Are humans rational? (3 Viewers)

[KFunk]

Governments can therefore only make decisions on the incomplete information that they have. While the decision may be rational in that context in the larger societal context it may be completely irrational because of that missing information.

But rationality is about how information is used, not just how much information is possessed. I don't quite understand how you can boil this down to the amount of information possessed? Especially when the manner of possession is so wildly different in each case (i.e. largely implicitly in the case of the market).

The issue with market intervention is defining just what a market failure is. The term tends to be used very subjectively to define any market outcome which is contrary to the beliefs of the observer in question.

Is a minimum wage an appropriate intervention to prevent the market from failing to pay a 'fair wage'? Are debt-bubbles, capital flights, excess capacity, etc etc market failures or self-correction?

This is much like your comment on 'bad decisions' in which you left our the issue of the corresponding definition of 'good decisions'.

Certainly interventionists have the problem of defining what a market failure is, but similarly free-marketeers face the same problem with respect to optimality and non-failure (if they are to adequately defend their 'best of all possible worlds'-style analysis).

Also, I think that mainstream economics often makes the mistake of turning moral and political questions into technical debates. Take, for example, the debate you bring up regarding the minimum/fair wage. Technical facts are important, i.e. how will the market function in different institutional settings?, but we must also not forget that issues of fairness, standard of living and distribution of wealth also have a vital political dimension. I tend to feel that 'moral failings' in the market system warrant consideration, though in a different way, to mere technical failures.

 

[ad infinitum]

Also, I think that mainstream economics often makes the mistake of turning moral and political questions into technical debates. Take, for example, the debate you bring up regarding the minimum/fair wage. Technical facts are important, i.e. how will the market function in different institutional settings?, but we must also not forget that issues of fairness, standard of living and distribution of wealth also have a vital political dimension. I tend to feel that 'moral failings' in the market system warrant consideration, though in a different way, to mere technical failures.

wow what a stoned comment. What on earth are you on about? It is the equivalent of saying 'Mainstream Biology is turning moral and political questions into technical debates' in respects to stem cell research. Please refrain from making such idiotic statements.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

But rationality is about how information is used, not just how much information is possessed. I don't quite understand how you can boil this down to the amount of information possessed? Especially when the manner of possession is so wildly different in each case (i.e. largely implicitly in the case of the market).




This is much like your comment on 'bad decisions' in which you left our the issue of the corresponding definition of 'good decisions'.

Certainly interventionists have the problem of defining what a market failure is, but similarly free-marketeers face the same problem with respect to optimality and non-failure (if they are to adequately defend their 'best of all possible worlds'-style analysis).

Also, I think that mainstream economics often makes the mistake of turning moral and political questions into technical debates. Take, for example, the debate you bring up regarding the minimum/fair wage. Technical facts are important, i.e. how will the market function in different institutional settings?, but we must also not forget that issues of fairness, standard of living and distribution of wealth also have a vital political dimension. I tend to feel that 'moral failings' in the market system warrant consideration, though in a different way, to mere technical failures.

what utter babble..
how do you measure these 'moral' outcomes?
*Hint* you cant because it's not an objective concept..........


really mate, good on you for taking some shitty philosophy subjects, but press the mute button before you turn on the white-noise machine next time, k?

 

[KFunk]

KFunk, I did a blog post that's relevant here: Middle of the Road Policy

Cheers for the link volition. However, I disagree with the main line of the argument that you present.

"Either the market (via consumer preferences) determines how much of what is produced and how, and for what purpose, or the government does."

You use a slippery-slope style argument to show that this dichotomy holds since any intervention will lead to full intervention.

But what of the fact that historically this has not at all been the case? Some areas of the market experience a high level of intervention whilst others remain relatively unfettered. The balance of intervention - notably in areas such as education, health, welfare, agriculture, banking, etc, vary from state to state. Surely the 'Austrian' logic you have put forth suggests that we would have to be in full blown socialism by now. Also, in the milk example, couldn't the government simply subsidise the farmers who incurred losses due to the price fixing of milk rather than by fixing the prices of further goods? (regardless of the effects this might have on pricing/competition/distribution)

 

[Jack Burton]

if a guy said i want to rape you and he gives you a choice whether or not he does it... youre gunna choose the rational choice (no)

 

[volition]

You use a slippery-slope style argument to show that this dichotomy holds since any intervention will lead to full intervention.

1. I understand that the slippery-slope argument as it is typically used is a fallacy, however I think in this case it is not a slippery-slope argument because the causation holds true all the way through. I argue that increased government control over time is a necessary consequence of the 'third way' belief.

