Global capitalism has written off the human race

Post Reply New Topic

Capitalism is based on buying and selling (at a profit). One does not "write off" one's customers.

ruveyh

Thank you for sharing this about your thought process. It helps me understand why we are struggling to communicate effectively. It also helps me understand your other posts.

One of the fundamental skills problem solving is the ability to simplify and isolate. For example, if my wife breaks a window and cuts herself on the glass, I handle her injury without consideration of the status of the window. The window, broken glass, cost of repair, impact on climate control, et cetera, are not relevant to repairing the damage done to my wife. I compartmentalize the problem to what is relevant and address it without distraction. Once her safety has been established, I move on to her emotional state. Again, I compartmentalize the problem and focus on that issue and that issue alone -- the status of the window is not relevant. Once she is stable, the next priority is resolving the safety hazard. How my wife feels about the broken glass is not relevant to cleaning up the glass. And so on.

Yes, my wife has feelings about keeping the house warm. But her feelings do not affect the science of convection. Whether or not she likes a cardboard window, it still provides the same amount of heat loss reduction. Her opinion does not change scientific principles, and it doesn't help resolve the heat loss problem.

Similarly, how you and I feel about economics and human behavior doesn't affect the principles behind it. Humans operate in an aristocracy. I really don't like that, but I'm not going to claim that it can or will work differently. And if I pollute my thinking by trying to consider how people feel about human behavior, I lose my ability to think critically about the subject and make scientific observations.

To the question of whether or not raising wages encourages economic growth, we have to respond with empirical data gathering and scientific evaluation. How we feel about higher or lower wages isn't relevant to whether or not the economy grows as a result of changing the minimum wage. So I don't spend time considering how people feel about it when I'm discussing the question and I'll call people out on making invalid arguments.

GoodSquad believes the minimum wage should be higher. He believes this because he subscribes to social contract. If he presents an argument that we have a moral obligation to help people who are struggling, I can respect that even if I disagree with it. And since I look positively on those who want to help others, I may even contribute to his cause. But if he tries to claim a scientific basis, such as "raising minimum wage is good for the economy", I have to evaluate his claim scientifically. And frankly, my experience with economics and business management provides overwhelming logical evidence to me that raising minimum wage stalls growth. I'm open to challenging my own belief based on empirical data, but not on weak anecdotal evidence.

Corrupting science with emotion is the role of politicians. It's not the correct path for problem solvers. GoonSquad is being a politician.


I had never even heard of this. That philosophy is far too abstracted from reality for me to be able to interpret it.

adb, You know what is funny the more I interact with you and others on here and in IRL and understand them better the more I understand myself better. This is because in order to analyze the way others think I have to analyze the way I think in order to translate it in my way of thinking.

You may have inadvertently shown me why I have difficulty with what employers say in what they desire and in their writings. You and employers do a lot of convergent thinking way more than divergent thinking. I do a lot more divergent thinking more so than the average person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_thinking

What you do is keep your thinking within certain constraints and certain parameters. Part of these constraints and parameters is an implied subtext and an implied context. More than likely, I'm taking what you're saying out of context inadvertently.

I don't mean to butt in here,but when you utter the devil's name....

You are absolutely right to say that when I talk about economics I am doing so from a public policy point of view rather than a purely academic point of view... But to say that your brand of supply side economics is the only "scientifically valid" form is a bit much....

First of all, economics is a very very soft science at best, and it simply cannot be boiled down to the cold equations you'd like...

Ever hear of a guy named Keynes?

He's one hell'a good rapper...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc[/youtube]

There's more than one way to drive an economy... And if there's not, I'm still right.

There is a reason why Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, and Keynes was not.

After so many decades, there is still no evidence that Keynes made *any* useful contribution to Economics.

In comparison, try reading "The Use of Knowledge in Society" by Hayek... Not only did he describe a fundamental feature of the market mechanism... he even laid the foundations for Wikipedia...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Use_of ... in_Society

One writes off all kinds of non-customer people, however, if one's market is elsewhere.
http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/ne ... -rich.html

So, if the law didn't prohibit discrimination at public facilities based on race, and your hometown was full of white supremacists (including, hypothetically, you*), would you turn away black people (especially poor black people) or not? You would suffer neither long-term nor short-term business losses; indeed, you might even benefit from it financially or politically.

*"you" in the generic sense, not you, adb.

You would probably do very well in a research and development job, where you get to explore possibilities that are high-risk. Being able to think through possibilities uncritically is a valuable skill. Most people have a difficult time doing it.

The problem is that this kind of thinking is very bad in a decision-making role. Decisions require critical thinking. If I don't think critically and make the right decisions, I don't make payroll.

Nobel Prize, eh? They don't give those away for nothing.... sometimes.

As for Hayek's ideas, where would southern Europe be today without them?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-0 ... erity.html

I fully expected a response


I didn't say it was from a public policy point of view. I said it's from a social contract point of view. You are interpreting evidence based on a moral standard, which is unscientific. Whether something is morally right or wrong has no bearing on the truth.


