Some thoughts on trade in general and world trade in particular.

[Gothmog]

JerichoHill wrote:

Because of the existence of prices, we can make estimates of relative worth to the economy. If a teacher makes 30K and a professional athlete 100K, then it must follow that the economy values the professional athlete 3.3 times as much.

This is typical invisible hand stuff, and I know what you are saying. But my point was that this value is historically and culturally linked, also that regulation plays a part. There is no equivalence across cultures, or often even within countries. These ratios are not universal.

You mention Hollywood. One reason why a masseuse in Hollywood will make more money than say one in Tulsa is because Hollywood has a higher cost of living. In addition, you say that the quality of service is not tangible in the price. This is flatly wrong. If the returns on masseusing are higher in H than T, then naturally (given no barriers) skilled masseusers will enter the H market and leave the T. Those less skilled masseuers will be forced into the secondary market.

When the price mechanism functions, it is indictive of quantity and quality.

Cost of living plays a part, but is driven primarily by the local economy. So because people make a lot of money creating entertainment they are able to spend a lot of money for local services.

But the top price for a masseuse in Hollywood does not track cost of living. Perhaps is does in the 'secondary' market, whatever that is.

I stand by my quality remark too.

Quality will play some small roll, but culture is more important. How does one measure the quality of a pet psychiatrist?

In the case of a masseuse, in Hollywood it might matter a lot if the masseuse is pretty, or the daughter of a producer (movie producer that is), or perhaps a scientologist. It may be different in another market (say Tokyo).

It is not what you do, it is who you know. There are exceptions, but this is a good general rule in most professions where there is no 1:1.

Also, as you note 'given no barriers', well both regulations and cultural differences are barriers (though cultural differences can be an advantage, most hair stylests to the stars have foreign accents for example and most internal decorators to the stars are gay).

There is also risk, if you happen to be a gay internal decorator in Alaska you should probably move to SoCal if you want to make lots of cash. But there is a huge risk there in that the pay is not intrinsically linked to skill. It is more about luck. Most will be forced into the secondary market, or entirely out, regardless of their skill.

Big fish, small pond or big fish, big pond. It does make a difference.

We're not talking about a product that has such a specific quantifiable value here. The invisible hand assumes rational agents, this is not a good assumption about humans.

As per global copyright protection et al, in a perfect system we wouldn't be concerned. In the real world system, the costs of copyright infringement are present in prices.

I'm not talking about enforcement (and certainly not a perfect system). I'm saying, what is the 'real' value of information? How do you measure the value of labor for someone who produces ideas? The whole theory of copyright is there to protect the 'rights' of someone who comes up with an idea. So is this necessary? Is it a place where the invisible hand needs some limits? Even in the case of a copyrighted product, are we saying that the value of labor to produce the copyrighted product is more than the value of labor to knockoff that product?

How about knowledge, should plasma TV producers really pay cash to the estate of those who worked on the theory of air breakdown in the 60's? Or magnetrons? Where does this chain begin and end? Value judgement, we're stuck with them. The invisible hand cannot rule all.

When it comes to wage differentials in the world, we also need to keep in mind the productivity of a laborer. In the classic India example, wages are lower in India, but the India worker is typically an order of magnitude less productive than the American worker. In a perfect economic world, the wage disparity would account for this productivity differential.

Yes productivity, but this doesn't include cultural differences in value. Why do we pay Real Estate agents so much in America? Are they equally valued in other cultures? Think of the caste system and 'untouchables' for an extreem example.

Productivity only means something if we can reliably quantify the value of the product of labor. In most cases we cannot, that's the 1:1.

Also, what the market will bear is not an argument I accept for why union labor is more expensive, or why government workers have better retirement benefits, or...

what's that quote about trade groups and conspiracy ... googles ... ah yes it's adam smith himself.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.



Disclaimer: I am not an economist.


Edit: internal decorator == interior decorator

 

[Gothmog]

betazed, got sidetracked by work after googling the above quote...

