What is Wealth?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What is Wealth?

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

roomforthetuna posted:

Steam engines don't do anything with heat gradients. They use chemical energy to produce a pressure difference, via heat, but it's not to do with a heat gradient. It is possible to extract energy from a temperature difference, but steam engines aren't doing that. (At least, not a temperature difference across space - a temperature difference across time is what provokes a pressure change.)

Which is somewhat beside the point - the log is pretty drat local, it's an item inside the user's micro-economy, so heating a thing by burning a log is, you've basically admitted, increasing entropy in the log-owner's micro-economy. The idea that it can generate entropy-defined wealth because you decreased some even more local entropy by the power of a shifting goalpost is silly again, the same way that work-on-a-coconut was silly and led to a similar shifting goalpost as you were reluctant to release the idea.

Could you explain why you brought entropy into the topic in the first place? It seems like it was a completely unnecessary appendage that you've now grown strangely attached to.

Once you get to that extreme of a definition, it's probably a thing that no longer exists, or at least is not readily identifiable.

But yes, we are in disagreement on what a parasite is. I would consider landlords, politicians and Bezoses to be parasites, because they extract wealth disproportionate to their own efforts from other people's efforts. I consider all of them to be probably detrimental to an economy - though not detrimental to a GDP, the current socially accepted measure of an economy's success as decided by politicians and Bezoses.

For the sake of getting to your point, I'm willing to adopt "uberparasite" as a term to refer to a complete wealth-destroying parasite, and then agree with your premise that uberparasites are unjustifiable.

That sounds like the most interesting part, the "why are you saying these things" part; it seems strange to withhold it. I suppose the idea is to get people to first accept your axioms before trying to argue for your conclusions.

If the entropy thing is a necessary axiom this is going to be problematic, but if that was just a passing train of thought that you could drop, I think I've sufficiently accepted the rest of your axioms that we could move on to what's wrong with the conclusions.

Sigh... steam engines absolutely do rely on temperature gradients.

How to steam engine:
1. Get liquid state water (that's one temperature)
2. Put water into strong container
3. Burn fuel near container (that's another temperature)
4. Water becomes steam, expands, creates pressure
5. Steam pressure moves mechanism to extract work out of steam

None of that is ever going to happen if you put water that's the same temperature as the burning fuel into the container (e.g. STEAM), because no pressure will be created. So yes, there's a temperature difference in the system.

And yes, this 100% crucial for my argument.

And holy poo poo, if you're going to make me change my terms so that you don't have to change yours - OK, fine. "Uberparasites" it is. And sure, maybe uberparasites don't exist. As I already mentioned, they're an outer limit, an extreme. I don't take them as the beginning of irrational behavior - they're the end of it. We can get more specific about what's rational economic behavior later on - though as you've said, economies are pretty drat complex and when knowledge of the system is imperfect it becomes difficult to see what's acceptable. From what I gather that's pretty much the gist of laissez-faire economic policy; since those who could control the economy (e.g. the govt) have imperfect knowledge of their own economy, the best they can do is let nature have its way and try their best not to trip it up on its merry way.

An aside to try to establish my socialist bona fides, since that seems to be the preoccupation of so many of you: right now my position is that capitalism is the natural economic state. People who want to argue for pure capitalism are making the same error as people who want to try to argue for moral systems built on observations of nature - if you take nature as your model of what is good, then you can't reasonably conclude there are any rules to make, least of all those which try to enforce some supposed natural state, because the systems which have evolved in human societies are themselves extensions of that natural system; we are natural creatures. Anyone who wants any rules at all - especially rules that say "there are no rules," is making a tacit admission that in fact they do not think the natural world is a good model to follow, eroding the very basis for their own arguments. If you let things run their natural course, you will get tyrants, monopolies, poverty, etc. To talk about economic policy at all, we have to first admit that we would rather not model our economies after the natural world; we want to construct an artificial system that will distribute wealth more effectively/ethically than that. That is to say, we are all arguing for controlled economies to different extents; ideally we'd be able to completely control an economy so that it never did what we didn't want it to do and we got exactly what we expected out of it. The differences between our positions are only a matter of morals and knowledge. My personal moral system is fundamentally based on roman catholicism, among a few other things, and when catholics are being real with themselves, they have pretty socialist instincts about stuff like wealth redistribution. My instincts therefore trend toward socialism as it is understood today in Europe and the Americas all the time.

