A couple economic ideas to decrease unemployment

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, so fine, maximize production and maximize profits, and maximize welfare too.

I look forward to taking the CPA exam in 6 years and having a real job anyway,
it just sucks when you're trying to start out and there are no jobs to be had.

Production is essential to wealth, but is not always synonymous. A nutritious, tasty meal for $5 is not really worth less than a bland, unhealthy meal that sells for $20. Part of the 'economic value' of a resource is determined by the psychological delusions of the people creating an economy.

Well, at the moment, the economy is in a recession, so that will be a major problem in any analysis. As for improving that, I still would say that only the tax credit idea is a good one, and is in fact supported by Harvard economist Dani Rodnik.

You mean you prefer the nutritious and tasty meal.

There is no value outside of psychological delusion, and referring to one depends upon some "god mind" or some other metaphysical madness.

Of course there are other types of value than exchange value. The exchange value of a $20 meal is $20, but it can have a variety of other values - in this example, the obvious alternative value is the nutritional value, which is not really correlated with the exchange value. We can calculate such value without need for a 'god mind' or metaphysical madness. If the meal contained endangered species or human flesh, it would have other values (negative) related to the contents, and these are independent of the exchange value and nutritional value. Only the monomaniacal economists try to eliminate all forms of value other than exchange value - the universe cannot be compressed to a single dimension and measured on one axis.

I think the idea of value may be based on the mind, but there are two types of things to be valued: those of vital necessity, such as oxygen and water and basic nutrition, and those of volition which aren't needed in order to live yet are still desirable to have.

A vital need is valued more in a survival situation,
but a want is valued more when needs are met.

Hmm, lovely nomenclature:

Necessitas vitalis: a vital need necessary to live.
Necessitas volitionis: a "need" of the will, not needed to live.

Well, right, but the selection of other values is ultimately arbitrary and subjective, so the issue really comes down to "You mean you prefer the nutritious and tasty meal", as obviously other people come to different conclusions if the other meal sells for $20. They obviously consider it more desirable then the first meal.

So, my point basically stands, and no, I am not reducing all values to the exchange value, for if I were, then I would say that the $20 was more valuable but rather I pointed to your individual preference. I am reducing all values to personal subjective values though, and I don't think you can make an absolute argument against this in a world where people choose to burn themselves to death, at least not without pointing to some metaphysical issue such a teleology or morality.

The value of oxygen and water and basic nutrition is based upon the value to a person's own life, which differs from person to person. Some obviously reject food when it is given to them for the sake of shaming another person, as seen with hunger strikes. Others reject life because they do not see it as worth it, as seen with suicide. And so on and so forth.

In the end, I do not think that one can objectively distinguish between needs and wants if a person can theoretically value something traditionally labeled a "want" higher than a supposed "need".

Being in depression is a horrible thing, and it does temporarily change what a person values, even horrendously so at times, but it is not all the time that this state of mind happens to a person. I have gone through it a few times, especially last time I lost a job in 2007, but it is due to a loss of something that is valuable, either in terms of necessity or desire or love, that such a state of mind happens upon a person. But if the person lives through it, then the normal mode of thought will usually come back.

Technically, one does not have to be depressed to commit suicide given that suicide can be taken as a more honorable way out of a situation(such as seppuku). Not only that, but depression is not just due to loss, but rather has a number of variables, such as genetic predispositions and circumstances, neither technically involve loss(unless you are invoking it in the spiritual sense that depression emerges from sin). In any case, how do we distinguish between the proper state of mind and the improper state of mind? What makes one correct, and the other incorrect without reference to something metaphysical, such as mental purpose?

Without reference to an absolute you can't have a correct or and incorrect, but you can still have a "normal" as a means of statistical average. Most of the people throughout history have wanted possessions, wanted to be loved and to love, and wanted to live. While there may be chemical dispositions towards depression, as I have been diagnosed with bipolar, I had never felt depression until I lost my dad due to cancer. No matter what chemical tendencies or genetic predisposition there may be, it is usually not without a cause that somebody would feel suicidal to the point of taking their own life. But aside from that, it is not the average. Now if you wish to argue that a mental state of desiring to end one's life is the correct state, I cannot agree with you, though without absolutes any mental state could be labeled as "correct". Even so, it is not the normal state of mind for most people today or most people throughout recorded history.

