To jleopold, wasoxygen, Odder and everyone else: First apology for the late reply, secondly I want to thank you and also everyone else for great replays, those made me think more and question way how I write about things that to me look like something that is implied. In the other hand those comments have derailed me and created more posts to write about, more subject to think, and discuss with other people. Storage as it seems as I have wrote in my about page, I have not started with popularity or profit goal not even self promotion, I have started this so I could calm down the thoughts which became restless as angry animals, so much that they have started impacting my daily life. It is like with those hording people making clatter in the room. Every day they will throw something inside saying this is important I will sort this one day. And one day they will find themselves hardly moving inside of the room. Entire idea of this journey was more to let go, write them down probably get negative responses and end it ... instead ideas multiplied ... :) I would like to go deeper into the subject of fairness, but that would be similar to that question "How Far Down the Rabbit Hole Would You Like to Go?", and that would completely sway me from what I am trying to propose and validate. But I have put down every single good question in TODO list, and I will come back to it. Now in order to finish one cycle I have to express first rough thoughts it, write it, build it, and now it is just in the back off my brain, only thing I am trying to do is that as I have discussed in some of the previous posts, I do not believe into burning things and starting from the ground, I believe that there is a way to make things work. At the end of the cycle I could go back and begin redoing everything all over again. If I would have thought in metaphorical sense about what I am trying to do is like being sculptor who first needs to do outline of his piece, he will roughly cut the stone, and it will be quite rough, and around him are other great artists, and each artist will perfect the corner he thinks he can contribute the most, at the end we may have something nice. But I am not denying that there will be those who will not see anything in it, who will say it is just a rubbish ... but I am not bother about those, as I have said idea of this journey is not the greatness but more an expression.
Well, they didn't. For a while, and even yet today, we have enough resources we can act like they are infinite. We can solve this problem by looking at post-industrialization; services can take the place of resources (to a certain, but effective) effect. Plus, economists don't know super well what they're doing, they are still playing around with models (and actual economies) trying to find something that will work. Ideal inflation is nowhere near as extreme as your example. The Fed's target rate for the US is just 2%. So I might be left with 98% of a house. Assuming we somehow even got to that. In general, low inflation seems to be the best way to keep the economy stable, though obviously it doesn't always work. Under perfectly ideal conditions, wages will increase with inflation, so the buying power of wages remains the same. In practice, this hasn't happened, and fixing it would be complicated, but the ideal would avoid any situation at all similar to the house example. Here's a far more fundamental thing I'll ask instead: why should it be fair? What makes fair a desirable goal? Even further, how far should fair go? If we are going to try to build a better economy, we cannot rely on just emotive respondses and "not buying" things. A better (or even ideal) economy would need to be based on solid rationale and build from the very foundations of society.Now, how did economists overcome this paradox?
If you are one of those who would like to reply with the “Life is not fair” remark please don’t, I don’t buy it.
From my understanding of your piece, especially the house construction analogy, you take the economy (esp. inflation) as unfair. You then seem to say that the economy should be made more fair. That fairness then is an ideal to be aspired to, and even used as the basis for a society (so that's where I'm most likely misreading it). I simply question the philosophical reasons behind using fairness as a basis. I'm not sure what I would propose as a different basis, likely liberty or security. But I just don't see why fairness should be exalted in regards to the economy.
I thought I could answer shortly but this is definitely another subject to write about in a separate post. Partly answer is in my Marshmallow experiment but let me ask you few questions instead: What kind of environment would you like to live in? Fair or unfair? And please can you shortly write why? Also please explain if we apply same “rule” to everyone else, how would that society look like?
