Evaluating Mistakes

[Xerographica]

Sure. That's an easy one.

Would you agree that the different things that you can do with your resources will provide yourself and others with different amounts of value?

[Plu]

Certainly. But I don't really care about the value it creates for others, though. Unless it's empathic feedback.

[Xerographica]

Certainly.

Those are all the assumptions that the graph is based on.

[Plu]

So then there's no proof that 10,10 is better than 10,0? You have only shown that point 10,10 exists, but nothing here gives any reason why it would be better than literally any other point on the graph. You haven't even shown why the positive side of the graph is better than the negative one, in any direction.

You seem to be running on the hidden assumption that generating value for yourself or others is a positive thing, but you haven't shown it.

[Xerographica]

So then there's no proof that 10,10 is better than 10,0? You have only shown that point 10,10 exists, but nothing here gives any reason why it would be better than literally any other point on the graph. You haven't even shown why the positive side of the graph is better than the negative one, in any direction.

You seem to be running on the hidden assumption that generating value for yourself or others is a positive thing, but you haven't shown it.

One allocation is only "better" than another allocation in the sense that it creates more value.  For example...

I'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? - Michael Moore

Michael Moore allocates his resources in a way that millions value.  How do we know that they value his allocation?  Because they give him their money.  

So if we compare Moore's allocation to my allocation...we can say that his allocation is "better" in the sense that it creates more value than mine does.  His allocation is far closer to 10,10 than mine is.  Obviously I didn't decide that...and neither did Michael Moore.  Consumers decided it.

Let's bring it back to pragmatarianism.  Right now Elizabeth Warren has far more influence over how taxes are spent than I do.  Is it is fair?  Sure, she received far more votes than I did.  In a pragmatarian system, would it be fair if Michael Moore has far more influence over how taxes are spent than I would?  Sure, he's received far more dollar votes than I have.

[Plu]

And now you're back to nonsense. And you were trying so hard. This whole post is full of all sorts of unsupported assertions again.

One allocation is only "better" than another allocation in the sense that it creates more value.

What is 'value', and why does generating more of it result in a 'better' allocation? Why should I care about generating value for myself or others? How do I measure what value is? What reasoning is there to maximize value?

(Hell, I'd accept a way to measure it really. I've yet to hear one that makes sense.)

[Xerographica]

What is 'value'

It's subjective.  Basically it relates to how much benefit somebody derives from something.  

why does generating more of it result in a 'better' allocation?

Society is better off when there's more, rather than less, of the things we value.

Why should I care about generating value for myself or others?

You can do whatever is legal with your resources.  

How do I measure what value is?

Value is most accurately measured by what you're willing to give up.

What reasoning is there to maximize value?

I think most people want to get the most out of life.

[Plu]

It's subjective. Basically it relates to how much benefit somebody derives from something.

So why are you acting like you can plot it on a graph when it's subjective and unmeasurable?

Society is better off when there's more, rather than less, of the things we value.

If it's subjective, "society" cannot have an opinion as it has no way to make subjective judgements. Only members of society can be better off, and because it's subjective there's no way to say which kind of value is "better".

Value is most accurately measured by what you're willing to give up.

But what you're willing to give up also has subjective value, so you're just calculating with two subjective values, which basically gives meaningless (and subjective) answers only. Not things you can plot on a graph.

I think most people want to get the most out of life.

This is kind of admitting that providing for others is not a goal in itself, it's only worth doing it if increases value for yourself. If I can generate more value for myself by reducing the value of other's lives, I'm still meeting this goal.


You seem to be highly confused between a form of economics where you can use math and using entirely subjective terms in all of your calculations. Don't be surprised when the outcome of adding the beauty level of two paintings is a completely arbitrary number.

[Xerographica]

So why are you acting like you can plot it on a graph when it's subjective and unmeasurable?

A cattle rancher allocates his resources to supplying beef.  His allocation provides a finite amount of value for society.  This doesn't mean that beef provides the same exact amount of value for every individual in society.  It just means that we look at how much money the cattle rancher receives to get the best possible approximation of the total amount of value created by his allocation.  

If values were objective...and/or producers were omniscient...then we wouldn't need a market.  There wouldn't be any need for consumers to decide how much they are willing to give up for beef.  It would already be known.

[Plu]

It just means that we look at how much money the cattle rancher receives to get the best possible approximation of the total amount of value created by his allocation.

No, that just gives us the best possible approximation of the total amount of money received for his allocation of resources. Without a proper way to convert between money and value, it's completely meaningless in ways of determining value.

This is still just like saying that a painting's beauty is measured by how many people look at it. It's completely arbitrary without a conversion scale.

[Xerographica]

This is still just like saying that a painting's beauty is measured by how many people look at it. It's completely arbitrary without a conversion scale.

The amount of food that should be supplied is not completely arbitrary.  We know that there's some optimal amount between both extremes of all or none of society's limited resources being used to produce food.  

Using none of society's limited resources to produce food would result in everybody starving to death.  Using all of society's limited resources to produce food would result in shortages of everything else we need to survive.  

The basic idea is that every resource that is used to supply food cannot be used for any other use.  So using more of society's limited resources to produce food...means less of society's limited recourse available to produce other things that society needs to survive.  

How do we determine the optimal amount of society's limited resources that should be used to produce food?  Again, because values are subjective and producers are not omniscient...we need to allow each and every individual to decide for themselves how much of all the other possible products/services they are willing to forgo for food.

But now I'm explaining to you the concept of supply and demand.  Demand is simply people's preferences.  Individuals go to the market, spend their money according to their preferences...and resources are allocated accordingly.

[Plu]

The amount of food that should be supplied is not completely arbitrary.

Obviously not.

We know that there's some optimal amount between both extremes of all or none of society's limited resources being used to produce food.

Do we? I doubt such an optimal amount exists.

The basic idea is that every resource that is used to supply food cannot be used for any other use.

Not true; plenty of the resources used to supply food are recycled to be used for other uses at the same time. (Or rather, resources that are combined with other resources are used for a dual purpose rather than letting their other half go to waste; ie making compost of the non-edible parts of plants) It's not as simple as resource in -> resource out.

How do we determine the optimal amount of society's limited resources that should be used to produce food?

Even if it exists, we don't. Because "society" doesn't have a desire for food, people do. Thousands of other things go into the production of food, most importantly things like distribution, nutritional value, preventing spoils and rotting, etc. Thinking about this in terms of "food producting" is incredibly naive. We produce more than enough food for everyone in the world as is; the problem is moving it to the right place before it spoils.

we need to allow each and every individual to decide for themselves how much of all the other possible products/services they are willing to forgo for food.

This is assuming that either
A) people have resources to forgo for food
or
B) it's perfectly acceptable if people starve to death because they have no money left to spend

Which is again a very subjective situation to be arguing from.

[mykcob4]

:-s

:shock: Exactly, I mean WTF?!

[Xerographica]

:-s

:shock: Exactly, I mean WTF?!

I posted the same thing over at the NationStates forum...Evaluating Mistakes.  What do you think about the quality of the comments over there?  How do they compare to the quality of the comments here?

[Plu]

I posted the same thing over at the NationStates forum...Evaluating Mistakes. What do you think about the quality of the comments over there? How do they compare to the quality of the comments here?

They use more words and seem less critical, overall.