Normalcy is irrelevant as there are a lot of things that are abnormal. AS obsessiveness is abnormal, but that does not make our value preferences irrelevant.

As for the issue of chemical tendencies and genetic predisposition, the issue is that those could potentially act as causative pressures, as they change the nature of te perceived reality.

I am not going to argue anything as correct, but the issue is that my point of subjective basis still stands, as normal is not tied to anything objective without something metaphysical, but rather just to biological and cultural trends.

Normalcy in terms of what most people want is highly important in terms of how things are advertised and sold, for if there weren't commonality among the desires of the populous then there would be no goal for advertising. Though in terms of the metaphysical which seems to be avoided here, some of peoples' desires wouldn't be considered too proper, they still have many in common. This deals mainly with want items though.

Chemical tendencies/genetic predisposition, yes those affect peoples decisions for those who have them. The obsessiveness for people who have AS can sometimes be a problem if they are obsessed on, say, a person who is not interested in them. But aside from problem causes or benefits gained, yes I admit that they are causative pressures that affect one's perspective.

As subjective as things can be, you do list the biological as a causation of normalcy. Such things as the sweetness of sugar and the beauty of women are fairly universal in acceptance. I don't know how women think of themselves, but I cannot see how they can think of men as attractive, but even so more art is made of women than men showing a market tendency/preference.

If we do incorporate the Metaphysical, in terms of what God would want for us, then it would show a lot of things which are in high demand as not being in accordance to His will, but I wasn't trying to bring Him into this one thread anyway.

The thing is that most people, even poor people, want to live. They put up with crappy jobs to get by, and do all they can because they value their life. They don't value the longevity of it, but rather the pleasure of it. People have habits of smoking and drinking and such the rest, and they want it to continue, but not at the sake of giving up their habits. This isn't the whole picture though, but it is far from the whole market wanting to kill themselves. Death by vice is a happenstance and not a goal.

Other people have other wants and so forth, but usually people want to live and be happy.

Utterly irrelevant.

1) If people are all similar, then why is the exchange value for one item $20, and the other $5, when similar beings would value the $5 dollar item over the $20? Either there are dissimilarities between people that you are not taking into account, or your perception of valuation is wrong.

2) What makes usual better than unusual? Why is that metric important AT ALL??? I don't mean just as a matter of social science, I mean as a matter of the philosophy of value? Because the problem still exists, if beings are different, and there is no grounding to say that one difference is better than another, then the issue is subjective, based in the subject examined rather than any characteristic of reality. This still stands whether we have a majority or a minority examined.

3) Some of your examples are somewhat erroneous. Sugar is defined as sweet. We do not know what each person tastes sugar as being, because sweetness is one of the basic flavors. We only know that some people like sugar more than other people do. But the definition of sugar as sweet is basically a definition. It is just a label. And for women, well, one this desire for women does show different traits in different societies to a dramatic extent, and secondly, not all people desire women in the same manner. (Technically, I would bet that the aesthetics of the female body do relate a lot to physical attraction, however, I tend to see the human body and the rest of reality as a bunch of weird things that happened to be thrust together, as there is no real answer as to why this and why not that to a significant extent.)

Fine, here is value from the perspective of a corporation:

1) People tend to buy things.
2) People can only buy things while they are alive.
3) Thus people are more valuable alive than dead.

No, it is not right to say that all other value systems are arbitrary and subjective. Nutritional value has a scientific basis (even if our knowledge is limited, we can make valid distinctions between the nutritional value of a twinkie and a serving of fruit). And the value system that prohibits eating other humans (or former humans) except in the most extreme cases is not so arbitrary: it reflects near universal ethical values that are useful outside of any free-market ideology, along with health values related to not transmitting certain diseases.

Exchange value may reflect other values, but may not - we know that humans are not perfectly informed, rational decision makers. It would be more honest to declare that the exchange value is ultimately arbitrary and subjective, while other value systems are frequently more logical and much better thought out.

I think society should shape both markets and decision-making. Consider soft paternalism: