Dat inequality

[wufwugy]

I, along with investopedia disagree:

A decision-making process that is based on making choices that result in the most optimal level of benefit or utility for the individual. Most conventional economic theories are created and used under the assumption that all individuals taking part in an action/activity are behaving rationally."

This doesn't disagree with me. I'm trying to explain what that passage means. "Optimal" or "utility maximizing" are inherent facets of consequential choice. This is the basis behind what economists mean when they discuss "rational behavior". Take Becker's rational addiction for example. It isn't that drug addicts who choose addiction are doing what is optimal according to some objective moral standard (how could we even know that?), but that they're making the optimal decision according to their own inherent utility

The "optimal" of smoking another crack rock is different than how the word has been used ITT. I think this is important since understanding the difference between markets and regulation is in consequences. Regulation is an attempt of organizing the same exact stuff that markets do, except with less consequence. That alone is basically why markets work better. We see this in action in our own world all the time. Who's better at spending your money: you or your neighbor? The answer is you and it's exclusively because you bear a greater brunt of the ramifications of your spending choices. This effect doesn't necessarily exist when viewed individually, but it does exist in populations. Some individuals would benefit greatly by regulation, but entire societies (aggregation of individuals) benefit more by free markets. Even if "you" may be better at spending my money than "I" am, the "universal you" is not better at spending my money than the "universal I". What I'm trying to say is that some examples can be found of one person spending somebody else's money better, but the effect breaks down when it is expanded to everybody.