*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[wufwugy]

Obviously someone who has an internal focus and thinks they get what they deserve is going to try harder than someone who thinks it's all luck. So the former are, on average, going to be more successful than the latter.

That said, everyone is subject to variance whether they count its influence properly or not. Being aware of its impact doesn't mean you have to surrender yourself to it.

I think there are studies that show that when people succeed at a task they tend to take the credit for it (i.e., it's down to skill/hard work etc.) and when people (the same people mind you) fail they tend to blame bad luck or say 'it's rigged' or w/e. So it's hardly surprising successful people are going around saying 'all you have to do is work hard to succeed and the reason you failed is you didn't work hard enough) and unsuccessful people are saying the opposite.

I totally agree.

What do you think about when applying prescriptions? It can be true that "I'm the bestest" emerges from success and "Woe is me" emerges from failure, yet if we're dealing with prescriptions to "Woe is me," it might involve changing the outlook away from "Woe is me."

[Poopadoop]

I totally agree.

What do you think about when applying prescriptions? It can be true that "I'm the bestest" emerges from success and "Woe is me" emerges from failure, yet if we're dealing with prescriptions to "Woe is me," it might involve changing the outlook away from "Woe is me."

By prescriptions do you mean how to address the problem?

Well, clearly self-pity is not productive. The cure for that in a one-to-one setting is to say, 'Yes poor you. Explain the problem to me.' and then once you understand the problem, to say "Now what can, and are, we going to do about it?'. I think the approach needs to be handled carefully though, because different people have different buttons that need to be pushed to activate them out of their self-pity.

I had a colleague once who got a visit from a student doing a version of 'woe is me'. He went on to explain life variance to her with some equations and whatnot, and suffice it to say it did absolutely nothing for her in any way.

In a more society-wide setting 'woe is me' tends to be more complicated, and I don't know what the answer is. If you take the plight of minorities in many countries, the 'woe is me' is understandable and the way to resolve it is to try to resolve the cause if you can. But it's complicated.

[wufwugy]

By prescriptions do you mean how to address the problem?

Yes.

I had a colleague once who got a visit from a student doing a version of 'woe is me'. He went on to explain life variance to her with some equations and whatnot, and suffice it to say it did absolutely nothing for her in any way.

LOL I can imagine.

In a more society-wide setting 'woe is me' tends to be more complicated, and I don't know what the answer is. If you take the plight of minorities in many countries, the 'woe is me' is understandable and the way to resolve it is to try to resolve the cause if you can. But it's complicated.

It's probably important to accurately identify the problem. For example, the concepts often found in political discussion include that an economy is a zero-sum game (it's not). Those concepts are probably a faulty base from which some people derive their faulty prescriptions.

[Poopadoop]

For example, the concepts often found in political discussion include that an economy is a zero-sum game (it's not). Those concepts are probably a faulty base from which some people derive their faulty prescriptions.

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around? How is this not true? I can see that more wealth can always be generated but not that the amount of extant wealth at point X in time can be altered. Or maybe that's besides the point.

[spoonitnow]

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around? How is this not true?

Someone just outed themselves.

To give you an example to hopefully think about, a voluntary transaction between two informed individuals creates value for both of them. The amount of wealth available after the transaction between those two is greater than the amount of wealth available before the transaction.

[Poopadoop]

Someone just outed themselves.

You mean as someone who isn't an economist? I've outted myself on that a hundred times already, you're late to the party mate.

To give you an example to hopefully think about, a voluntary transaction between two informed individuals creates value for both of them. The amount of wealth available after the transaction between those two is greater than the amount of wealth available before the transaction.

I guess I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything. Hopefully Wuf will have something useful to say about it.

[spoonitnow]

I guess I'm not clear on what this has to do with anything. Hopefully Wuf will have something useful to say about it.

It was an answer to this...

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around? How is this not true?

...to show you a simple, intuitive way to see that wealth is not zero-sum.

[wufwugy]

Someone just outed themselves.

To give you an example to hopefully think about, a voluntary transaction between two informed individuals creates value for both of them. The amount of wealth available after the transaction between those two is greater than the amount of wealth available before the transaction.

As long as we're thinking in terms of value. Hard monetary wealth would not change in this case, but yes both parties would be better off. And since monetary wealth is meant as a proxy of better off-ness, you are thinking about it more in terms of the way it should be thought about.

[wufwugy]

By zero-sum, do you mean the argument is stated as if there's only so much wealth to go around?

Zero-sum is in this case that a gain in resources by one entity means an equal subtraction of resources from another entity. When considered in isolation, people typically probably will correctly point out that the economy is not zero-sum. Yet, many of those same people hold political views that derive from the idea that the economy is zero-sum. We had an example of this just the other day in that gif Jack posted of a suit-and-tie guy taking the oreos.

I can see that more wealth can always be generated but not that the amount of extant wealth at point X in time can be altered. Or maybe that's besides the point.

At any point in time, wealth is constant because that point is one point and includes no change. But once we use multiple points in time, wealth is either increasing or decreasing (or remaining the same) based on changes in resource allocation. Resources include everything from oil to expending energy to wake up in the morning. Allocation of those resources depends on how their use is organized. Wealth derives from when that organization produces stuff people desire. An increase in wealth derives from when that organization becomes more efficient since that produces more of what people desire with the same resources. That also happens if there is a positive supply shock (like discovery of oil fields), but generally changes in supply are only impacted by us through efficiency, so we don't have need to address the supply shock element. Continuing on, an individual's allocation of resources can change dramatically over a short period of time. If you simply wake up one day and decide to work harder, your resource allocation improves markedly and the expectations of your future wealth improves markedly (if your change is essentially permanent).