It's not just location. It's culture and intrinsic value.

The shoe is 1:1... unless it's Gucci or Armani or whatever.

One of the things about rich people is buying things that others cannot afford... Simply because they can afford them.

If I charge $500/hr for a massage then the buyer is more likely to think the massage is worth $500. If I charge $5 for the same massage, do you think the buyer will still think its worth $500?

There is no lack of masseuses in Hollywood, in part because of the flow Jericho mentions above.

So it's not that good masseuses are in short supply. It's that people do make value choices that are not based on quantifiable quantites; more often it's trend, prestige, and culture.

Let's think for a moment about Hollywood. So we make labor costs (for things like making shoes) equivalent. American movies continue to dominate though. What does that do to social stratification in Hollywood? Does the masseuse continue to live well? The shop owner? The garbage man?

Societies are not always global societies, cultures are not always global cultures. A millionare in LA does not want an untouchable anywhere near his/her residence. They would pay for clean, cultured, garbage men. This has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of labor.

Is there really nothing worth protecting that cannot be measured by the output of its labor? Are the only hidden costs like pollution where you are primarily talking about an economic cost?

 

[betazed]

Now we are getting into more intricate issues which deal not only with economics but current human perceptions (of value and utility). Obviously, here I cannot be as rigorous and as objective as before but lets see.

Let's think for a moment about Hollywood. So we make labor costs (for things like making shoes) equivalent. American movies continue to dominate though. What does that do to social stratification in Hollywood? Does the masseuse continue to live well? The shop owner? The garbage man?

The way of living in Hollywood (or any other lavish American living style) consumes resources far more than the economic benefit it provides to humanity as a whole. The reason it can do that is because it is located in America and primarily because of dollar hegemony. Remove that and living style in Hollywood will change. It will be cheaper to live in Hollywood since no one will be willing to pay the price of the current living standards.

So, your question what will happen to the masseuse in Hollywood once his wages decrease is incomplete since it looks only at one side of the solution. While his wages will decrease his cost of living will also decrease since the current living styles will not exist in Hollywood once all wage corrections start to take place. By no means do I think that Hollywood lives will be less "happy" or less "convinient" once we wise up to understand that neither "happiness" or "convinience" depend on reckless consumption.

Societies are not always global societies, cultures are not always global cultures. A millionare in LA does not want an untouchable anywhere near his/her residence. They would pay for clean, cultured, garbage men. This has nothing to do with the intrinsic value of labor.

But today societies are global societies to the extent that what really happens in the villages of China and India do effect the people in New York and LA. There is a lag in the effect but it is decidedly there.

As for the millionaire who lives in a enclosed conclave that insulates him (or at least that's what he thinks), that insulation comes at a huge cost - which the millionaire does not really pay for. If he was really made to pay for those - that is once we account for all the hidden costs - I wonder how many millionaires would still want to be insulated.

Is there really nothing worth protecting that cannot be measured by the output of its labor? Are the only hidden costs like pollution where you are primarily talking about an economic cost?

I do not know for sure. What is worth protecting? When I think rationally (which means I forego all emotions) I do not see the value of protecting Hollywood at all. Even if there was a value, if protecting it means keeping close to a billion people earning/consuming less than a dollar a day then I see even less reason to protect Hollywood . I truly think that we need to redefine "value" and quantify it. An economic estimation of value is as good as it gets. I have no problems in continuously improving the estimation to include things that are of "only emotional" value to us but there must be a quantifiable value to something; otherwise it is not worth preserving (especially at the cost of something quantifiable which we are losing).

 

[JerichoHill]

Most economists, if not all, then probably 99% majority, will state that protectionist measures do no good, and mostly harm.

@About Quality

Quality was not a factor that was considered for a long time in determining the growth in GDP and other economic variables. That is no longer the case, and most economic indictators now have some quality factor.