2. Even without the section you call a slippery-slope argument, there is still the idea that the control is indivisible - either a business is privately owned and operated, or it is government regulated and legislated. The aims and methods of the two are irreconcilable.

Surely the 'Austrian' logic you have put forth suggests that we would have to be in full blown socialism by now.

I'm not arguing that it should have put us in full blown socialism by now, I'm arguing that it starts a trend towards socialism. We are moving that way, but we aren't there yet.

I think there is a big problem in the way public opinion and debate is misguided with this idea that just because something has been privatised, it is now under the control of the free market. This is wrong because typically when the government privatises stuff, it also regulates it and dictates how aspects of it run. Considering this, I think you will find that there has been a steady overall shift towards more and more government control, even though there are some things that may go the other way, such as floating the dollar. Even with floating the dollar, there are still the problems of having fiat currency and fractional reserve banking, and they have been around for ages.

Just some quick examples that I found:
Policy without parliament: The growth of regulation in Australia - (from 2007) "This year, there will have been more legislation and regulation imposed in Australia than any other year in history."

Public servants threaten recovery - "Victoria led the way with a 37 per cent increase in the total number of public servants. NSW, South Australia and Tasmania each recorded growth of about 25 per cent or more. But frontline services such as health, education and policing have not benefited from the boost in numbers." - The government incentive to waste money rears its head yet again. Name a private business that can fail and then expect more money?

Also, in the milk example, couldn't the government simply subsidise the farmers who incurred losses due to the price fixing of milk rather than by fixing the prices of further goods? (regardless of the effects this might have on pricing/competition/distribution)

The government cannot make something from nothing, this subsidy can only happen if the government takes from some and gives to others. This necessitates more government action which has the same end result = it pushes us closer to the planned economy.

 

[moll.]

OMG!
This poll finishes exactly 32 minutes before I turn 20!
I have no idea why that made me so happy.

 

[KFunk]

wow what a stoned comment. What on earth are you on about? It is the equivalent of saying 'Mainstream Biology is turning moral and political questions into technical debates' in respects to stem cell research. Please refrain from making such idiotic statements.

On occasion mainstream biology does do this. In fact, it is a common occurence in most sciences which have a strong link with issues of moral significance.

As a student of medicine I can vouch that in a number of situations moral decisions are approached in an overly technical vein (after all, this is what many scientists do best?). For example, issues of autonomy in cases of declining mental function, cessation of life support, the structure of health systems, and yes, stem cells. Checklists and measurement of variables can certainly be useful (as a supplement) but I see the situation as dangerous if they entirely displace moral reasoning.

what utter babble..
the do you measure these 'moral' outcomes?
*Hint* you cant because it's not an objective concept..........


really mate, good on you for taking some shitty philosophy subjects, but press the mute button before you turn on the white-noise machine next time, k?

You define them politically, silly. I'm a moral nihilist. The problem isn't one of measurement, it is definition - but again, this can be done through a political procedure. Of course I don't think the principles so derived are objectively valid, but that doesn't mean that we cannot benefit from the use of such community/political standards.

Here is a quick update for you:
- Human rights
- Millenium Development Goals (even if weakly pursued, the fact that they were ratified by 192 countries is politically significant)
- Or even SF-36 and QALY (for further technical tools). Note also that qualitative analysis can be highly effective (e.g. does the country torture and kill political prisoners - Yes/No?)

---

Please think before you post. kthx.

 

[KFunk]

@ Volition

I didn't mean to say that the argument was fallacious because it was a slippery slope argument - just the the points needed for the argument to hold (i.e. to slide towards full socialism) seemed incorrect to me.

I am aware that privitisation and general '(neo)liberalisation' within the Australian economy has been accompanied by a growth in government and regulation, beyond that which one might expect in relation to population growth. However, mere consideration of (1) size of government and (2) 'amount' of regulation can be a fairly crude way of looking at the picture. In my view it is important to look at what form the regulation takes and where it is enacted (e.g. in which sectors/industries). Without breaking up and analysing such data there could be hidden decline in certain forms of regulation despite an increase in others. While I conceed that there has never been a free market of the kind you probably desire, I nonetheless cannot see how the historical facts support your claim of a progression towards full socialism. In particular, the problem warrants serious consideration of the political power, and power in general, of large firms whose agenda may be better served by neoliberal policy making. Which such countervalent forces at work I fail to see how the shift towards socialist government can as direct and inexorable as you suggest.

On subsidies: certainly they must be obtained from somewhere (i.e. taxation), but I'm not sure that they lead to a regress in the way that you require. Firstly, your pricing argument required that you price fix one item in order to price fix another, to fix another, to fix another... etc. Does any comparable process accompany a subsidy? Do note that there will be political limits to taxation in terms of accetability by the citizenry (that is, assuming a liberal democratic state not prone to beating the citizens into submission - i.e. a state in which democratic choice is respected rather than violently coerced).