OK, to return to some of your questions, some of these I thought I'd already answered:

quote:

Could you explain why you brought entropy into the topic in the first place?

"When I talk about entropy I'm trying to place human work into the broader context of energy exchanges in physical processes in general"

quote:

the "why are you saying these things" part; it seems strange to withhold it

I didn't withhold it; it was the two paragraphs directly following that part you read:

quote:

That is, when you have economies of different efficiencies competing against each other, you have a sort of destructive race which might occur: if you can produce a lot of wealth now at the cost of sustainability, then you can potentially overpower economies that might generate more wealth in the long run. That's the nightmare of the distributist like me; how to create a sustainable economy when it's just not competitive with less sustainable economies which might outcompete it and, through various mechanisms, lead to its destruction? More broadly nightmarish for all of us: how do you get economies to slow down and prevent climate change when they may all view such a move as deadly for their continued survival?

There are also other avenues to go down with this discussion, like whether the only resource that really matters is humans (and we ought to be sucking up immigrants and promoting reproduction like crazy, or whether there's something more sane to do), which the theory touches on, but we can probably only go down one of those paths at a time in conversation...

quote:

we could move on to what's wrong with the conclusions.

lol, carry on then ^_^

# ? Feb 19, 2019 16:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 00:53

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

MixMastaTJ posted:

The entropy of any isolated system can only ever increase. If a system's entropy decreases the entropy outside the system must increase by an equal or greater amount. So where do you wanna call the edge of our system? If it's a room, where an individual burns logs for warmth, the individual has reduced the possible configurations of molecules within the room by converting the bonds keeping the logs solid into heat energy. This INCREASES entropy.

If we, for some reason, consider the logs "outside" the system, then yes, burning them adds energy into the room and increases potential configurations of energy/particle distribution in the room, reducing entropy. Entropy outside the room (where the logs are burned) is increased by at least that amount.

By your definition the only way for the world economy to increase wealth is harvesting resources from space through agriculture, solar technology or some kind of hypothetical space mining.

You have it exactly right. If you thought I was saying something different from what you just said above, then I just hadn't made myself clear.

And as far as wealth creation goes - don't forget: I'm saying work creates use-values, so you must increase entropy to get wealth. Even bringing stuff in from space will only ever decrease entropy in the local system as we define it. Universally, entropy still increases.

To take this to a ludicrous place, if the reachable universe is finite (that is to say, we never develop FTL), then there's a real sense in which there's a maximum cap on wealth. If you had magical nanobots that could convert all reachable matter (including, potentially, some live humans) into wealth, including themselves after the fact, you'd have maximized wealth.

That's really a fairly trivial thing to say. I'm trying to say it so I can elevate the importance of sustainability in my model of economics, trying to come to grips with the problem our world is facing right now - how to beat unsustainable economies that outproduce more sustainable economies in the short term, sort of like how fast-growing poplar trees can shade out slow-growing cedars, die out, and leave a barren ground instead of a forest twenty years on. I view that as a fundamental, critical problem we either solve or go extinct as a civilization trying.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 16:34

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Eschat0n posted:

This forum is extremely paranoid.

This is actually extremely true

# ? Feb 19, 2019 16:49

roomforthetuna: Mar 22, 2005; I don't need to know anything about virii! My CUSTOM PROGRAM keeps me protected! It's not like they'll try to come in through the Internet or something!

Eschat0n posted:

Sigh... steam engines absolutely do rely on temperature gradients.

Sigh no, you could make a steam engine using microwaves, in which there'd be no different temperature outside the pressure chamber (or even the opposite different temperature once the water starts to heat up, and it wouldn't make your turbine turn backwards). You could put some radioactive material in the tank. It's not about the temperature gradient between locations, it's about the temperature change over time. It just happens that the easiest way to provoke that change is temperature being transferred from a nearby location.

quote:

And holy poo poo, if you're going to make me change my terms so that you don't have to change yours - OK, fine.