Quality's effect on the labor market is most clearly seen in the differential of wage offers to people of similiar skills sets who come from different education backgrounds. A 'degree' from a well-known school fetches more than one that is not.

Quality is a signaled attribute. We can look at it with Akerlof's model. When you're buying a car, you look for what you would think a good car would be. For some, the brand of the model may be important, for others, where the engine was manufactured, and some enthusiasts might get right down to each part. The point is that quality is obviously inherent in the price.

It was stated that one might believe that by paying alot of money, one would think that they would receive a quality service. In a free-flowing market economy, this would very likely be the case. Sure, a charlatan can overcharge and misrepresent a service for a short period of time, but eventually that information on their quality of service will be entered into the market, and they will not longer be able to charge the price they were charging.

This is called "adaptive expectations"

Trend, prestige, and culture can all be lumped together as expectations. Expectations are a source of information. If we assume what most economists will, that human beings act rationally most of the time, then homo economus behavior will approximately resemble actual behavior. If we take the information a human being has, we know that they will process it approxiamately rationally. When the result is not satisfactory, that information will be relayed back, and over time, ceteris paribus, an irrational expectation is made rational.

It is by no means perfect, because we do not have perfect information in the real world. But it is useful to note this.

In economics, "luck" is a stochaistic error term, which accounts for variance. Of course there is variance. But "luck" really doesn't exist the way you described it. Most people are much more rational than they are aware of (in the economic sense).

Socio-economic interaction can be best thought through the lens of Gary Becker's "Theory of Human Capital" It is not difficult to find, and has stood the test of time, so far. My studies were under a student of Gary Becker's, so I do admit bias towards his theories.

There is a great deal about preferences that economists still cannot get their hands wrapped around. But obviously, preferences change, and they change in a rational way.

@@I by no means want to take over this thread. The OP has already done a very good job in summarizing very complex economic theory, to the extent that I though they too were an economist.

 

[betazed]

@@I by no means want to take over this thread.

Seriously, feel free to take over if you so wish. Usually, nowadays I am a little pressed for time and I would rather see more valuable content added here by others than me continuing my long monologues sporadically.

 

[JerichoHill]

You're the OP. And you're probably more well-versed I think when it comes to trade issues. My training is in the socio-economic behavior of individuals...so I'm much more comfortable discussing that. I took enough classes on trade and world affairs that I can pretend to know what I'm talking about, but there are people much more knowledgable...

Besides, I'm an Austrian economist too. So I'll be so blatantly pro-free market it won't even be funny.

von Mises for RULER!

 

[Gothmog]

betazed wrote:

By no means do I think that Hollywood lives will be less "happy" or less "convinient" once we wise up to understand that neither "happiness" or "convinience" depend on reckless consumption.

good one betazed

No, seriously. If Hollywood entertainment continued to dominate the way it does now there would still be huge capital flow into Hollywood compared to the amount of labor needed to develop/produce the entertainment. So my question stands.

We're not talking economic benefit here, we're talking what the market will bear.

Like the accumulation of wealth by the church in historical times, there will always be cultural forces that help concentrate wealth in certain locations (AFAIKT). Sheeple, their called.

I do not know for sure. What is worth protecting? When I think rationally (which means I forego all emotions) I do not see the value of protecting Hollywood at all. Even if there was a value, if protecting it means keeping close to a billion people earning/consuming less than a dollar a day then I see even less reason to protect Hollywood . I truly think that we need to redefine "value" and quantify it. An economic estimation of value is as good as it gets. I have no problems in continuously improving the estimation to include things that are of "only emotional" value to us but there must be a quantifiable value to something; otherwise it is not worth preserving (especially at the cost of something quantifiable which we are losing).

Any analysis that includes forgoing all emotional connection will never be relevant to humans IMO.

I'm not talking specifically about Hollywood, but about things that people value for cultural reasons way beyond their economic worth.

It comes down to the same thing as non-economically linked environmental protection. Is protecting oldgrowth redwood worth denying some workers the ability to practice their trade?