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I nonetheless cannot see how the historical facts support your claim of a progression towards full socialism.

Well there is no one correct way to measure the size of government, but surely one of the best ways is to look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In developed countries it has consistently increased over the past century.

In the United States it has gone from 7% in 1903 to to 45% in 2009. US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP in United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local

That's a pretty staggering increase and if you look at the table and graph, the long term trend is for it to steadily increase. It happens so slowly people barely notice it. New generations born into big government who are educated by the government controlled system come to accept it simply as the way things are.

@ Do note that there will be political limits to taxation in terms of accetability by the citizenry (that is, assuming a liberal democratic state not prone to beating the citizens into submission - i.e. a state in which democratic choice is respected rather than violently coerced).

The point is that a liberal democratic state becomes more susceptible to a shift towards totalitarianism because of this very expansion of government power. Look at the increased police powers that have been enacted, especially since 9/11. In most countries other than the US, the population is already almost completely disarmed. Because of the period of relative prosperity and stability the developed world has enjoyed since 1945 people grossly underestimate how susceptible a complacent, disarmed population is to totalitarianism, naively believing that pieces of paper like the constitution and men dressed up in wigs will protect them. History has shown us that it doesn't take many men with guns to oppress, enslave and slaughter millions of disarmed people.

 

[ad infinitum]

On occasion mainstream biology does do this. In fact, it is a common occurence in most sciences which have a strong link with issues of moral significance.

As a student of medicine I can vouch that in a number of situations moral decisions are approached in an overly technical vein (after all, this is what many scientists do best?). For example, issues of autonomy in cases of declining mental function, cessation of life support, the structure of health systems, and yes, stem cells. Checklists and measurement of variables can certainly be useful (as a supplement) but I see the situation as dangerous if they entirely displace moral reasoning.

Heh.....didn't realize how thick you where. You think 'mainstream biology' (I presume you you think all the biologists in the world meet weekly somewhere in a dark alley and discuss their agenda) is turning moral questions INTO technical questions. IT IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, Biologists work on technical questions first THEN moral questions may arise which are then discussed by non biologists (e.g politicians). Please, I know this 'thinking' thing comes slow to you but there is no reason to constantly make idiotic statements when you have been told by your intellectual superiors (i.e me) to cease your ramblings. You're a 'moral nihilist', clap clap, what an embarresing,idiotic and wicked thing to proclaim. Fail Philosophy student. Fail.

 

[KFunk]

Well there is no one correct way to measure the size of government, but surely one of the best ways is to look at government spending as a percentage of GDP. In developed countries it has consistently increased over the past century.

In the United States it has gone from 7% in 1903 to to 45% in 2009. US Government Spending As Percent Of GDP in United States 1903-2010 - Federal State Local

That's a pretty staggering increase and if you look at the table and graph, the long term trend is for it to steadily increase. It happens so slowly people barely notice it. New generations born into big government who are educated by the government controlled system come to accept it simply as the way things are.

Neat graph (and a cool site in general) - it shows the rise of the welfare state very clearly. In the breakdown the growth is largely accounted for by an increase in expenditure on education, health and welfare. The latter two may be straight forwardly explained in the USA through consideration of demographic changes - and ageing population - and outdated policies which ensure generous pensions for certain groups (e.g. servicemen), not to mention the increasing costs of certain medical technologies (nuclear medicine, recombinant antibodies, imaging technology). As to education I would similarly suggest that a larger proportion of students are completing secondary and tertiary education. While one cannot deny a change in the balance of provision of services (public/private), I would intuitively suspect that much of that data is driven by social/demographic changes over time, especially in terms of life expectancy. I would therefore be tempted to label demographic changes and the like as being more important causal factors than the kind of inherent socialist tendency described by volition.

Out of curiosity, do you have any similar data comparing multiple countries (e.g. OECD?). No doubt they would demonstrate a similar welfare trend.

The point is that a liberal democratic state becomes more susceptible to a shift towards totalitarianism because of this very expansion of government power. Look at the increased police powers that have been enacted, especially since 9/11. In most countries other than the US, the population is already almost completely disarmed. Because of the period of relative prosperity and stability the developed world has enjoyed since 1945 people grossly underestimate how susceptible a complacent, disarmed population is to totalitarianism, naively believing that pieces of paper like the constitution and men dressed up in wigs will protect them. History has shown us that it doesn't take many men with guns to oppress, enslave and slaughter millions of disarmed people.