So, let's take Phil as an example. Phil can start out as a lazy sack of shit who does nothing and learns nothing new, to transforming his life and becoming quite wealthy by merely allocating resources more efficiently while not detracting from somebody else. Phil can plant plants with positive yield that nobody else was going to plant, he can read books that nobody else was reading, he can act kindly to people, he can help other people solve problems and solve his own problems, he can build things that other people like enough that they'll wanna trade with him. He can do all this by using resources that people were not using, by using resources that other people gain by him using (like if he trades for some resources), and by more efficiently using resources than ways they were not being used before (like using a shovel to plant instead of hands or a rock).

There is a lot Phil can do to increase his resource allocation, which ultimately leads to increasing his monetary wealth and investment capital (a shovel or a house or a room full of computers can be thought of as investment capital). The political policies we want are the kind that allow Phil to do this. What we don't want is political policies that deter Phil from doing this. Most people can do what Phil does yet many are deterred. Some are deterred by a lot (like those living under dictatorships), and some are deterred by less but still a significant amount (like people who have to spend $20k on the licensing process to cut hair).

[Poopadoop]

Zero-sum is in this case that a gain in resources by one entity means an equal subtraction of resources from another entity. When considered in isolation, people typically probably will correctly point out that the economy is not zero-sum. Yet, many of those same people hold political views that derive from the idea that the economy is zero-sum. We had an example of this just the other day in that gif Jack posted of a suit-and-tie guy taking the oreos.



At any point in time, wealth is constant because that point is one point and includes no change. But once we use multiple points in time, wealth is either increasing or decreasing (or remaining the same) based on changes in resource allocation. Resources include everything from oil to expending energy to wake up in the morning. Allocation of those resources depends on how their use is organized. Wealth derives from when that organization produces stuff people desire. An increase in wealth derives from when that organization becomes more efficient since that produces more of what people desire with the same resources. That also happens if there is a positive supply shock (like discovery of oil fields), but generally changes in supply are only impacted by us through efficiency, so we don't have need to address the supply shock element. Continuing on, an individual's allocation of resources can change dramatically over a short period of time. If you simply wake up one day and decide to work harder, your resource allocation improves markedly and the expectations of your future wealth improves markedly (if your change is essentially permanent).

So, let's take Phil as an example. Phil can start out as a lazy sack of shit who does nothing and learns nothing new, to transforming his life and becoming quite wealthy by merely allocating resources more efficiently while not detracting from somebody else. Phil can plant plants with positive yield that nobody else was going to plant, he can read books that nobody else was reading, he can act kindly to people, he can help other people solve problems and solve his own problems, he can build things that other people like enough that they'll wanna trade with him. He can do all this by using resources that people were not using, by using resources that other people gain by him using (like if he trades for some resources), and by more efficiently using resources than ways they were not being used before (like using a shovel to plant instead of hands or a rock).

There is a lot Phil can do to increase his resource allocation, which ultimately leads to increasing his monetary wealth and investment capital (a shovel or a house or a room full of computers can be thought of as investment capital). The political policies we want are the kind that allow Phil to do this. What we don't want is political policies that deter Phil from doing this. Most people can do what Phil does yet many are deterred. Some are deterred by a lot (like those living under dictatorships), and some are deterred by less but still a significant amount (like people who have to spend $20k on the licensing process to cut hair).

So basically your argument is that if the lazy ass gets up and does something he will have more wealth and not have to ask the government for it.

I wouldn't deny this. My point is not that you should reward people for doing nothing, rather that the rewards should fall within certain boundaries and not be limitless (or nearly so) for certain people at the expense of others.

To take an extreme example: A guy opens a MAGA hat factory. As a confirmed capitalist, he believes that he deserves the lion's share of whatever wealth comes from that factory. He opens it in a depressed area, pays people minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em he can hire some other poor slob the next day for the same pay. And because MAGA hats sell so well, he barely has to work a six-hour day to make a yuge profit.

As a result he makes $3m a year working a six-hour day while all his workers make $30k a year on eight hours a day. And in twenty years the workers all get cancer from the dye used in the caps because Trump cut the regulations and the employer can also not be sued for any of it.

This seems proper to you?

[wufwugy]

So basically your argument is that if the lazy ass gets up and does something he will have more wealth and not have to ask the government for it.

I wouldn't deny this. My point is not that you should reward people for doing nothing, rather that the rewards should fall within certain boundaries and not be limitless (or nearly so) for certain people at the expense of others.

To take an extreme example: A guy opens a MAGA hat factory. As a confirmed capitalist, he believes that he deserves the lion's share of whatever wealth comes from that factory. He opens it in a depressed area, pays people minimum wage with no benefits, and if they don't like it, fuck 'em he can hire some other poor slob the next day for the same pay. And because MAGA hats sell so well, he barely has to work a six-hour day to make a yuge profit.

As a result he makes $3m a year working a six-hour day while all his workers make $30k a year on eight hours a day.

So far, this is good stuff. Everybody is gaining from their actions and all their actions are by choice. In fact, everybody is gaining THE MOST by these choices that they can according to their constraints and their knowledge of their preferences.

And in twenty years the workers all get cancer from the dye used in the caps because Trump cut the regulations and the employer can also not be sued for any of it.

This seems proper to you?

Nah that's bad. I have always argued for systems that deter this sort of thing.

Protection of property is of the utmost importance and it is one of the important pieces of the puzzle to solve the problem you laid out. Currently, the government protects property, at least that's the legal incidence instead of the social or economic incidence; lots of property the government is legally supposed to protect goes unprotected. I believe (for good reason) that individuals freely choosing in markets protects property more effectively than the government does.