This last bit "there must be a quantifiable value to something; otherwise it is not worth preserving" is something to think deeply about before accepting. On its face I disagree.

@JerrichoHill

Yor are still dwelling on quantifiable quality. Do you really not understand that people who charge more do not necessarily provide better service. They just make people feel better about the service.

This is the case in many non-quantifiable trades. Instead of masseuses we could discuss psychologists, or art dealers. People want to be told what is of value, one way to tell them is to charge high prices.

Do you really want to pay $15/hr for someone who you tell your deepest secrets to? Most people feel more comfortable paying more.

Really this is just another way of saying that I don't think people act rationally most of the time.

Unless you are including the act of valuing what you value as a rational one. i.e. it is rational for me to want my interior designer to be gay.

As for luck, I am not part of the variance. I am an individual event and have no statistics.

It is statistics to say that 5% of gay interior designers of comparable skill will be able to make a living at it in Hollywood. It means nothing to the man who fails.

More rational than they are aware of in an economic sense?
I am pretty sure its the opposite, at least here in the states.
We can agree to disagree here unless you can back it up, or at least define what you mean by rational.

As far as the theory of human capital. I am arguing precisely that most human capital is not homogenous and easily interchangeable. There are barriers of all kinds to be considered. Are you including things like personal character and family connections in this capital? What about passion or love?

Let me say again that I am pro-deregulation.
I just think of people as emotional/mystical, not rational.

BTW, there was a recent science article about how humans are better off allowing their unconscious minds decide about such complex matters.

choices in complex matters (such as between different houses or different cars) should be left to unconscious thought. Named the "deliberation-without-attention" hypothesis, it was confirmed in four studies on consumer choice, both in the laboratory as well as among actual shoppers, that purchases of complex products were viewed more favorably when decisions had been made in the absence of attentive deliberation.

Reference Feb 17, 2006 issue of science magazine: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/311/5763/1005

Is that what you meant by rational?

 

[JerichoHill]

@@G

1) I hold a post-graduate degree in economics. Do you?

Yor are still dwelling on quantifiable quality. Do you really not understand that people who charge more do not necessarily provide better service. They just make people feel better about the service.
--I understand that. I said that in both the modeled world and the real world, anyone charging more and not providing a better service will eventually be unable to charge more as the information gets out there that their service is no better than this other persons. That is how the market mechanism works. Can you cheat the market for short term gain? Yes. But not at long-term loss.


This is the case in many non-quantifiable trades. Instead of masseuses we could discuss psychologists, or art dealers. People want to be told what is of value, one way to tell them is to charge high prices.
--High prices will signal quality. Prices signal value. That is the price mechanism. Economics 101.

Do you really want to pay $15/hr for someone who you tell your deepest secrets to? Most people feel more comfortable paying more.
--Feelings? What are feelings? You're subjectively attributing an attribute to people. Guess what? I can't quantify feelings as an economist, so we don't. We wouldn't care about feelings. If there is a counselor charging 100 dollars, and a better counselor charging 80, eventually the charlatan will have to move his price down to at least 80, and probably to 60 to reflect his poorer service.

--Again...short-term vs. long-term.

Really this is just another way of saying that I don't think people act rationally most of the time.
--You say you don't think that. Economic studies for the last 30 years have found that people do act rationally. YOU may not think so. Did you go and read about Becker and his research? What about Vernon Smith and the experimental school.

--Research supports exactly what I said.

--If you want evidence, I suggest reading the following.
I will provide links.

http://nobelprize.org/economics/laureates/1992/becker-autobio.html
--Becker, a Nobel Prize winner.
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~scottj/socscot7.htm
http://home.uchicago.edu/~gbecker/Nobel/nobel.html


--I leave it to you to find out what I mean. I leave it to you to do the research, because I already have.

--I'm not trying to be harsh, but you challenged me for proof. Yet it is obvious you are unfamiliar with the economic text on this very subject.