I agree that we must be wary of totalitarianism, since history shows us as much. However, I find pure Washington Consensus-style policy similarly distasteful in its utter neglect of the destitute (and on a side note: while I'm sure it enrages the free-marketeers on BoS, I do subscribe to a variant of the view which would paint such policy as being largely successful because it reinforces the power and interests of the rich and mighty). I would rather wear the increased risk of totalitarian government than shift towards an absent government.

 

[KFunk]

Ad infinitum, you clearly missed the point, and intentionally so. You can take your rubbish attempt at trolling elsewhere.

 

[ad infinitum]

Ad infinitum, you clearly missed the point, and intentionally so. You can take your rubbish attempt at trolling elsewhere.

.....yea I raped your silly point, so you call me a troll? Why don't you go pay some more money for some hack philosophy teacher to tell you what to think.

 

[Silver Persian]

Heh.....didn't realize how thick you where. You think 'mainstream biology' (I presume you you think all the biologists in the world meet weekly somewhere in a dark alley and discuss their agenda) is turning moral questions INTO technical questions. IT IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE, Biologists work on technical questions first THEN moral questions may arise which are then discussed by non biologists (e.g politicians). Please, I know this 'thinking' thing comes slow to you but there is no reason to constantly make idiotic statements when you have been told by your intellectual superiors (i.e me) to cease your ramblings. You're a 'moral nihilist', clap clap, what an embarresing,idiotic and wicked thing to proclaim. Fail Philosophy student. Fail.

First rule of good debate = don't be an arrogant and condescending toe rag. It's very easy to knock down strawmen. KFunk did not say that biologists never engage in moral reasoning - he said that he has witnessed instances in which biologists had attempted to address ethical issues through technical expertise.

 

[ComingUpForAir]

You define them politically, silly. I'm a moral nihilist. The problem isn't one of measurement, it is definition - but again, this can be done through a political procedure. Of course I don't think the principles so derived are objectively valid, but that doesn't mean that we cannot benefit from the use of such community/political standards.

Here is a quick update for you:
- Human rights
- Millenium Development Goals (even if weakly pursued, the fact that they were ratified by 192 countries is politically significant)
- Or even SF-36 and QALY (for further technical tools). Note also that qualitative analysis can be highly effective (e.g. does the country torture and kill political prisoners - Yes/No?)

..more muddled nothingless statments spoken directly out of your ass..
You said the market has 'moral failings', and that these are different 'technical failings' (as if there's a difference), I inquired into the nature of these so-called 'moral failings' and you reply with a contrived mush of words,..''defined politically, political procedure, valid, benifit''
You seriously have no idea how to contruct meaningful sentences let alone arguments....and the links? huh? what on earth was that about?
no good.

 

[KFunk]

First rule of good debate = don't be an arrogant and condescending toe rag.

Meh, two more trolls just added to the ignore list. Time is too valuable to waste on this kind of tripe.

 

[ad infinitum]

Meh, two more trolls just added to the ignore list. Time is too valuable to waste on this kind of tripe.

You got destroyed in argument. I guess this is your way of conceding that. Quite pathetic, but I guess you lack the intellectual stamina to hold a debate. I guess that's why your studying philosophy at University (LOL).

 

[SashatheMan]

I believe that the majority of humans show a lot of irrational behaivour. I think some compartmentalise their irrationality to only small specific things in their lives, but in general majority of people have a very irrational view of the world.

My primary basis to say that is the vast number of people who hold to beliefs in supernatural events adn beings without properly assessing their beliefs. This includes stuff like astrology, ghosts, lucky charms, mystisism etc.
People eat that stuff up without any rational basis that is backed up my facts.

With most people the old saying is true.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"

 

[yoddle]

You have left out a key element in the debate over rationality and the operation of the market - this issue of knowledge / epistemic status (which ought to be separated out from rationality, per se). In particular, free/efficient market economics makes fairly strong assumptions about the knowledge of economic agents, in the face of which I would posit uncertainty of varying degree.

In the last couple decades, especially given the level of sophistication of the brain sciences, it has become increasingly clear that rationality is at best imperfect. Our decision processes are riddled with emotions, heuristics and biases, socially cultivated delusions and so forth.

Yes. I agree on both counts.

And what the question really needs to be in relation to the free market is not whether the choice between, for example, different dishwashers is rational, but whether manufacturing dishwashers despite the negative ecological effects of making dishwashers is rational at all. And you can say "but that's short term convenience over long-term concern blah blah i'm a wank", but people don't think about that at all when they're buying a dishwasher, because we're not conditioned to consider the Earth as primary. This links back to knowledge impacting on 'rational' decision making, like KFunk sayd.