without ethical considerations. As a result it can never be a cause of alleviating poverty, merely a possible instrument but most of the time it is put to use entirely differently by merely causing shifts in wealth thereby empoverishing the many for the benefit of the few.
Quoting fishfry
It's tiresome to argue with assholes who don't even take the effort to read what I actually wrote and just go off on a rant based on the bullshit he's drunk his entire life. You haven't at any point engaged with my initial comment that poverty was alleviated by other things than a capitalist system, when I explicitly named several causes and you just went "Stalin! Mao!". So yeah, fuck you. You're so intellectually incurious I have no clue what you're doing on this site.
You can start with your first baby steps here to educate yourself about "capitalism": https://dimosioshoros.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/23_things.pdf
I think the profit motives drives a lot of human behavior, and especially economic activity, but it's not everything. There's nothing wrong with seeking profit, and nobody is saying it is the highest virtue out there, but I do think it's a basic one. By "profit motive" I'm really just talking about gain or one's ability to be compensated in a general sense for what one is doing. The ability to better one's condition and keep one's earnings.
Capitalism is value-neutral - it doesn't tell you to maximize profit at all costs. Capitalism doesn't dictate that you need to be an a**hole. Just play within the rules of the game and we're all good.
Quoting fishfry
:100: Capitalism is by far the best system out there. It's only a question of how much we regulate it. There's no serious discussion nowadays about reverting back to socialism. It's a question today of whether we introduce a UBI, which has been advocated by prominent laissez-faire capitalists like M. Friedman. What are you specifically talking about in reference to late-stage capitalism that you don't like?
Quoting unenlightened
This is true. Capitalism or wealth is not a sufficient condition for a good or healthy society.
Gee, I wouldn't know -- who is the authority on what those values mean?
Who have far from a uniformed understanding of them. One person's truth is another's lie, and so on.
Yes. But it is a silly question and thus a misleading answer. If you are so depraved as to think that ideals are something to use, then I cannot imagine any other use for them than to manipulate other people. Hence my question to you as to what else you think an ideal could be used for? which you didn't answer. All clear now?[/quote]
Why on earth would one entertain something, in this case, hold an ideal, unless it serves a purpose???
But maybe it is as good as society can get.
If this is your truth, it is a lie to me. And that is the end of the conversation, because this claim of yours denies the function of language. There is nothing more to be said.
Point those fingers.
The arc is slow and gentle but it bends, two steps forward, one step back, toward our aspirational ideals. When one realizes that something which is (at least ostensibly) further out on the concentric circles of care presents less of a threat to the center than something else which lies closer in, then there is a re-set toward the aspirational ideals, using game or any other theory.
"In Descent of Man, Darwin observes that the history of man's moral development has been a continual extension in the objects of his 'social instincts and sympathies.' Originally each man had regard only for himself and those of a very narrow circle about him; later, he came to regard more and more 'not only the welfare, but the happiness of all his fellow men'; then "his sympathies became more tender and widely diffused, extending to men of all races, to the imbecile, maimed, and other useless members of society, and finally to the lower animals." Christopher Stone.
I would guess that so long as game theory is on the table, we are good. When game theory (and it's ilk, MLK, Adam Smith, etc.) fall away as luxuries no longer affordable, then it will be one step forward, two (or even more) steps back to Darwin's roots (i.e. morals are no longer on the table).
In short, if game theory seems inadequate or cold, it's just because it has not yet calculated the true value that we want it to. It will. Someone will eventually find value in that which is currently free and abundant; and rather than absconding with it, and finding value in the reduction of it's numbers to a point where it can be sold for profit, it will instead be encouraged to flourish in freedom for all; if only so that person can survive.
In other words, Nature (the ultimate gamer) will have man reinsert the "enlightened" back into "enlightened self-interest." Hopefully it won't be too late. But even if it is, by our standards, where the baseline is reset with each generation, I think those who wander a post-apocalyptic wasteland of the future will still think life is worth living. So there's that. Best of luck to them.