Econ lesson 1 [swearwolf] [Econ] 1.01 WE DO THIS ... & 2 [swearwolf] [Econ] 1.02: Supply vs.... As always PLEASE ASK QUESTIONS BUT Do not play devil's advocate! I need to know specifically what you need expanded on so I can make sure I can explain it in a way that makes sense to you! Do not be afraid to be confused, it's a confusing topic!
Going along with the theme of supply vs. demand, Risk vs. Reward is a big economic basic factor. There's the old claim of adage of "No pain, no gain," and the gambler's creed, "The higher the risk, the higher reward."
Employing these factors uncritically (or without very specific restraints and laws to help govern against them) leads to the highest majority of actual psychopaths and sociopaths able to take utmost advantage of these circumstances.
) are able to seek situations that maximize risk, seeing instead the rewards and benefits, without the drawbacks that would prevent other people from truly pursuing such risky operations. To this degree, this is why in fiction, psychos are often portrayed as
villains; because they do not have the appropriate or at least same mechanisms that prevent other humans from taking actions that could lead to such negative consequences. They set their sights on the prize, and do not worry about the risks.
Individually, this is an important skill in evolution! It's bravery! In a way. And without it, the great apes might not have explored farther and farther, Europeans wouldn't have slept with neanderthals, and Columbus wouldn't have been willing to sail to America.
Sociopaths, likewise, are seen as incapable of empathy, and thus more or less; completely amoral. Rather than being willing to pursue progress for humanity or others' benefits; they are known as the corporate raiders and plunderers, who will cheerfully sabotage entire companies, raid the profits entirely for themselves, and escape with what's become known
We have not, as humanity, yet devised an economic system that mitigates the damages caused by either predators, even accidental ones. Rather, all economic systems: capitalism, cronyism, and Marxist Communism (Delineated from Catholic communism which has specific reasons for foiling such raiding, and I can go deeper into per request) etc. incentivize through
My goal, of course, is to propose a better solution. Which starts with understanding how these incentives work, and then how we, as a society, and even for the individuals, can better put this to use.
6 toes might be very useful in a society where we individually used our toes for communication. But in our current society, it is more likely to detract than add survival or procreation opportunities.
Whether moral compasses are a societal evolution that benefits the species (humanity) as a whole or not; it should be universally agreeable that something that aids both the individual and collective is better than something that aids only one at the expense of the other.
This fundamental principle has been ongoing for millennia; whether the rights of the individual can infringe on society and vice versa -- but rather than sacrificing one or the other, seeking instead to benefit both should be ideal.
Yeah but look at it like the 12 Tasks of Hercules games. He ate more, slept more, was kind of a lazy boss, but when it came down to it, he was the only one who could smash the boulders that others couldn't
For instance: an individual psychopath can look at poisoning Flint, Michigan, as a risk that he benefits from. :| While there are laws designed to prevent this (ideally) aside from taking too long to be much help, they enact the old evolution style which requires that action to be taken first, and punishing psychos is not a detraction which helps prevent.
Rather than saving for situations in the future where this would be useful (see also hoarding!) they are more likely to invest in something "insane" knowing that the benefits if it works would be more valuable to them than worrying about the risks of say, going to jail.
Likewise, there tends to be a purposeful evasion of negative consequences, and brilliants minds are very good at finding loopholes to avoid this. (HERE'S LOOKING AT YOU WALLSTREET!)
But this is actually a skill society needs in order to even progress and get further! People & corporations who take no risks, not only stagnate, but hoard wealth out of fear instead! A psychopath could be an absolute HERO under the right circumstances! (Maui in Moana, for instance) They DO take risks, and sometimes those rewards benefit everyone.
In Marxist communism, the risks are sought to be mitigated, and as such rewards are too! This would prevent corporate psychopathy from taking advantage of the system; but instead, also blocks progress, stunts growth and creativity, and allows sociopaths to take advantage for "the greater good" --> for instance Stalin starving out Eastern Ukraine so as to
Morally, it's about as horrific as you can get. Prioritizing some lives over others, and more or less the ultimate conclusion of "society > individual"
Currently one of the bar none biggest dangers for large corporations is the fear of taking risks. SOMETIMES; it's even ILLEGAL for them to do so! While this is once again; aimed to help protect society from individuals seeking to raid/plunder/take advantage of
A company such as EA Games is infamous for being monstrously consumer-unfriendly but they do not take risks. Their games are not innovative or pushing boundaries. They tend to buy, milk, and squeeze every last dime out of past innovations and only what has been "tried and true"
It is an extreme example of supply economics where they believe "if you build it, they will come." And invest far more in advertising or even what's fondly referred to as "brain-washing" rather than experimenting with new designs or finding out what their customers would like to see more of.
They do not invest in new tech, but instead, in already tried IPs, having bought things like Harry Potter, and then without any concept of what the fans of HP or games wanted in a Harry Potter game; just took their fanbase(s) for granted.
This is something the Democratic party also fails miserably at. Their fears of losing what they already have (via investments) takes the opposite problem of a psychopath who can only see the rewards without the detraction of the risks; and instead focuses exclusively on the danger of the risks.
Doing what hasn't been done before, seeking to explore all venues is crucial for society. Until the 1400s when a Spanish monk taught deaf-mute pupils how to read and write, it was believed that someone unable to speak was literally too intellectually disabled to be able to express or even have thoughts of any kind!
Louis Braille was actually punished in his school for the blind for inventing the dots code based on British night-reading and Morse code; because it was considered too lazy a substitute!
Right now, most of the benefits for taking insane risks are geared only to individuals. This is a big hindrance. It allows for those who would take advantage to do so, and it prevents those who do not generally seek societal benefits (charity organizations for example) to gain as much growth!