Emotionally, I would say an autonomous one. As long as I'm not hindering anyone's free autonomy, why should they give a damn about me? Emotional responses are poor reasons though. To get at this, I think we need to look st why we form society in the first place. Why are we ants instead of butterflies? Obviously not liberty or moral autonomy; forming communities with restrictions on actions and interdependence is obviously detrimental to both of those. Not do I think we form society for fairness. The entire concept of fairness arises from mutual interactions around shared, limited resources. So, I'd say fairness as an entire idea results from society, and therefore cannot be a basis of it. So, as much as it goes against my emotional response, philosophically, I would say the basis of society is, and should be, security. We come together to protect ourselves from nature. We then create rules to protect ourselves from each other. So, while y gut reaction is to say I'd like to live in an environment where my personal autonomy is all that matters, I can't. I want to live in a society where my person and property are protected, because that is society's benefit. I've said already I find fairness to be a result of society, as opposed to a cause or basis. But we also have to ask what is fairness. I think we all tend to have an intuition of it, and so we can largely skip the definition and just look at what sort of fairness we are talking about. Since we started with economy, let's deal with money. Giving everyone the same amount of money every year would be one sort of fair. Giving everyone an equal hourly wage would be another kind of fair, so those who give more time get a bigger reward. But we could also say those who work harder in the same time are deserving of a higher wage, and another fairness would represent that. I don't think these questions matter though. Before the 1800s, I can think of only a handful of isolated and minor groups who belived society should be fair. While philosophically it is weak, I do belive history can provide insight here. Somehow, industrialization made us want to be equal. I'll continue from above that society is based on security. Does it then need to be fair? Should it then even be fair? Quite obviously it doesn't. The feudal system was absolutely unfair, and yet functioned as a society for centuries. Should it be fair is a much harder question. I lean toward no. Protection must come from someone. I belive it makes sense to assume that society would be most efficient and effective if the protectors were an separate group. If you question that assumption and I can expand on it, but I feel it is rather self evident. In order to fully succed at providing security, I would say they need greater power and wealth. So, I say society should be unfair. I Kant say for certain, but I feel like I have somewhat been doing this for the entire reply. But I guess I'm unsure about what "rule" you are referring to. If it's unfairness, then I think I have described to a limited extent already. Those who can, from unfairness in birth, ability, wealth or sheer luck become an elite. They serve to order society to protect it's parts. I see failings in that mandate today, but I don't think the society I'm picturing would be far from what exists across much of the world today. I have never really bought the "what if everyone did it" approach to ethics though. It can be taken too far too easily. If everyone crossed the street, there would be massive problems, and so taking the principle too far would say crossing the street would be immoral.. But crossing the street isn't a moral act. The problem then becomes where to divide everyday acts from moral acts. I'd put it somewhere between killing a chicken and killing a person, but I'm not even sure where those would fall on the spectrum. Plus, there is the simple fact that not everyone is going to do it. If everyone gave large amounts to charity, the economy would collapse. But that most certainly doesn't make giving to charity wrong. I think we may be approaching the questions somewhat differently, and I fear maybe there's some miscommunication (if you first language would happen to be Spanish, I'd love to switch). For all of that, I have to say I truly appreciate the discussion. My present situation has me questioning any of my basic beliefs (as maybe the start of this reply indicates). I find it hard though to try to think what I know through without direct questions though, and so I'm sorry if my replies are a little long, but they are the product of my search for the basis of my instinctual reactions.What kind of environment would you like to live in?
Fair or unfair? And please can you shortly write why?
Also please explain if we apply same “rule” to everyone else, how would that society look like?
It sounds like it was a fair agreement, but you didn't keep your promise. I should have 365 vouchers, you promised me a full day of work for each one. If you paid me in dollars instead of vouchers, I could pay someone else to build my house at the same time I am working for you. Or I could invest the dollars to offset the loss of inflation, or buy other things I wanted more than a house. The historical trend is that fewer people are starving today than in the past. Why do you think this trend will reverse?Imagine that we had an agreement, in which we decided we would build two houses, one for me and one for you. First you will work on my house until my house is done, and while you are working on my house, I will give you vouchers; every voucher means that for every day of your work, I will guarantee a day of my work. And, after a year of hard work, my house is eventually completed. Now it is time for me to work on your house. But because of inflation, the price of the work has increased, so now the vouchers I gave you are not worth same value. Halfway through the second year you have already used all the vouchers I gave you and you have ended up with your house only half done.
With all the recent technological advances we will eventually realize that there is a better way, or all the resources will just end up in the hands of a few and everyone else will starve to death.
It would have been nice if it would work in proposed way, but for most of the people that does not work. Most of the people nowadays cannot get enough money for mortgage deposit, and it is even worse than that: The Majority of Millennials Have $1,000 or Less in Savings Investing without knowledge is = gambling. And learning about investing while struggling to survive by working two jobs ... Reasons I think trend will reverse if we do not change anything are: automation, AI, job disruption, wealth inequality. and because of this:
Which countries today have the most automation, AI, job disruption, and wealth inequality? Do those countries also have high levels of poverty and starvation compared to other countries? If not, why do you think this will change? Treehugger reports that "nearly 33% of the world's arable land has been lost" because of farming practices. Farmers who make money from the soil are destroying soil with pollution and erosion. People don't eat soil, however, they eat crops. Even if fewer acres are used for farming, more crops can be grown on each acre, thanks to improved farming practices. Treehugger's source shows this improvement with a chart: The bad news is that the improvement stopped after 1997, according to the World Bank. But there's good news too! The World Bank didn't lose hope after 1997, and the long-term trend of improvement has resumed.Reasons I think trend will reverse if we do not change anything are: automation, AI, job disruption, wealth inequality.
and because of this
Let's take the wealthiest country in the world US. Population 318.9 million (2014). http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-facts/ 47 million people live in poverty. That is 14.77%, and what is going to happen when we get self driving cars and trucks, under the same system we have now?
Poverty USA uses the U.S. Census Bureau definition of poverty. The Census Bureau calculates a new threshold each year; see Appendix B. In 2014 the poverty line for a family of four was $24,418. That amount of income is higher than the median income in many countries. The United States is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, so even people near the poverty line are better off than average people in developing countries.That is 14.77%
That is enough just to get by, but it is not living it is just survival. Real question is what is distribution there? And one more thing ask yourself if you lived with that kind of income how would your life look like? What happens when you need medical care?
I am not point my finger into America, I was just using it as example. Other countries have different poverty lines, and it is varying over the time: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2046.html Furthermore, your opportunities are not the same in each country bellow poverty line. We cannot compare for instance Denmark were people bellow poverty line have social housing, paid medical care, and even paid education they are even encouraged to pursue education with some other country in which you have to pay everything on your own. http://studyindenmark.dk/study-options/tuition-fees-scholarships/tuition-fees-and-scholarships Currently I am just saying that personally I think it does not have to be like that. Also if we continue with the same habits it will get worse for everyone except for those on the top. And I would like to avoid if possible another historical event pitchforks and guillotine. I am asking very simple question, if we have all that wealth can we put to better use?
This is an excellent and very important question. If we see a poor country that also has a lot of suffering and hunger, it makes us sad but we might not see much we can do about it. Helping the poor people takes money, and the country doesn't have money. If we see a rich country that also has poor people suffering and hungry, it seems like we should be able to help the poor people with the money others in the country hold. I argue that this already happens to a large extent: the institutions that enable people to generate wealth help everyone, and those who are poor compared to their rich neighbors are themselves rich compared to the poor people in other countries. The average (median) household income in the world is about $10,000. By the standards of the United States, half of the world lives in desperate poverty. Another question we might ask, before asking how we can put all that wealth to better use, is how the wealth was created in the first place. It's clear to me that free markets and trade have generated wealth more effectively than anything else we have tried. Places like Hong Kong and Singapore are dramatic examples of this wealth creation. Once a country becomes wealthy, setting policy to benefit the people who are still poor in that country is very difficult. It is difficult to take money away from the wealthier people without discouraging them from working less or moving elsewhere. It is difficult to give money to the poorer people without discouraging them from working harder to help themselves (and hard to identify those who really can't work harder). It is difficult to find leaders who can manage this process without interfering to benefit themselves. It is difficult to prevent wealthy outside interests from influencing the leaders to benefit themselves. Denmark and other wealthy countries have programs to benefit the poor. And they all struggle with these difficulties. I am not sure if the wealth can be put to a better use without doing more harm than good.I am asking very simple question, if we have all that wealth can we put to better use?
I am afraid that year 2008 contradict your first statement. | I really, really hope you are talking about the musical score. But I really, really doubt that you are. Please explain? This is my simple point, if I am driver, and I am already paid to drive you from point A to B, who is responsible if I end up in the point C or if driver slams the car into the wall. After so many years saying again it is hard problem looks more like excuse than anything else. If "you" are well paid to resolve things I am holding you accountable for that, and definitely by no means "you" should leave the crisis richer than most of the people who suffered because things "you" have done. Is this a fair statement?
Yes I meant perpetuum mobile, a perpetual motion machine - and I know the reason why they do not exist. In the post I was just using sarcasam to say that economy in the current form is very similar to perpetual motion machine, but again many economists get nobel prices. And I am criticly asking for what exactly? Are we in the stage when we give rewards for failures? Rhetorical questions.