Greed Based Systems and Alternatives

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by nolla

I meant this current system. It is based on human nature and the regulation is there to limit the bad effects of the human nature.

You're advocating a change, yet say the current system possesses the qualities you think systems should aspire to. I don't see logic there.

[nolla]

Originally Posted by Jack Flak

You're advocating a change, yet say the current system possesses the qualities you think systems should aspire to. I don't see logic there.

No.. I replied to you. You say that a new system couldn't work because its impossible to pick what tendencies to support. I said that it could work because we now have a system that works with the same principle.

I mean, this system is not as good as it might be, but there might be a new system based on the same principle (human nature minus bad human nature).

Why do I find it hard to make myself understood by you? This isn't the first time it happens... It's frustrating, I feel like a retard.

[ptgatsby]

Originally Posted by nolla

So, where does the grow grow grow mentality come from if not greed? Why is it never enough?

He's saying that free markets's definition is limited to "the ability to trade", typically without restrictions.

Capitalism, however, is something different, built on the free market. The two are used interchangably now because capitalism requires free markets to operate correctly. The main characteristics of capitalism, both in practise and in theory, are about private ownership of production, ie: the ownership of capital.

Free markets is an important concept on its own because it is the optimal price-setting method, minus a few issues.

[Lateralus]

You should replace the term 'greed' with 'self-interest'.

[Jack Flak]

Originally Posted by nolla

No.. I replied to you. You say that a new system couldn't work because its impossible to pick what tendencies to support. I said that it could work because we now have a system that works with the same principle.

I mean, this system is not as good as it might be, but there might be a new system based on the same principle (human nature minus bad human nature).

Why do I find it hard to make myself understood by you? This isn't the first time it happens... It's frustrating, I feel like a retard.

I wasn't isolating that one statement. Taking your whole argument into consideration, I found a contradiction. It's the art of debate, n'est-ce pas?

Anyway, today's free markets are still driven by "greed," which you think is an undesirable trait, and they're overall very successful at doing many things for many people.

[reason]

Originally Posted by nolla

So, where does the grow grow grow mentality come from if not greed? Why is it never enough?

Why is the current rate of cancer survival not enough?

Few people actually want to create economic growth as defined by GDP or whatever. People have goals and they are willing to trade with others to achieve those goals. The emergent result, intended by nobody, is economic growth. Goals can range from travelling to the moon, buying a new car, finding a cure for aids, or feeding the world's poor, and perhaps more than one of these at a time. For example, Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, may have wanted to earn money to buy things, but he may have also wanted to make food more affordable to the poorest in society--the two goals are not, in this case, mutually exclusive.

[reason]

Originally Posted by Lateralus

You should replace the term 'greed' with 'self-interest'.

Talk of self-interest is at best redundant, and at worst misleading. Even if you give to charity then you are doing something in you are intested in doing. When someone says that people operate in their own interests they might as well be saying that people act in accordance with their goals, or try to do what they want.

The problem is that it becomes impossible to not act in self-interest, and so the term is uninformative. Moreover, its connotations of selfishness are prone to mislead those who are not accustomed to its use in economics.

[Little Linguist]

*rubs hands together and sits back in her armchair*

I'm sitting back and enjoying the ride because it's going to be a rollercoaster, folks.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by reason

Talk of self-interest is at best redundant, and at worst misleading. Even if you give to charity then you are doing something in you are intested in doing. When someone says that people operate in their own interests they might as well be saying that people act in accordance with their goals, or try to do what they want.

The problem is that it becomes impossible to not act in self-interest, and so the term is uninformative. Moreover, its connotations of selfishness are prone to mislead those who are not accustomed to its use in economics.

It might be a bit uninformative, but it's more precise than calling the system greed-based. Greed is not the primary motivation for everyone's decisions. If it was, charities would be far less successful (just one example). However, people do give to charities, because some value the resultant feeling more than the resources they gave away.

[Oleander]

There are always unspoken assumptions about this 'invisible hand' mentality where everybody does what they choose and by magic it all produces ever more growth (like cancer). One assumption is that what they want to do can be measured in economic terms at all. What Vincent van Gogh wanted to do wasn't. Another is (usually) that economic return (ie money) is their motivating reason for doing it. Van Gogh again. That assumption arises because the people who think this way usually can't imagine doing anything for its own sake. Then there's the confusion of two sorts of growth: there is the growth of quantity and growth of quality. As production becomes more complicated so more of the same becomes a more attractive goal than trying something different. That is why we are not all going to work a ten-hour week in monorails and hovercars with weekends on the moon: too much research for too little return.