Pick One - A or B

[IndiReloaded]

As for the question, I don't see why government isn't promoting both A & B. Its not like they are mutually exclusive.

[Sanctuary]

Geezus I don't want to get drawn into a debate again.

@ communism

It fails cuz it's based on the notion that somehow everyone can be altruistic. That's a fairly far-fetched ideal. Sorry, but for the most part my own needs come before yours. Socialism however is different and shouldn't be linked with the failure that is communism.

@capitalism

Capitalism is not a train wreck waiting to happen. Capitalism by it's very nature is about change for the better, and sometimes you need a trainwreck to make that change. To say capitalism is a disaster in the making is like saying evolution is bad because natural selection eliminates certain species. Capitalism is dynamic and creates progress but by no means is it comfortable when change happens.

@ MVP and altruism

I believe no one can be purely altruist. You say that there's loads of people that devote their time to teaching instead of using their abilities to make money. I would say that's because those people derive more utility from teaching than receiving money - teaching rewards you with many intangible forms of compensation (i.e. it's more relaxing, you get the satisfaction of teaching, appreciation from your students, perhaps it's a more sociable field). But just because someone chooses money over other things doesn't make them any more or less altruistic. They just have different wants.

But going back to the poll, the WSJ is a fairly conservative newspaper in my opinion and the wording in this poll is biased as hell; it's like they're screaming at you to pick B.

Anyway, both A and B can coexist but they're somewhat mutually exclusive in the way that you will have to give up one to some extent if you pursue the other. It's how we should balance it that's the real question.

[IndiReloaded]

Sure Sanctuary, they use words like "narrowing, gap, spreading, making sure" which are juxtaposed with supposedly positive concepts. This creates turmoil in the reader due to receiving a mixed message. Many people dislike being made to think in this way. Its a common tactic in writing to manipulate a reader.

B is much more consistent, so I wouldn't be surprised if more people liked it more.

Which is why most of us here wouldn't choose one over the other, but actually evaluated each statement for its own merit.

[Sanctuary]

You know what I mean - you can have both but if you pursue one you will have to sacrifice the other in some way. Which side you lean towards more is the question.

[Lipp]

Economic rationalism licks concrete.

[IndiReloaded]

Economic rationalism?? LOL. What a label-focussed, superficial society we are.

[Lipp]

Economic rationalism?? LOL. What a label-focussed, superficial society we are.

Chucking "-ism" here and there makes it look so much more intellectual!

[IndiReloaded]

Rational economics? That's a pleonasm. Should be, anyway.

[MVPlaya]

There are many educated people who get decent-paying jobs who use their education to teach. Professors make very good money by most standards.

Guess I wonder what you mean by 'high paying'. There is nothing wrong with very skilled people being paid well.

The point is that the theory of self-interest is that people will always seek maximum gain for themselves. Plenty of people with graduate degrees are severely underpaid relative to their maximum earning potential. Its why colleges will track the amount of income people can expect to receive with their Bachelors, but they won't do it for people with Masters and Ph.D's since a lot of them go into teaching or service programs, which significantly reduces their income, thus making it hard to track what university's graduate degrees have the highest market value.

I believe no one can be purely altruist. You say that there's loads of people that devote their time to teaching instead of using their abilities to make money. I would say that's because those people derive more utility from teaching than receiving money - teaching rewards you with many intangible forms of compensation (i.e. it's more relaxing, you get the satisfaction of teaching, appreciation from your students, perhaps it's a more sociable field). But just because someone chooses money over other things doesn't make them any more or less altruistic. They just have different wants.

I'm not saying purely altruistic, I'm just saying if you map out a range of actions between purely selfish and purely altruistic, you will find many people who are on the altruistic side of the spectrum. To generalize humanity as naturally all being selfish is untrue but often repeated. Many people are not naturally selfish and much of human growth has been dependent on our cooperation as well as our competition.

As for your argument on utility, you are just defining selfish as too broad now. If your argument is that someone doing a lower paid job derives more utility from volunteerism or work helping communities than they would from private sector work, then everything, by your definition, is selfish. The term then becomes meaningless. The argument people make in this context on "humanity's natural instincts" is that without interference everyone just does whats best for themselves and thats not always the case, people will often do what is best for those near them, around them, or people they otherwise care about out of a desire to help others. Whether fulfilling that desire gains that person some emotional utility is not the issue.

But going back to the poll, the WSJ is a fairly conservative newspaper in my opinion and the wording in this poll is biased as hell; it's like they're screaming at you to pick B.

Anyway, both A and B can coexist but they're somewhat mutually exclusive in the way that you will have to give up one to some extent if you pursue the other. It's how we should balance it that's the real question.

Yeah the question is obviously already leaning a certain way. However, my problem with the question is how its conceptually phrased:

Rather than asking you what you want to see in society, its asking what method you want to use.