Rather than allowing for someone to see the "benefit" of an extra $250,000 from switching water suppliers in Flint, Michigan, (the risk of course, being what happened, and millions having inadequate water) without even having to pay for the risks, or a company like EA too scared to funnel its money from advertising (the "sure thing") to R&D (riskier!)
Rewards have to be tied societally (after all, EA's shareholders are putting up the money! They SHOULD gain the benefits!!) and risks must be minimized and better calculated so that there is more in place to prevent disasters. Decisions that affect society must involve those affected (Eastern Ukrainians not starving themselves out, but instead room for
suggesting growth and opportunity to flip the supply & demand side of the economics; where the demand was "jobs for Russian blooded" and supply was "E. Ukraine farmland" instead seeing the Russians looking for jobs/work/food as opportunity and trying to maximize growth/production and seek farming innovations never tried before.
The first step of course, is inherently understanding that the risk/reward ratio is not itself "evil," and though it can be taken advantage of and cause societal harm -> turning that into societal benefit can and must be done! And it can by step #2, realizing how to link the individual and societal risks & rewards. Allowing individuals to take risks that
If we wish to tie it back to caveman Ugg & food (1 & 2) -> without crazy people consistently trying to figure out how to cook potatoes in the tastiest way imaginable, or try to find out how to cut blowfish so it didn't murder you, or being willing to try tomatoes that everyone presumed were poisonous
ok a million years later, but what I got from this is that taking conscientious risks in large groups as well as amongst individuals is a good thing in general, but we do need to be careful to mitigate potential harm. There needs to be a balance, with the benefit of both the many and the individual taking priority.
but the balance is very much on individualism vs. collectivism. Making collectivism work for the individuals rather than just individuals work for the collective
Take biotech research! It is almost completely publicly funded, despite what pharma companies argue, and it is very much based in and around the idea that funding by the collective is to help the collective
lopsided/corrupted because of patenting and trademark loopholes and Disney's copyright laws extending things past sanity - (thus applying to creative - AND STIFLING IT AS SUCH: also one of the big reasons movies are taking the hit financially that they are!)
TL;DR Fixing that means -- AND AGAIN THIS WILL BE ITS OWN CHAPTER ONTO ITSELF. ^ 1.03 is more to establish what already IS rather than how to fix/where to go with it
The companies didn't support the infrastructure, didn't pay the corresponding taxes (corresponding to "real" costs in risks/benefits ratio) and when they were damaged? Taxpayers paid all of it
A current red herring by some people who either misunderstand or specifically obfuscate is "Well they do pay taxes; because the individuals are paying taxes, so the corporation paying taxes would just be being taxed twice." This is 100% nonsense. Which I explain better in a recent semi-sidetrack [Econ] plurk I pinged you to but ->
If risks are NOT mitigated, people won't take them. PERIOD. This is flat out human nature and evolution. It was necessary for the lines that survived... TO survive.
The reward for the collective of individuals taking risks is where ALL the reward comes from without risks you have total stagnation. It's like how evolution sticks in absurd shit like albinism or melanic or blue eyes etc. etc. to see what works
Those who are both savvy/smart enough to figure it out, + amoral enough not to care about the damage they do others have tweaked it so that they can have the most rewards with the least amount of risks.
The "cure" is basically going to be "daredevils" who want the risks, but having those risks mitigated so that there is incentive to try those things; while the rewards are spread out equally to individual and collective.
without people who do "the insane" humanity would still be in trees as chimpanzees, we evolved walking purely because of our own drive to try something new that was well... crazy. Unthinkable. Walking upright in tall grasses would have been seen as suicide but it paid off and the reward was all of humanity as we now know it
There is no moral society or code of conduct which can argue an individual doing whatever they deem best for them at the cost of greater society is an ethically good thing either.
But this never EVER (and still doesn't so this is my frustration with US Pol party Libertarians) applies directly. BECAUSE of the vastness of numbers, and the inevitable willingness of the few "insane" (or reckless) ones, they are inevitably able to mitigate all damages onto them; INSTEAD onto others.
Again, the solution (or at least my proposal, complete with trying to use my proposal to find even better solutions! ) is another chapter onto itself, because this is an establishment chapter to show how it already is but
The reason we have public funding to find cures for illnesses; Parkinson's, Cancer, Alzheimer's and so forth is because despite the financial costs, society benefits in having loved ones survive at best ->
While this completely negates the risks for working on the diseases (thus funding the long-term process and countering the detriment/risk of "what if we don't find a solution?")
If the "invisible free hand of the market" worked as Libertarians (US Political Party) believe it wouldn't even need public funding, because the desire and benefits would already exist and be enough
These have been easily tweaked by those most willing to take the risks onto themselves, and thus further corrupting/rigging what system previously existed
If you bought shares in Windows/Microsoft in the 80s you were funding its early startup. You took the RISKS onto yourself (ie: the company could have flopped, gone bankrupt, and your investment would give back literally 0 return, or even negative)
-> People "investing" in facebook aren't really 1) taking any risk 2) giving anything back to the company. Instead they were specifically trying to take advantage of hoarding and supply vs. demand to resell stocks for more than what they bought it -> rather than the "purpose" of investments of waiting for it to give out dividends
-> This again is because our population VASTLY EXCEEDS a level at which individuals can't pass the risks off to the collective, and can instead take advantage of being able to hoard the rewards
Fixing that means -- AND AGAIN THIS WILL BE ITS OWN CHAPTER ONTO ITSELF. ^ 1.03 is more to establish what already IS rather than how to fix/where to go with it