Holy poo poo it's not "my terms" it's just normal loving language. You're using words that have a meaning people will understand, and then when I point out how your statement is incorrect you redefine the words to mean some other meaning that isn't what people will understand so that your statement can remain correct. The least you can do is gracefully accept using a different word to distinguish the post-hoc specialization of the word, don't act like it's me that's being unreasonable!

quote:

"When I talk about entropy I'm trying to place human work into the broader context of energy exchanges in physical processes in general"

Perhaps I should have asked the "why" on this one then, which is the question I'm trying to get at. What point are you trying to make using entropy? So far it hasn't seemed necessary or relevant to any other point.

quote:

I didn't withhold it; it was the two paragraphs directly following that part you read:

Oh, reading it again I see why I (and at least one other person) was confused - "I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty yet" sounded like you weren't going to talk about the thing, but you were saying you don't want to go into detail about thing A (opinions about economic ethics) because thing B is more interesting, and then followed with thing B. Sorry about that.

So yeah, I agreed with the two subsequent paragraphs, but I don't see how they follow from any of the set-up, or why any of the set-up was necessary. It certainly didn't seem to have much to do with entropy.
("Agreed with" is perhaps a bit strange since it was mostly questions, but y'know, agreed with the relevance of the questions.)

# ? Feb 19, 2019 17:10

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

I'm reminded of Eprisa

# ? Feb 19, 2019 17:11

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

The entropy argument is extremely dumb. Technically, entropy increases when you consider a closed system, that's trivial. In reality, the Sun does as astonishing amount of work on the Earth with no input from the Earth at all.

If your consider the Earth anything but an open system receiving ~1000 W/m2 at the surface, for billions of years without fail, you're being insanely pedantic. 99.999% of the biological and chemical energy utilized on the whole planet is a product of capturing solar energy (mostly by plants).

So this thread is really some "Grand unified theory" for basing economics on thermodynamics? Barf.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 17:39

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Can you skip to the bit where you explain the point rather than talking about coconuts and entropy?

# ? Feb 19, 2019 17:47

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

OwlFancier posted:

Can you skip to the bit where you explain the point rather than talking about coconuts and entropy?

As soon as you actually read what's been written you'll find all your wishes have been granted, darling.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 17:49

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

You're not jordan peterson and you aren't gonna sell a book from rambling, condense.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 17:52

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

roomforthetuna posted:

Sigh no, you could make a steam engine using microwaves, in which there'd be no different temperature outside the pressure chamber (or even the opposite different temperature once the water starts to heat up, and it wouldn't make your turbine turn backwards). You could put some radioactive material in the tank. It's not about the temperature gradient between locations, it's about the temperature change over time. It just happens that the easiest way to provoke that change is temperature being transferred from a nearby location.

Holy poo poo it's not "my terms" it's just normal loving language. You're using words that have a meaning people will understand, and then when I point out how your statement is incorrect you redefine the words to mean some other meaning that isn't what people will understand so that your statement can remain correct. The least you can do is gracefully accept using a different word to distinguish the post-hoc specialization of the word, don't act like it's me that's being unreasonable!

Perhaps I should have asked the "why" on this one then, which is the question I'm trying to get at. What point are you trying to make using entropy? So far it hasn't seemed necessary or relevant to any other point.

Oh, reading it again I see why I (and at least one other person) was confused - "I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty yet" sounded like you weren't going to talk about the thing, but you were saying you don't want to go into detail about thing A (opinions about economic ethics) because thing B is more interesting, and then followed with thing B. Sorry about that.

So yeah, I agreed with the two subsequent paragraphs, but I don't see how they follow from any of the set-up, or why any of the set-up was necessary. It certainly didn't seem to have much to do with entropy.
("Agreed with" is perhaps a bit strange since it was mostly questions, but y'know, agreed with the relevance of the questions.)

I'm extremely tempted to just set up an entire separate debate thread for you and me to discuss how wrong you are about steam engines, but instead I'll just post the link to Wikipedia about what steam engines are and let you argue with that definition if you like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_engine. Protip: read the first drat sentence: "A steam engine is a heat engine that performs mechanical work using steam as its working fluid."

No, your linguistic pedantry is just a refusal to accept what I say without loving with it in some sense so that you can come off as having "corrected" me. I suspect that most other people would have no problem with my usage of the term parasite in the sense that I used it. Coming up with novel terms to describe particular senses of more common terms is useful when you're going to be referring to it at length later on and don't want to keep having to make clear the sense in which you're using the term, but unless that's going to happen it is a superfluous effort that actually will confuse people by requiring them to remember a bunch of new poo poo that will end up having little bearing on later discussion. I'm aggravated because I think you know that and are simply trying to flex on me so that it keeps looking like I'm admitting I'm wrong when in fact you're just loving around with the language we're using while agreeing with me in actual principle. We can move past this any time; I'm fine with uberparasite. We'll see how much it subsequently comes up.

quote:

So far it hasn't seemed necessary or relevant to any other point.

It grounds economics in the context of the physical world and makes it clear what wealth creation really means outside of economics as well as inside of it. It makes it impossible to ignore the significance of sustainability and scale. It establishes an outer boundary of what is possible and centers the focus of discussion about economics on efficiency and human labor. It is a frame for the picture I'm trying to paint, in short.

As for the rest, sorry for the confusion. They are only questions because I didn't get into detail about them. Actually more interested in hearing other people talk about what they think would be answers to those questions (either in my conception or some other better understanding of economics).

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:09

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Infinite Karma posted:

The entropy argument is extremely dumb. Technically, entropy increases when you consider a closed system, that's trivial. In reality, the Sun does as astonishing amount of work on the Earth with no input from the Earth at all.

If your consider the Earth anything but an open system receiving ~1000 W/m2 at the surface, for billions of years without fail, you're being insanely pedantic. 99.999% of the biological and chemical energy utilized on the whole planet is a product of capturing solar energy (mostly by plants).

So this thread is really some "Grand unified theory" for basing economics on thermodynamics? Barf.

Dumb is not only wrong, but sometimes just simple. It is totally dumb; I've said as much (used the word "trivial" but sure, we can be less nice). But do you disagree?

I think we can use the dumb statement to make less dumb statements further on.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:10

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

OwlFancier posted:

You're not jordan peterson and you aren't gonna sell a book from rambling, condense.

lol, it's pretty funny that you reference Peterson. I like the guy at first glance; I like some of what he says. But when it comes to economics and most anything outside linguistics and psychology he's out of his depth. If there's a debate thread about him I'd like to find it and see what this crowd has said about him.

But back to your point - no, I'm not going to do that. If the debate isn't interesting enough to go back and read what's been written, you're welcome to not participate, or wait until I feel like updating the OP.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:13

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Eschat0n posted:

lol, it's pretty funny that you reference Peterson. I like the guy at first glance; I like some of what he says.

I'd never have guessed.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:14

Infinite Karma: Oct 23, 2004; Good as dead

Eschat0n posted:

Dumb is not only wrong, but sometimes just simple. It is totally dumb; I've said as much (used the word "trivial" but sure, we can be less nice). But do you disagree?

I think we can use the dumb statement to make less dumb statements further on.

Yes, I disagree. It predicts nothing and describes nothing. On top of being wrong.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:18

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Infinite Karma posted:

Yes, I disagree. It predicts nothing and describes nothing. On top of being wrong.

If it predicts nothing and describes nothing, then it's "not even wrong." So pick one. And if you'd like to pick "wrong" then please explain why because to me it seems correct.

If, on the other hand, I'm "not even wrong," I'd appreciate - if you care to - show me why the following doesn't make sense or doesn't follow:

1. I start with Marx's definition of use-values (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3881137&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post492614364).

2. I relate how the work in his definition is (of course) a physical process which causes increases in entropy.

3. I explain how economies relate to wealth creation (they increase its efficiency without ever being perfectly efficient).

4. I connect 2 and 3 to argue economics is about efficiency of wealth creation, which can be loosely measured with entropy.

5. I say that if economics is about efficiency in terms of minimizing entropy while maximizing wealth, then it makes sense to ask questions like whether it is even possible to succeed at this when inefficient economies might - in the short term - choke out economies which are capable of generating greater wealth over time - and we can discuss whether that's something which is bad, doesn't matter, good, etc., but in terms of civilizational survival in the long term seems like it can only be a bad thing to me, assuming we want civilization to continue in the long term.