I just think of people as emotional/mystical, not rational.
--They are rational. I've published numerous works on how rational people's dating/mating behavior is. That passed a peer reviewed journal of guys who've got 20 years or more under their belts.

 

[betazed]

good one betazed

I did mention it in all seriousness.

Any analysis that includes forgoing all emotional connection will never be relevant to humans IMO.

I ask not to froego emotion as a factor in the analysis, but that the analysis itself to be done without emotion. Surely, you must understand how a rational analysis of the situation (which obviously includes emotions) can be more beneficial to emotional humans than a emotional decision.

I'm not talking specifically about Hollywood, but about things that people value for cultural reasons way beyond their economic worth.

I understand. I only doubt the worth. Do those people who value things for cultural reason really know the worth and are they paying the true cost of preserving that culture? Would they still value it if they are made to pay the true cost of their cultural possession? If they are willing i am all for their preserving the culture. What I find unable to understand is why should A pay for B's clinging of B's culture.

It comes down to the same thing as non-economically linked environmental protection. Is protecting oldgrowth redwood worth denying some workers the ability to practice their trade?

I do not think that is a correct analogy. In the oldgrowth redwood scenario, we know to a large extent the cost of the cutting down the redwood. In fact, the more we look we find the more is the cost. So more research continually shows that the cost of cutting the redwood goes up while we know the cost to the workers and to the society for not employing the workers in cutting down redwoods go down.

In other words, Environment protection is fundamentally economically linked. There is no "non-economically linker environmental protection". As long as we are all earth inhabitors all environmental protection must be economically linked.

This last bit "there must be a quantifiable value to something; otherwise it is not worth preserving" is something to think deeply about before accepting. On its face I disagree.

I have given it some thought; while I cannot honestly say that I see no problems with it, I cannot find a better alternative myself. I would like to know why you disagree and your thoughts on a better method of determining what is worth preserving.

 

[Gothmog]

@JerichoHill

1) No, as I said in my disclaimer in post #41 above... your point is? appeal to authority perhaps?
No need to get snippy, if you don't want to discuss things - then don't.
If you can't defend you assertions then I don't care about your degrees.
I would value an informed opinion though.

You make the assumption that we can always distinguish between better and worse service beyond prestige and social pressure.
I've said this specifically: IMO, In most cases we cannot.
Unless we retreat to the tautology you've spouted - if one is paid 3x more then one is 3x as good.
I'm not seeing the insight there.

Are Armani shoes really 10x as good as knockoffs constructed from the same materials at the same level of quality?
I think not.

Do people really spend millions on a piece of art unless they are supported in how great it is by the rest of society?
Again, I think not.

How is a pet psychiatrist quantified? By the tea he/she serves?
No, by the clientele he/she serves.

It's not who you are, it's who you know.

You did not address any of my examples btw. Value of labor wrt knockoffs, intellectual rights, etc.
Nor try and tell me if personal character, family connections, and passion are part of human capital.
Nor comment on my link to recent work hinting that the unconscious is more rational in an economic sense than the conscious. Does that fit your ideas or not?

The first link you provide seems to be an autobiography - no help to me.

The second link seems to outline rational choice theory - but offers no insight into the questions I'm asking.
Indeed it seems to ask the same questions

For many rational choice theorists it is not even a technical problem, as it can be handled in exactly the same way as the intangible satisfactions that people gain from the objects that they buy or sell with money. The value of a reward, they argue, is the 'utility' that it has for a person. While this subjective utility can vary greatly from one person to another, it is possible to construct preference curves that measure the relative utility of one object against another and, therefore, the likelihood that people will try to obtain them. In general, the utility of someone's behaviour is seen in terms of such things as the amount of their time that it takes up and the frequency with which they are able to do it.

This is what I tried to ask you before: Unless you are including the act of valuing what you value as a rational one. i.e. it is rational for me to want my interior designer to be gay.
It seems to be saying that people want what they want and will try to get what they want. I have no problem with that. I'm just not clear how that equates to the other stuff you've been saying. Here's a bit more from that link.

