[SEQ RERUN] Traditional Capitalist Values

MinibearRex

Today's post, Traditional Capitalist Values was originally published on 17 October 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Before you start talking about a system of values, try to actually understand the values of that system as believed by its practitioners.

Discuss the post here (rather than in the comments to the original post).

This post is part of the Rerunning the Sequences series, where we'll be going through Eliezer Yudkowsky's old posts in order so that people who are interested can (re-)read and discuss them. The previous post was Entangled Truths, Contagious Lies, and you can use the sequence_reruns tag or rss feed to follow the rest of the series.

Sequence reruns are a community-driven effort. You can participate by re-reading the sequence post, discussing it here, posting the next day's sequence reruns post, or summarizing forthcoming articles on the wiki. Go here for more details, or to have meta discussions about the Rerunning the Sequences series.

Today's post, Traditional Capitalist Values was originally published on 17 October 2008. A summary (taken from the LW wiki):

Before you start talking about a system of values, try to actually understand the values of that system as believed by its practitioners.

That first one is bad mindreading - not bad because it's unsuccessful, although it is (mindreading is dang hard though, so like I said, I don't care). But because it's written from your point of view. If you're trying to mind-read, you should end up with something that's written from the point of view of your model of the other person.

The second guess is closer. Here's my take:

The consequences of charity are examined with skepticism and generalization, and then outcompeting local businesses is immediately proposed as a solution with no thought to the consequences. Each of these parts has their own problems, but writing them one after the other like that is bad out of proportion to the sum of the parts. Thus, *explosion noises*.

I was drawing on my model of another person- but my model was based on so little information that it was very likely to be wrong.

Building on ewbronv's response: The starving man is best off if you open a bakery which can profitably sell him bread at a price he can afford. If there are starving people, it is because food is not available at a price they can afford.

It isn't about driving other companies out of business, it's about meeting an unmet need. If you can make a greater profit than the free market competition, it must be because you are filling nee... (read more)

-1ewbrownv14y

On the contrary, a capitalist believes there is abundant evidence that increased competition in any market almost always generates positive externalities, and is a net benifit to the community. Endless volumes have been written on this topic, and while there have been some attempts to argue the opposite case none of the ones I've seen are especially convincing. So 'open a business instead' isn't a thoughtless reflex, it's a carefully considered opinion about what course of action has the highest likelyhood of generating positive results in an uncertain world. The first half, of course, is a lot less firmly supported. While unearned wealth certainly has a tendency to produce negative side effects, there isn't a lot of hard data on how strong this trend is. Certainly, it seems hard to argue that a starvig man is worse off if you give him a free loaf of bread. Of course in reality it generally isn't possible to give large amounts of resources to the needy, especially in poverty-stricken nations. Whever you try it the local kleptocrats will quickly arrange to steal the majority of your donations and use them to maintain their own power, so the real effect of most international charity is simply to prop up corrupt regimes and allow them to get away with oppressing their own people.

9

[SEQ RERUN] Traditional Capitalist Values

9

9

9

[SEQ RERUN] Traditional Capitalist Values

9

9