So there, I guess I kind of did what OwlFancier asked for anyway. gently caress, I really wanted to stiff that rear end.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:42

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Eschat0n posted:

2. I relate how the work in his definition is (of course) a physical process which causes increases in entropy.

How? I don't think entropy was even understood at the time of Marx?

Granted I haven't read all 1000 pages of kapital but I never encountered this definition before. Where are you pulling the idea that Marxist definition of work is "a physical process which causes increases in entropy."?

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:45

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Typo posted:

How? I don't think entropy was even understood at the time of Marx?

Granted I haven't read all 1000 pages of kapital but I never encountered this definition before. Where are you pulling the idea that Marxist definition of work is "a physical process which causes increases in entropy."?

Yes, this part does not come from Marx. I mean, I actually think entropy as a concept in physics was under development during Marx's lifetime, but you're right that he didn't deal with it. The connection is that he says use-values are created by human labor/work. And it is trivial to say human labor is a physical process. It is further trivial to point out that physical processes cause increases in entropy.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:48

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

So loving what?

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:51

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Orange Devil posted:

So loving what?

loving read.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:54

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Explain better.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:55

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Eschat0n posted:

Yes, this part does not come from Marx. I mean, I actually think entropy as a concept in physics was under development during Marx's lifetime, but you're right that he didn't deal with it. The connection is that he says use-values are created by human labor/work. And it is trivial to say human labor is a physical process. It is further trivial to point out that physical processes cause increases in entropy.

So if I run around aimlessly is that work and therefore wealth?

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:58

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Physicists were not expecting the unified theory to be a: unholy and b: between physics and economics but this lad's giving it a go

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:58

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Orange Devil posted:

Explain better.

I did the best I could; I don't know what else to add unless you ask questions. Broad questions like "so what?" don't give me a clue as to where exactly you're failing to follow the conversation. If you want a more detailed justification than I just tried to give a few posts prior to your own, then you'll have to be more detailed with your aggression.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 18:59

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Typo posted:

So if I run around aimlessly is that work and therefore wealth?

No, and it's been dealt with already in detail.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:00

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Broadly the thrust of the response is "what and for what purpose are you trying to introduce the concept of entropic coconuts to economics?"

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:00

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

OwlFancier posted:

Physicists were not expecting the unified theory to be a: unholy and b: between physics and economics but this lad's giving it a go

I honestly don't get how it's unholy.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:01

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Eschat0n posted:

I honestly don't get how it's unholy.

Well, economics is a social science that deals with how people behave sort of on aggregate like and physics is mostly concerned with immutable physical laws like entropy which don't occur because of any cognitive process they just are.

Physical entropy has nothing to do with economics.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:02

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Eschat0n posted:

An aside to try to establish my socialist bona fides, since that seems to be the preoccupation of so many of you: right now my position is that capitalism is the natural economic state.

Why is this when capitalism have not being the existing economic system for the vast majority human societies for the vast majority of human history?

Both Marxist and mainstream historians considers the beginning of capitalism to be sometime around early modern Europe: commonly sited in modern day low counties. Though some sees elements of it going as far back as the Roman Empire and it can be argued that Song China resembled a capitalist economy at certain points.

Global capitalism, in the sense that vast majority of the world's population lives in what could be defined as capitalist states, have arguably only really existed for a couple of decades since the end of the cold war. The timeline for the existence of capitalism is a blip in human history, why do you claim that it is the "natural economic state"?

Typo fucked around with this message at 19:10 on Feb 19, 2019

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:03

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Also

if you're trying to argue that "natural econmics" and "natural laws" are in any way comparable and that's why you're banging on about entropy then I dunno where to even start.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:04

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Eschat0n posted:

I did the best I could; I don't know what else to add unless you ask questions. Broad questions like "so what?" don't give me a clue as to where exactly you're failing to follow the conversation. If you want a more detailed justification than I just tried to give a few posts prior to your own, then you'll have to be more detailed with your aggression.

Alright, let's say I accept points 1 through 4 of the below as true (I don't):

Eschat0n posted:

1. I start with Marx's definition of use-values (https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3881137&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=3#post492614364).

2. I relate how the work in his definition is (of course) a physical process which causes increases in entropy.

3. I explain how economies relate to wealth creation (they increase its efficiency without ever being perfectly efficient).