That is a fundamentally flawed approach, as a doctor, you wouldn't pick a treatment because you like it more, you choose whats best based on the individual circumstances. Its the same with economics, sometimes markets will work better with government interference, sometimes they will work better with deregulation, what people should focus on isn't what method they prefer for political reasons, but what outcome they prefer. Would you rather a company had $1.3B in profits but its employees are paid $4/hr and local businesses suffer due to lack of demand, or that the companies profits are reduced to $700M but its employees get fair wages, giving a boost to the local economy as well as increasing living standards.

Thats why its important to analyze the question from its effects rather than its methods. And in effects I prefer an increase in standard of living alongside economic growth, as opposed to preferring any one method for reaching economic goals, since different problems require different solutions.

[DoesntMatter]

Big doors turn on small hinges

[Sanctuary]

I'm not saying purely altruistic, I'm just saying if you map out a range of actions between purely selfish and purely altruistic, you will find many people who are on the altruistic side of the spectrum. To generalize humanity as naturally all being selfish is untrue but often repeated. Many people are not naturally selfish and much of human growth has been dependent on our cooperation as well as our competition.

As for your argument on utility, you are just defining selfish as too broad now. If your argument is that someone doing a lower paid job derives more utility from volunteerism or work helping communities than they would from private sector work, then everything, by your definition, is selfish. The term then becomes meaningless. The argument people make in this context on "humanity's natural instincts" is that without interference everyone just does whats best for themselves and thats not always the case, people will often do what is best for those near them, around them, or people they otherwise care about out of a desire to help others. Whether fulfilling that desire gains that person some emotional utility is not the issue.

I don't think we really have a disagreement here. I do think all people are selfish and the term is meaningless. But to label people who chase after money with the derogatory term "selfish" as opposed to people who spend their time teaching or volunteering is misguided since both people are simply doing what makes them happy.

Yea there certainly is an 'altruistic' trait amongst humans and other social animals. But that desire to help others probably has evolutionary roots that can explain why helping others would benefit us; I'm saying what appears to be altruism probably stemmed from selfishness. Though I haven't studied the biological sciences so I wouldn't know.

Yeah the question is obviously already leaning a certain way. However, my problem with the question is how its conceptually phrased:

Rather than asking you what you want to see in society, its asking what method you want to use.

That is a fundamentally flawed approach, as a doctor, you wouldn't pick a treatment because you like it more, you choose whats best based on the individual circumstances. Its the same with economics, sometimes markets will work better with government interference, sometimes they will work better with deregulation, what people should focus on isn't what method they prefer for political reasons, but what outcome they prefer.

Thats why its important to analyze the question from its effects rather than its methods. And in effects I prefer an increase in standard of living alongside economic growth, as opposed to preferring any one method for reaching economic goals, since different problems require different solutions.

I'm as big of a fan of analyzing decisions by effects as you are. But you can't deny that there is at least some tradeoff between economic growth and unequal wealth distribution in certain government policies. Namely taxes, social safety nets, and healthcare.

Would you rather a company had $1.3B in profits but its employees are paid $4/hr and local businesses suffer due to lack of demand, or that the companies profits are reduced to $700M but its employees get fair wages, giving a boost to the local economy as well as increasing living standards.

The key words here are local businesses. My answer would depend on where the rest of the money was going and for what use. But from what I understand, an increase in wages usually results in inflation or worker layoffs since firms that employ minimum wage workers are usually operating on a thin profit margin anyway.

But in this hypothetical however, that doesn't seem to be the case. So I guess if the money disappeared into a sinkhole, the 2nd option is much more favorable.

For some reason, the question reminds me of protectionism.

Big doors turn on small hinges

But it takes a carpenter to build the door.

[LatinoItaliano]

Dumb, communist "American" Democrats picked A.

Smart people who love freedom, not government tyranny, picked B.

If these socialist/communist people care so much about the poor to where they'll vote in government which will force everyone to give to the poor, then where are all these "compassionate" people (yeah, right...) when it comes to PRIVATELY giving a lot of THEIR personal wealth to the poor... all on their own?

No where to be found! Because if just 50 million of these socialist/communist Democrats gave a decent amount out of their own pockets to the poor, there'd be no need for government forcing taxpayers to fork it over. They know it, but are too scared to admit this... or too stupid and brainwashed (by their communist professors in college).

[LatinoItaliano]

And by the way, America and every other 1st world nation today has all this modern technology solely BECAUSE of capitalism... which created wealth for the masses. So stop saying capitalism is the cause of the recent downfall in the economy... when it was really government intervention (by communist Democrats in Congress) that screwed things up, especially in the housing market in America, which was the very foundation of this mess.

[MVPlaya]

Latino, you can save everyone time and write: "hi, I'm a clueless idiot, and I am now going to make a series of unrelated and fallacious 'arguments' that prove nothing except my own inability to distinguish between the various types of capitalism and totalitarian communism."

Nice to meet you.

[Gigabitch]

^^^ I lurv him.