14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesIs this a sort of categorical imperitive?
Your notions of rational behavior and capitalism are not as I understand them.
Assessing the likelihood of escaping criminal punishment for an economic choice does not indicate rational behavior if it can be demonstrated that the behavior itself if irrational even under certain avoidance of punishment. The irrationality has nothing to do w ...[text shortened]... hing in capitalism. Capitalism can thrive whithout a single piece currency ever being printed.
If I am an agent in a world where criminal behavior is punished with probability zero, and everyone else is behaving themselves so as to keep their punch bowl clean. Then I don't see why it shouldn't be optimal for me to take a piss.
In fact, I think your analogy would be better if instead of a punch bowl, we used a swimming pool. If I take a little tinkle in a big swimming pool, nothing happens. But if everybody (assume a large number of swimmers) takes a pee at the same time . . .
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionIf you conclude that it is rational to take a piss in that situation, then you must conclude that it is irrational not to. But if it's irrational not to, and we assume all rational agents, then everybody will piss in the punch bowl. There can never exist any unpolluted punch to consume. Now, surely nobody prefers an economy in which no unpolluted punch can exist to one in which unpolluted punch has the potential to exist, so economic strategies that entail its non-existence must be sub-optimal. If those strategies are sub-optimal, rational agents won't choose them. If rational agents won't choose them, then those actions can't be rational.
If I am an agent in a world where criminal behavior is punished with probability zero, and everyone else is behaving themselves so as to keep their punch bowl clean. Then I don't see why it shouldn't be optimal for me to take a piss.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by PeachyThat's the theory. But I think the nature of government is to ensure it's own longevity by cementing and increasing it's power over people. No government I know of has very maintained is benevolent intentions. Mother government sounds to me like the propaganda of the government.
but the government is the mother that looks after the society's well being. educate your people, support them, direct them, show them the right way..
once that is done, then the individuals can choose how to feed themselves. if they go astray then be tough and punish. But till then, no one has any right to stop a helpless father to feed their kids, specially if the only way is to steal.
This I think is true no matter the form of government, whether it is democratic, communist, or church. And the larger and more centralized it's power and authority - the more it becomes a creature of evolution - survival at all costs.
(I prefer a government that is decentralized - also why I like the Presbyterian church government.)
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesOriginally posted by DoctorScribbles
Everyone of us is an economic agent. If none of us are the rational sort, then we must all be the irrational sort. But if we're the irrational sort, why are people pretending to be rational, for instance by trying to demonstrate through reason that theft is a rational act? If the presumption is that we're all irrational, then
1) The question ...[text shortened]... the claim that economists are concerned with analyzing or achieving the salvation of the world.
Everyone of us is an economic agent.
Of course anyone who does not live as a complete hermit is an economic agent. My point is that, considering all that we are, that's only a superficial consideration. In a life or death choice such as steal or starve, only a fool would bring their role as an economic agent into consideration. A rational fool perhaps.
I don't dispute any of your other points, except the claim that economists are concerned with analyzing or achieving the salvation of the world.
Okay, maybe the whole salvation thing is over the top. Still, considering how little respect the other social sciences get, the extent to which we are willing to swallow what economists tell us whole is astounding. How does a discipline whose most basic tenents run counter to common sense and are frequently contradicted by empirical evidence continue to have so much influence?
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by SkorjIn a life or death choice such as steal or starve, only a fool would bring their role as an economic agent into consideration.
I don't dispute that at all. My only claim regarding this was that from the economist's standpoint, that person is not acting rationally. I never passed any judgment on such a peson, nor did I claim that they ought to place their role as a rational economic agent as their primary concern.
The debate here was "Is theft rational?" I answered No and explained how I reached that finding. That's the extent of my claims here.
Still, considering how little respect the other social sciences get, the extent to which we are willing to swallow what economists tell us whole is astounding. How does a discipline whose most basic tenents run counter to common sense and are frequently contradicted by empirical evidence continue to have so much influence?
I'm not willing to swallow whole without due consideration the claims of any economists. Are you? If one forumulates some theory or description that I analyze and find to be sound, I will accept it, not by virtue of an economist having dictated it, but because it is reasonable.
I don't believe that I am under the influence of any discipline whose tenets are frequently contradicted by empirical evidence. Are you? If so, you should simply stop accepting them as influences. If others are influenced by such disciplines, you can do as I do and attempt to convice them why they shouldn't be.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by dk3nny"Is it rational for a person to rob food to feed themsevles?"
Taken from another thread..
"Is it rational for a person to rob food to feed themsevles?"
Seems perfectly rational to me, if they couldn't afford to buy food..
Also we are living in a capatalist society where money is all.. If a person thinks they can get away with thievery for personal material gain, is is not rational for them to try it?
It can be. It depends on other circumstances.
If a person thinks they can get away with thievery for personal material gain, is is not rational for them to try it?
It depends. Not always.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI think we just have a case of no Nash Equilibria.
If you conclude that it is rational to take a piss in that situation, then you must conclude that it is irrational not to. But if it's irrational not to, and we assume all rational agents, then everybody will piss in the punch bowl. There can never exist any unpolluted punch to consume. Now, surely nobody prefers an economy in which no unpolluted ...[text shortened]... 't choose them. If rational agents won't choose them, then those actions can't be rational.
Well, maybe we do but it is a bad one.
Given every one else has chosen to play "Piss in the Pool"
I am no worse off by playing "Piss in the Pool."
Given I am playing "Piss in the Pool," no one else is worse of for also playing piss in the pool.
If eveyone, else is playing "Swallow Some Pool Water," then I have an incentive to play "Piss in the Pool." Given that I'm playing "Piss in the Pool" everyone else also will want to play "Piss in the Pool."
We would like an environment where nobody plays "Piss in the Pool," but this is not supportable since it is always weakly dominating to play "Piss in the Pool."
Everybody is still behaving rationally here.
If we got together and created some sort of credible punishment scheme, we may be able to support the first-best solution (We all swallow some pool water). This is what I think we have in the US today. We have stringent, though not perfect, enforcement constraints that induce a high degree of participation. Some places that have much weaker enforcement policies (some places in Latin America) have a much harder time getting participation.
14 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesEver heard of the prisioners dillema?
If you conclude that it is rational to take a piss in that situation, then you must conclude that it is irrational not to. But if it's irrational not to, and we assume all rational agents, then everybody will piss in the punch bow ...[text shortened]... agents won't choose them, then those actions can't be rational.
Edit: telerion is right, Nash's equilibria are more appropriate here.
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by telerionSo it seems that you believe that theft is not necessarily an irrational economic action.
I think we just have a case of no Nash Equilibria.
Well, maybe we do but it is a bad one.
Given every one else has chosen to play "Piss in the Pool"
I am no worse off by playing "Piss in the Pool."
Given I am playing "Piss in the Pool," no one else is worse of for also playing piss in the pool.
If eveyone, else is playing "Swallow Some ...[text shortened]... forcement policies (some places in Latin America) have a much harder time getting participation.
Allow me to ask this question, and I'll warn you that I'm setting a trap:
Do you believe that introducting counterfeit currency into an economy is necessarily irrational?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesGonna go with the safe economic answer:
So it seems that you believe that theft is not necessarily an irrational economic action.
Allow me to ask this question, and I'll warn you that I'm setting a trap:
Do you believe that introducting counterfeit currency into an economy is necessarily irrational?
Maybe. It depends. 🙂