# The problem of collective action poses great difficulties for rational choice theory, which cannot explain why individuals join many kinds of groups and associations.
# The problem of social norms, the other aspect of the Hobbesian problem of order, also poses difficulties. Rational choice theories cannot explain the origins of social norms, especially those of altruism, reciprocity, and trust.

The third link is OK, but doesn't really address the topic I've been trying to afaikt. Except perhaps to agree with me

Another example of Becker's unconventional application of the theory of rational, optimizing behavior is his analysis of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc. This was Becker's first significant research contribution, published in his book entitled, The Economics of Discrimination, 1957. Discrimination is defined as a situation where an economic agent is prepared to incur a cost in order to refrain from an economic transaction, or from entering into an economic contract, with someone who is characterized by traits other than his/her own with respect to race or sex. Becker demonstrates that such behavior, in purely analytical terms, acts as a "tax wedge" between social and private economic rates of return. The explanation is that the discriminating agent behaves as if the price of the good or service purchased from the discriminated agent were higher than the price actually paid, and the selling price to the discriminated agent is lower than the price actually obtained. Discrimination thus tends to be economically detrimental not only to those who are discriminated against, but also to those who practice discrimination.

I've been extending this idea to prestige, social contacts, etc. but the core is the same.

You refused to give me a definition of rational but it seems to be something like what I say above: people will try to obtain things they want. I thought you meant something more like logical or having sound judgement. According to Dr. Becker in the quote above people do not have sound judgement in an economic sense.

 

[Gothmog]

@betazed

I know you are serious, and I agree. But I wont be holding my breath waiting for people to 'wise up'.

I do understand the value of rational analysis, alas many people don't.
All those who discriminate based on the things that humans tend to discriminate on.
Age, sex, religion, race, similarity, social contacts, looks, etc. etc. etc.

As Dr. Becker says, that is not rational economics. But I think it is human nature.

Is it then up to us to impose our analysis on the world?

I also agree with linking economics to environmental protection - natural services is a big field and I've studied it.
But are you arguing that if we can technologically overcome this link.
That is provide these services without redwoods.
It is desirable that we do so?

Is the only value in beauty economic?

I cannot find a better alternative either.

I often dwell on the hope that humans intrinsically value the same things, so that what I find beautiful everyone else does too.
But my experiences tell me that this is a vain hope.

Best case is private investment, but then natural beauty becomes like a privately owned painting.

What is worth preserving...

Those things that improve my quality of life. Is that the 'rational' answer?
Can we agree on what those things are?
Does a brook near my home have the same ability to add to your quality of life as it does mine?

Is it possible that there is no solution?

 

[punkbass2000]

Feelings? What are feelings? You're subjectively attributing an attribute to people. Guess what? I can't quantify feelings as an economist, so we don't. We wouldn't care about feelings. If there is a counselor charging 100 dollars, and a better counselor charging 80, eventually the charlatan will have to move his price down to at least 80, and probably to 60 to reflect his poorer service.

It's not so simple. What makes a counsellor "better"? There is a host of psychological evidence that people value things that cost more. Cheaper does not mean something sells better. I'm sure I need not point you at the "Black Tuesday" of the early '90s where a cigarette company (Marlboro?) decided to lower it's prices to increase sales and just the opposite effect took place, with its and other's stocks plummetting. For some things price is certainly a concern. If there's eggs for $3 and eggs for $2.50, the $2.50 one's will sell better because eggs are eggs (neither are organic or whatever for the purposes of this example). For things like lawyers and wine it is not so clear cut, and higher-priced one's sell better than lower-priced ones. The problem is, again, what gives something value? We do. So, IMO, your example doesn't even make sense. There is no such thing as a "better" counsellor, since that would imply objective knowledge. Whichever people perceive as being better is all that there is in terms of value. And there's tons of evidence from social psychological studies that higher prices convince people that given items are more valuable.