4. I connect 2 and 3 to argue economics is about efficiency of wealth creation, which can be loosely measured with entropy.

5. I say that if economics is about efficiency in terms of minimizing entropy while maximizing wealth, then it makes sense to ask questions like whether it is even possible to succeed at this when inefficient economies might - in the short term - choke out economies which are capable of generating greater wealth over time - and we can discuss whether that's something which is bad, doesn't matter, good, etc., but in terms of civilizational survival in the long term seems like it can only be a bad thing to me, assuming we want civilization to continue in the long term.

Points 1 through 4 are you train of logic, 5 is supposed to be a conclusion. Ok then. Your conclusion is that economics is about efficiency, which is stupid because efficiency on its own means nothing. You can only be more or less efficient at achieving some sort of specific goal. So you appear to define that goal as "minimizing entropy while maximizing wealth" which leads us back to your thread title question of "what is wealth?" or at least what do you mean by wealth here? Not something that's become clear to me so far. Is what you're actually saying here that we should gently caress up our environment as little as possible while we raise our standard of living because otherwise we risk our civilization collapsing? Because if that's what you're saying, fine, and also congratulations for the most long-winded way of reaching that conclusion ever. Also, while it's cool that you "say" economics is about this, let me make a counterpoint by saying that actually economics is about the distribution of scarce resources. Lastly in what sense are you using "economies" in the above anyway? Like the economies of multiple countries, or different economic systems or what?

Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Feb 19, 2019

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:11

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

also w.r.t my last post, before you start posting another 5 paragraphs on why you think capitalism is increasing entropy or selling coconuts on mars w/e, I'm just going with this definition of capitalism:

quote:

a socioeconomic system with the following six characteristics:

1. A legal system supporting widespread individual rights and liberties to own, buy, and sell private property

2. Widespread commodity exchange and markets involving money

3. Widespread private ownership of the means of production by firms producing goods or services for sale in the pursuit of profit

4. Much of the production organized separately and apart from the home and family

5. Widespread wage labor and employment contracts

6. A developed financial system with banking institutions, the widespread use of credit with property as collateral, and the selling of debt. (20)

I don't think the above is particularly controversial and I hope we can both agree to use this as a framework to discuss

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:12

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Typo posted:

Why is this when capitalism have not being the existing economic system for the vast majority of human history?

Both Marxist and mainstream historians considers the beginning of capitalism to be sometime around early modern Europe, though some sees elements of it going as far back as the Roman Empire. But the timeline for the existence of capitalism is a blip in human history, why do you claim that it is the "natural economic state"?

Yes, I'm diverging from that understanding of history. Maybe this is because I've been arguing with ancaps over on 4chan for too long and it's messed with my head, but I'll hear people tell me all the time "capitalism is what happens when you get the government out of the market." They position capitalist markets as what would naturally obtain if only we'd get the gently caress out of the way. Well that's fine, I say to myself, but of course humans naturally create rules for markets; if you start with capitalism and "don't get in the way" you're still going to end up with something other than your ancap paradise. "Well not if there are rules in place to prevent that kind of abuse" they say, and it's like OK, but you had just done with saying rules are the devil, get the rules out of the market!

If they've perverted my brain about what the natural state of human economies is, then there's probably a better term for it you can tell me. I'm just saying that whatever it is, it's not going to lead to laissez-faire market economies naturally; there's no inherent justification in that system.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:20

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Eschat0n posted:

If they've perverted my brain about what the natural state of human economies is, then there's probably a better term for it you can tell me. I'm just saying that whatever it is, it's not going to lead to laissez-faire market economies naturally; there's no inherent justification in that system.

There isn't a natural state of human economies, unless you consider hunter-gathers bartering with each other or the division of labor between male and female in a tribal context the "natural state", because that was what human economies were like the vast majority of human existence before the state existed

quote:

"capitalism is what happens when you get the government out of the market."

when people say "capitalism" what they really mean are "markets" period, even then you have to wonder how markets are suppose to function in absence of governments enforcing property rights and contracts and arbitrating business disputes at a minimum

Typo fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Feb 19, 2019

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:26

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

What the gently caress does natural mean? It's a loving nonsense word unless you're talking about trees.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:27

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

OwlFancier posted:

