/me looks around. /me is confused. Where are all the spherical cows that should be floating in vacuum?
discrepancies
The point isn’t to talk about fairness (or lack of it). The point is what do you need to do to get the results you want. And the notion that if you reward something you get more of it applies to real-life humans perfectly well.
The issue isn’t whether you achieve a perfect balance—it’s all about where do you need to push to get movement in the desired direction.
and yet (4) someone considers that it would be better for the amounts to be different
Sure, but I don’t see how it’s different from that someone considering that it would be better if he had a pony.
Again, I make no claims about the fairness of outcomes, all I’m pointing out is that the easiest way to get more of something is to pay (not necessarily in money) more for it.
Note that “market” is a synonym for “voluntary exchange of value”. For example, if you want to you can always pay more than the minimum price the seller will accept—no market nanny will come to scold and punish you. In a similar way, “non-market mechanisms” generally imply that the “voluntary” characteristic gets dropped and we get some coercion involved.
the notion that if you reward something you get more of it applies to real-life humans perfectly well
Oh yes, indeed it does. But the notion that that’s all that determines what people do doesn’t apply so well. Your comment three upthread from this one seems to take it for granted that what “emotional labour” gets done, and how it’s rewarded, are completely determined by market mechanisms: people will do more if it’s rewarded more, and reward it more if it’s scarcer, and that’s all there is to be said about it. I suggest that that assumption is not obviously correct.
I don’t see how it’s different from that someone considering that it would be better if he had a pony.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with considering that it would be better if one had a pony, or with saying so. Of course it’s then reasonable to ask how they propose to get one.
“non-market mechanisms” generally imply that the “voluntary” characteristic gets dropped and we get some coercion involved.
Coercion is one kind of non-market mechanism. (And sometimes a very reasonable one. We use it to restrict the supply of murder, for instance; and to collect taxes, which for all the bad press they get in certain quarters I consider an important and valuable mechanism.) There are others. For instance, giving things away. (In some cases the things were first obtained by coercion, but by no means always.) For another instance, appeals to ethics. (Of course appealing to ethics is no guarantee that what you’re trying to make people do is actually a good idea.) For another instance, attempting to modify people’s preferences (which in some cases—“try it, you’ll like it”—may be done for their sake and with effects that benefit them; sometimes, not so much.)
Coercion is one kind of non-market mechanism … There are others
Yes. A lot of communities, from small (e.g. families) to large (e.g. feudal empires) use non-market mechanisms. However here we are talking about a voluntary association of quite diverse people where no one has much in the way of coercive powers.
Wouldn’t it make things easier if rationalists liked virtue ethics more than consequentialism? :-)
An interesting rhetorical tactic. I suggest you’re being simplistic, and you respond not by showing that you weren’t being, nor by admitting that you were being, but by … well, I’m not sure, actually. I suppose you’re making fun of the idea that anyone might think your earlier comments were simplistic. That’s certainly easier than showing that they weren’t or that they were right to be, and easier on the ego than admitting they were.
Are you familiar with Popehat?
Yup. And with the pony trope more generally, which I think Ken got from someone at Crooked Timber, who of course got it from Calvin and Hobbes. But laughing at something is not actually the same thing as demonstrating that it deserves only laughing at.
where no one has much in the way of coercive powers
Gosh, if only there were non-market mechanisms other than coercion. … I’m getting a funny sense of deja vu here; how about you?
I may be misremembering. I thought that was where I first saw the C&H pony cartoon being used in the way we’re talking about, but I could very well be wrong—or of course I could be right about that but wrong to think that was its first influential emergence. Here is a 2004 example, not from CT itself, but from one of its leading contributors.
/me looks around. /me is confused. Where are all the spherical cows that should be floating in vacuum?
The point isn’t to talk about fairness (or lack of it). The point is what do you need to do to get the results you want. And the notion that if you reward something you get more of it applies to real-life humans perfectly well.
The issue isn’t whether you achieve a perfect balance—it’s all about where do you need to push to get movement in the desired direction.
Sure, but I don’t see how it’s different from that someone considering that it would be better if he had a pony.
Again, I make no claims about the fairness of outcomes, all I’m pointing out is that the easiest way to get more of something is to pay (not necessarily in money) more for it.
Note that “market” is a synonym for “voluntary exchange of value”. For example, if you want to you can always pay more than the minimum price the seller will accept—no market nanny will come to scold and punish you. In a similar way, “non-market mechanisms” generally imply that the “voluntary” characteristic gets dropped and we get some coercion involved.
Oh yes, indeed it does. But the notion that that’s all that determines what people do doesn’t apply so well. Your comment three upthread from this one seems to take it for granted that what “emotional labour” gets done, and how it’s rewarded, are completely determined by market mechanisms: people will do more if it’s rewarded more, and reward it more if it’s scarcer, and that’s all there is to be said about it. I suggest that that assumption is not obviously correct.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with considering that it would be better if one had a pony, or with saying so. Of course it’s then reasonable to ask how they propose to get one.
Coercion is one kind of non-market mechanism. (And sometimes a very reasonable one. We use it to restrict the supply of murder, for instance; and to collect taxes, which for all the bad press they get in certain quarters I consider an important and valuable mechanism.) There are others. For instance, giving things away. (In some cases the things were first obtained by coercion, but by no means always.) For another instance, appeals to ethics. (Of course appealing to ethics is no guarantee that what you’re trying to make people do is actually a good idea.) For another instance, attempting to modify people’s preferences (which in some cases—“try it, you’ll like it”—may be done for their sake and with effects that benefit them; sometimes, not so much.)
A funny notion. Did you bring it up to compensate for the lack of spherical cows?
Oh, yes, in vacuum. These cows should definitely be in vacuum.
Are you familiar with Popehat? :-D
Yes. A lot of communities, from small (e.g. families) to large (e.g. feudal empires) use non-market mechanisms. However here we are talking about a voluntary association of quite diverse people where no one has much in the way of coercive powers.
Wouldn’t it make things easier if rationalists liked virtue ethics more than consequentialism? :-)
An interesting rhetorical tactic. I suggest you’re being simplistic, and you respond not by showing that you weren’t being, nor by admitting that you were being, but by … well, I’m not sure, actually. I suppose you’re making fun of the idea that anyone might think your earlier comments were simplistic. That’s certainly easier than showing that they weren’t or that they were right to be, and easier on the ego than admitting they were.
Yup. And with the pony trope more generally, which I think Ken got from someone at Crooked Timber, who of course got it from Calvin and Hobbes. But laughing at something is not actually the same thing as demonstrating that it deserves only laughing at.
Gosh, if only there were non-market mechanisms other than coercion. … I’m getting a funny sense of deja vu here; how about you?
Mea culpa, I do that :-)
You do realize this is casual discussion on the ’net, not an academic text intended to be used as a reference with all the Is dotted and Ts crossed?
Did he? I don’t read Crooked Timber regularly, but I don’t remember them being excited about ponies.
Oh, I just see a mulberry bush :-P
I may be misremembering. I thought that was where I first saw the C&H pony cartoon being used in the way we’re talking about, but I could very well be wrong—or of course I could be right about that but wrong to think that was its first influential emergence. Here is a 2004 example, not from CT itself, but from one of its leading contributors.