I didn't say this either. I was discussing taking a scientific approach to challenging any view, including mine. I stated quite clearly that I'm open to challenging my position based on empirical data, but not on anecdotal evidence. What I have been saying and will say again is that applying morals to data is unscientific.


I agree it's a soft science, like all other social sciences, but that doesn't change how we think critically about a topic. Social relationships can be evaluated scientifically.

Whether raising the minimum wage does or does not cause economic growth is a different question from whether it's morally right to increase the minimum wage. My argument, again, is that applying morality to answer the former is not going to lead to correct conclusions.

If a person is making a decision without regard to morality, then yes.

My moral code doesn't permit that decision for my own company, but what other businesses do in a situation like this isn't my problem.

We have constraints regarding our fellow. We leave their property and bodies alone. We do not defraud them. The only positive
-duties- we have is to our children and to honor contracts entered into voluntarily. (PS. There is no such thing as -the social contract-). We have no duty to heal the sick nor do we have a duty to house, clothe and feed the needy. We might do these things because it could be in our interest to do so or because we are feeling generous.

Healing the sick is an act of self interest. If thy neighbor is sick, he could also make you sick, so heal thy neighbor. But that is not a duty, but a prudential act.

ruveyn

There is no "social contract" there are laws and their are taxes. Anything beyond the requirements of law and the payment of taxes is voluntary. We have no duty to love strangers. We do have legal constraints that forbid us to harm strangers. But that is not a positive obligation.

ruveyn

You're right I probably would. I do appreciate your comment.




I will have to admit it is very bad in a decision-making role and decisions do require critical thinking. Honestly, it isn't my cup of tea to be in a decision-making role. Honestly, I would not want to be. This is why I could not be a politician either. In addition, I sort of understand where you're coming from on aggression and I understand what GoonSquad is coming from as well.

Thinking critically and scientifically will get you to a certain truth within the given parameters of thinking critically, scientifically and and the available empirical data. This is true and I do not disagree with you on this. This is where my lateral thinking and philosophical based thinking comes into play. I will use critical thinking terms right now with you and define them and they are necessary and sufficient condition.

Necessary means that one must have A in order to have B.
Sufficient means that if one has A then one is guaranteed to have B.

Here are some examples. In order for your car to start it is necessary to have gas. Gas is insufficient for your car to start. You have to have a functioning alternator. You have to have a battery that has enough of a charge. None of these separately are sufficient but they are necessary.

I ask what is considered the right decision? What is the essence of being right? Does critical thinking, scientific thinking and pure logical thinking always lead to a good outcome not just for your company but for humanity as a whole? For humanity, is critical thinking, scientific thinking necessary for one to live the good, virtuous and noble life. Yes, these things are very necessary and vital. I don't disagree and I admit I do have major issues with using convergent thinking to make effective decisions in the concrete world. I don't deny this and I do admit I do need help in this area. I do try to look up critical thinking resources online and they do help a bit.

Even though these things are vital and necessary they're not sufficient for humanity as a whole to live with to obtain virtue, love, sound mental health and physical health, etc. Is empiricism sufficient enough? Based upon human history like the Nazi experiments it is necessary but insufficient.

You see coercion as immoral and a vice. Honestly, I don't like to be forced into things either when I do try to look at it from your point of view. It would seem to me that based upon human history forming a government and having a civilization and society does involve some coercion unless I am misunderstanding what coercion means. Would you explain what it means and would you explain to me how a society would work without it. To me, the only way it would work is if people did what was morally right and people don't always do this. This is throughout human history.

You state you have military research that proves what you state is true. If you have this research, I would love to read it. Would you be willing to provide me the research or tell me where I could find it. If there is a way to create a better society and if non-coercion can work I'm all for it. It seems so counter-intuitive. I do admit without having knowledge of the fact that planets revolve around their highest center of gravity which in this case is the sun I would've thought that the sun seems to rise and fall. Looking at it would seem intuitive to me but I will admit intuition isn't always sound. This case does prove why empiricism is vital. Maybe, you're onto something that could be groundbreaking for humanity as a whole that people through history never thought of. I am open and I'm game to being proven wrong on the coercion piece of it. My way of thinking leads me to considering your possibility? Will you please go further into your thinking on this? You have piqued my interest. I would definitely appreciate it.

Just to make sure we're on the same page, what do you mean by a duty?

What do you mean by a positive duty?

Are there such thing as negative duties?

Are there such thing as duties that are neither positive or negative?

How do you classify what is what? What are considered positive duties? What are considered negative duties? When it comes to classifying can one use the inclusive or does the exclusive or apply only? What is the logical mechanism that you is?

Why don't you consider any prudential act as a duty? What is the rationale for this?

If we can determine better truths to things I am all for it. If we can find better ways to govern and have a civilization then I am all for it.

When did this become a philosophy class?

I thought we were talking about capitalism.

The way you treat your fellow human being is something some one decides themselves.
What does this almost abstract talk of philosophy have to do with anything related to the OP?

Global Capitalism is writing of the human race, or is it not?

Wouldn't you give economic stats and examples to debate this fact?
I don't understand how any of the way cube boy's brain works has to do with it.
Not saying it is stupid, but that isn't relevant to the OP.