 

[punkbass2000]

Is it possible that there is no solution?

The real problem, IMO, is that the fundamental problem you're addressing is no longer economic. IMO, economics only affect happiness insofar as it affects basic necessities. Once you pass that threshold (which I won't even attempt to define), it no longer matters, IMO. The person making $200,000/year is not twice as happy nor twice as valuable as the person making $100,000/year. The only thing I would agree is that they're probably approxamitely twice as good at marketing themselves or twice as attractive or some combination therein.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

The big problems for the world is the dumping of wages and globolization. The American power over currency is also an issue.

 

[Timko]

Of course there are. Unfortunately, they don't have the option. If others can make it cheaper, it's either accept lower wages or be out of work. C'est la vie.

If people can't stop the change towards equal wages, then why don't we have equal wages now? Maybe something is stopping that, such as subsidies, and someone must be benefitting from it, such as politicians getting votes.

 

[betazed]

I do understand the value of rational analysis, alas many people don't.
All those who discriminate based on the things that humans tend to discriminate on.
Age, sex, religion, race, similarity, social contacts, looks, etc. etc. etc.

Which is the reason why I think "most people" should not have a say in policy decisions. (I have argued on that lines a few times in CFC)

Is it then up to us to impose our analysis on the world?

Although I hesitate saying it and I say it with extreme reluctance; a very tentative Yes. However, imposition of the analysis cannot be done by force. The most recent edition of Economist has a nice leader article on this. It should be done with a gentle guiding hand and incentive schemes which does not interfere with existing individual liberties.

I also agree with linking economics to environmental protection - natural services is a big field and I've studied it.
But are you arguing that if we can technologically overcome this link.
That is provide these services without redwoods.
It is desirable that we do so?

If we could technologically do it then I am not sure whether it would be desirable. But thankfully we do not have to make that decision. We know that we cannot technologically replace a redwood.

Is the only value in beauty economic?

I do not know, and I guess many people will say no. When I see a redwood I marvel at it in many ways but beauty is not one of them (my idiosyncrasy). In any case, economics is enough reason to protect it. If we feel beauty is another reason then sure lets add that to the list of reasons why we should protect it.

I often dwell on the hope that humans intrinsically value the same things, so that what I find beautiful everyone else does too.
But my experiences tell me that this is a vain hope.

hmmm... we share the same vain hopes then...

Is it possible that there is no solution?

A solution definitely exists. Question is "Is there a solution that is palatable?" and "will we find it soon enough"?

 

[Rambuchan]

It's really great to see this thread developing onwards.

I read betazed's second article and tbh, I had some problems/disagreements with it, minor ones. But I haven't found the time to exclusively set aside to get stuck in. I really hope I will because it doesn't deserve off the cuff answers.

Anyway, good stuff guys. Thumbs up again.

 

[punkbass2000]

If people can't stop the change towards equal wages, then why don't we have equal wages now?

That something cannot be stopped does not make it instantaneous. Also, part of the issue is the industrialization of much of the world which was not previously industrialized. They cannot compete without the infrastructure. Another factor is the ever-lowering costs of transportation. Using betazed's example, I would say that one reason we're seeing this equalization so quickly between Silicon Valley and India is that digital information is so mobile. Once the infrastructure is in place vast quantities of "labour" can be moved in very small amounts of time very easily. Moving a whole factory's worth of shoes produced in one day requires a lot more effort.

 

[punkbass2000]

Which is the reason why I think "most people" should not have a say in policy decisions. (I have argued on that lines a few times in CFC)

I don't recall any such arguments, personally. Philosopher king's, is it?

 

[betazed]

I don't recall any such arguments, personally.

Really? This thread has undergone thread necromancy quite a few times, so you should have caught it by now. It essentially limits how much one has a say in policy unless you are samrt enough to understand what effects said policy has (of course it is not perfect but it seems to me to be better than what we have). Enjoy!