What the gently caress does natural mean? It's a loving nonsense word unless you're talking about trees.

it it's a morally loaded term to justify _________: the economic system I prefer

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:28

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

Well yeah obviously but I'm just trying to point out that it makes absolutely no sense.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:34

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

Orange Devil posted:

Alright, let's say I accept points 1 through 4 of the below as true (I don't):

Points 1 through 4 are you train of logic, 5 is supposed to be a conclusion. Ok then. Your conclusion is that economics is about efficiency, which is stupid because efficiency on its own means nothing. You can only be more or less efficient at achieving some sort of specific goal. So you appear to define that goal as "minimizing entropy while maximizing wealth" which leads us back to your thread title question of "what is wealth?" or at least what do you mean by wealth here? Not something that's become clear to me so far. Is what you're actually saying here that we should gently caress up our environment as little as possible while we raise our standard of living because otherwise we risk our civilization collapsing? Because if that's what you're saying, fine, and also congratulations for the most long-winded way of reaching that conclusion ever. Also, while it's cool that you "say" economics is about this, let me make a counterpoint by saying that actually economics is about the distribution of scarce resources. Lastly in what sense are you using "economies" in the above anyway? Like the economies of multiple countries, or different economic systems or what?

OK, cool. Once we get your negative modifiers out of there:

You understand I'm saying efficiency in this context is minimizing entropy while maximizing wealth, which is Marxist use-values. Go read what I wrote on that or just go straight to the source, or preferably both.

What I'm saying is "while it might seem desirable to gently caress up our environment as little as possible while we raise our standard of living, it's not clear such an economic system is competitive. Hopefully someone can show me how it could be because right now I'm kind of freaking out."

When you say economics is about the distribution of scarce resources I agree; that's what it does. But if you're going to talk about how best to do that (which is part of the study of economics), then you're talking about efficiency - much work can't become a use-value until you make it accessible to the person who can use it, and how well the economy does that without creating entropy as a result of the work it takes to perform that economy is a measure of its efficient distribution of scarce resources.

Different countries and entities practice different economies, yes. Of course they are tightly interdependent, but that's the "level of control" we as humans have over the global economy, really - a national level of control. If you want, you might force your nation to commit to a very sustainable economy that will benefit everyone in the long run - but what if another nation commits to a very unsustainable economy that reaps more dividends in the short run, allowing them to replace you in the global economy or even outright conquer you? You end up losing the ability to control as much of the global economy as you used to, and they end up controlling more of it. This does not look good for the sustainable economy. Hopefully there's a way to be sustainable and competitive at a global level.

At other, smaller levels, of course it's possible to be sustainable and occupy a niche that no one else cares to compete with you in. No one cares to interact with the tribes of the Sentinel islands; they run their own economy which ends up being pretty sustainable by dint of accident; they and the wealth they posses have little to offer to the global economy, so there's precious little interaction (contrast with the forced US entry into Japanese economics in the 1800s; they were separate, but the global economy wanted what they had so that state of affairs ended). Unfortunately, the Sentinelese have little hope of solving issues like climate change.

Eschat0n fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Feb 19, 2019

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:39

Eschat0n: Jan 16, 2019

OwlFancier posted:

What the gently caress does natural mean? It's a loving nonsense word unless you're talking about trees.

It is; it's bullshit, especially when talking about human systems. People want to act like we somehow aren't part of the natural order, but beyond religious conceptions of "chain of being" and poo poo like that which will have absolutely 0 play in a heterogeneous society, there's no way they can possibly make sense of that claim.

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:43

Typo: Aug 19, 2009; Chernigov Military Aviation Lyceum
The Fighting Slowpokes

Eschat0n posted:

Different countries and entities practice different economies, yes. Of course they are tightly interdependent, but that's the "level of control" we as humans have over the global economy, really - a national level of control. If you want, you might force your nation to commit to a very sustainable economy that will benefit everyone in the long run - but what if another nation commits to a very unsustainable economy that reaps more dividends in the short run, allowing them to replace you in the global economy or even outright conquer you? You end up losing the ability to control as much of the global economy as you used to, and they end up controlling more of it. This does not look good for the sustainable economy. Hopefully there's a way to be sustainable and competitive at a global level.

Those are very well understood problems in economics, namely externalities and the collective actions problem. Carbon emissions from USA and China sinking some pacific islands under the sea is probably one of the best example of externalities there is. And on the political science side, this goes into super-national institutions and whether nation-states as organizing units are obsolete in the 21st century. And this is why things like the Kyoto treaty (whether you think it's enough or not) exist. I'm not sure why we need to redefine work as entropy or whatever to understand this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem

# ? Feb 19, 2019 19:44

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 1, 2024 00:53

Orange Devil: Oct 1, 2010; Wullie's reign cannae smother the flames o' equality!

Eschat0n posted:

When you say economics is about the distribution of scarce resources I agree; that's what it does. But if you're going to talk about how best to do that (which is part of the study of economics), then you're talking about efficiency - much work can't become a use-value until you make it accessible to the person who can use it, and how well the economy does that without creating entropy as a result of the work it takes to perform that economy is a measure of its efficient distribution of scarce resources.

This is the distinction between positive and normative economics. If you want to talk about the best way to distribute scarce resources though you aren't talking about efficiency so much as you are talking about distributive justice and you've entered philosophy. I recommend Rawls.

quote:

What I'm saying is "while it might seem desirable to gently caress up our environment as little as possible while we raise our standard of living, it's not clear such an economic system is competitive. Hopefully someone can show me how it could be because right now I'm kind of freaking out."

Now this is something I can actually understand and relate to, thanks for explaining better. I think you go wrong when you expect an economic system that doesn't result in this planet becoming inhospitable to human life to also be "competitive" in the capitalist sense. That's trying to beat capitalism at its own game when actually the conclusion should be that a) the game is rigged and b) it will kill us all so really we shouldn't play that dumb game. The real competition then is for the political support of the population for the abolishment of capitalism and replacement with something else (it's socialism, socialism is what we should do). One of the competitive advantages of this argument is that capitalism will loving kill us all. Now that doesn't guarantee that everyone will see reason and act before it's too late so you are right to freak out somewhat, but it does tell us that trying to frame any of this in purely economic terms is a losing proposition. In this sense, back in Marx' day when people like him were called political economists the language was more honest on this. Nowadays we have throngs of neo-liberals running around pretending they don't follow an ideology and are just implementing the most efficient (there's that dumb word again) solutions to the problems we face. Solutions which are helpfully made up by "independent", and presumably equally ideology-free, economists, who are totally scientists you guys, never mind them not behaving like scientists or following any of the principles of science. The answer to our economics problems is political, and always has been.

quote:

Different countries and entities practice different economies, yes. Of course they are tightly interdependent, but that's the "level of control" we as humans have over the global economy, really - a national level of control. If you want, you might force your nation to commit to a very sustainable economy that will benefit everyone in the long run - but what if another nation commits to a very unsustainable economy that reaps more dividends in the short run, allowing them to replace you in the global economy or even outright conquer you? You end up losing the ability to control as much of the global economy as you used to, and they end up controlling more of it. This does not look good for the sustainable economy. Hopefully there's a way to be sustainable and competitive at a global level.

At other, smaller levels, of course it's possible to be sustainable and occupy a niche that no one else cares to compete with you in. No one cares to interact with the tribes of the Sentinel islands; they run their own economy which ends up being pretty sustainable by dint of accident; they and the wealth they posses have little to offer to the global economy, so there's precious little interaction (contrast with the forced US entry into Japanese economics in the 1800s; they were separate, but the global economy wanted what they had so that state of affairs ended). Unfortunately, the Sentinelese have little hope of solving issues like climate change.

Again you stick too closely to orthodox economic framing, which is not coincidentally infused with nationalism here. Regular people in the US or Europe are in competition with regular people in China or Russia or wherever only in so far as that they have been set up to be by the capitalist class. The real competition isn't between nations, it's between classes, always has been. But you're right, for a lot of nations, if they try socialism, the US will start loving killing people over it and they probably won't be able to stand up to that. I recommend reading Killing Hope if you want to freak out some more. The solution is revolution inside the US. I don't know how to achieve that goal but I believe the primary obstacle to be that Americans are easily the dumbest motherfuckers on this planet.

Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Feb 19, 2019

# ? Feb 19, 2019 20:21

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > What is Wealth?

«‹›11 »