I'm a bit rough on game theory, now in my early 30's; but, am saddened that homo economicus has been reduced to this automatic strategos looking out for who's #1. While in college, a 120 IQ guy told me that Europe works to live and American's live to work. — Shawn

It depends a lot the breach between north and south European countries but yes, this is an interesting point of view

.

If any of the above is true, then how the fuck do we get out of this dogmatization of human behavior through "game theory" — Shawn

I would sound like a dreamer but I guess the only way possible is trying to develop a new economical system. You clearly explained previously that one of the nature human interests is to develop, at least some profit. There are some countries which are happy with this system because it helps them a lot. But others, obviously not.
If we want another system and then changing the human behaviour, we have to try to change our educational system. Since Spinoza method, we are humans made to be practical not intellectual.
When you are practical, you want to be the number one in everything. What if we try and change this values? Probably we would get a different human behaviour.

Sign off the times you think the profit motive is any kind of ideal, and a higher one at that.

Higher Ideals than The Profit Motive

What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals.

What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals. — baker

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person.

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

If only the meaning of those wouldn't be so easy to define in accordance with the motive for profit ...

If only the meaning of those wouldn't be so easy to define in accordance with the motive for profit ... — baker

Just don't though.

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

Good answer. I've known many people who have chosen those values over making money many times over.

I can just see a rich right winger advocating truth, justice, kindness, democracy, respect for person.

Sure, why not?

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person.
— unenlightened

Good answer. I've known many people who have chosen those values over making money many times over. — Tom Storm

It's not either or, as the sooner (profit) allows the later (virtues).

It's not either or — synthesis

It was for the people I know, but I take your point.

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation. — baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for?

Sign off the times you think the profit motive is any kind of ideal, and a higher one at that. — Benkei

Hasn't capitalism brought more humans out of poverty than any other system? I'm not defending the late-stage capitalism we have today. I mean in the 20th century. Compared to, say, the massive impoverishment and death caused by socialist movements in the USSR and China.

Higher ideals than the profit motive — Shawn

I'd say there's nothing wrong with profit motive. It's a sentiment that defines life itself - we need to a get a little more out of something than you put in. If not, forget about economy, survival itself would be impossible.

Thus, by higher ideals, we shouldn't be looking for a replacement ideology for profit motive. What I recommend though are ancilliary ideas that can take profits, an acceptable portion of it of course, and use them to bring about desired outcomes. Such an approach seems more realistic and also likely to satisfy all parties involved. Game theoretically, it makes more sense than alternatives that aim to supplant the profit motive with higher ideals that don't give due consideration to an instinct as old as the human race itself.

Hasn't capitalism brought more humans out of poverty than any other system? — fishfry

For the purposes of argument, let's say it has. Let's also admit that, other things being equal, wealth is preferable to poverty. Still one might prefer poverty in a healthy environment to wealth in a toxic environment, or poverty in freedom to wealth under coercion, and so on. This is not a notion invented by postmodern far left politically correct weirdos, it dates back 2000 years or so.

For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, but lose his soul? — Mark 8:36

Or did the washing machine, steam engines, automation and the combustion engine, or indeed worker unions, cause this and these things merely coincided with capitalist production?

There's also a contradiction in your reply in that what you consider worthwhile appears to be the reduction of poverty but this is merely ancillary to a profit motive, even if it were the underlying cause, because the profit motive doesn't aim at reducing poverty whatsoever. The higher ideal then already seems to be reducing poverty, as opposed to a profit motive.

Considering Marx' work and his criticism of the consequences of the capitalist mode of production, I think your view of early 20th century capitalism is romanticised. The "late-stage" capitalism of today is as exploitive as it was back then.

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.
— baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for? — unenlightened

So manipulation is a higher purpose than profit?

:up:

Profit and profit motive need at least some working definitions here. I'm thinking (hearsay warning) that the concern with maximizing short-term profit at the expense of almost everything else is a result of Harvard Business School teachings and philosophies through most of the 20th century and even now, the neglect in the US of infrastructure being one result, for the repair of which Biden's $3T proposal is likely just a down payment. Nor should profit, wealth, and ownership be confused. Profits can be and are taxed, but I'm increasingly persuaded that wealth, assets, also need to be taxed.

US Banks take one or both of two actions with regard to dormant accounts. They 1) turn them over to government, or 2) control and reduce them through fees. The idea being to shield the bank from the effects of long-term compound interest.

Just a thought: Perhaps the problem is not with profits, or even so-called excess profits - no one gains any profit until someone else chooses to buy - but instead with passive wealth. Passive wealth deprives the community of the (compounded) benefits that money could pay for. Inflation is already a tax on passive wealth, but maybe a much sharper and targeted tax on passive wealth would put a lot of money back to work. The underlying philosophy of such a tax being, "Use it or lose it."

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.
— baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for?
— unenlightened
So manipulation is a higher purpose than profit? — baker

No. Manipulation is something one does, not an ideal or a purpose. This dialogue is not interesting me.

This is what started this:

What would be a higher ideal than the profit motive?
Do list at least three such ideals.
— baker

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

Followed by:

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. This makes them useless, other than for purposes of manipulation.
— baker

Of course, what else would ideals be used for? — unenlightened

So your stance is something like:
Truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for person (which can mean anything to anyone) are higher ideals than the profit motive. The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.

Yes?

So your stance is something like:
Truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for person (which can mean anything to anyone) are higher ideals than the profit motive. — baker

Yes, but I don't accept your proposal that they mean whatever you want to make them mean. They are well understood by very ordinary folks.


The use of ideals is for purposes of manipulation.[/quote]

Yes. But it is a silly question and thus a misleading answer. If you are so depraved as to think that ideals are something to use, then I cannot imagine any other use for them than to manipulate other people. Hence my question to you as to what else you think an ideal could be used for? which you didn't answer. All clear now?

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

Those "higher ideals" can mean anything anyone wants them to mean. — baker

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not.

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank

Yeah.

There's also a contradiction in your reply in that what you consider worthwhile appears to be the reduction of poverty but this is merely ancillary to a profit motive, even if it were the underlying cause, because the profit motive doesn't aim at reducing poverty whatsoever. The higher ideal then already seems to be reducing poverty, as opposed to a profit motive. — Benkei

For the purposes of argument, let's say it has. Let's also admit that, other things being equal, wealth is preferable to poverty. Still one might prefer poverty in a healthy environment to wealth in a toxic environment, or poverty in freedom to wealth under coercion, and so on. This is not a notion invented by postmodern far left politically correct weirdos, it dates back 2000 years or so. — unenlightened

Is the argument here that Stalin, who killed 40 million and enslaved and impoverished the rest; and Mao, who killed 40 million, were the exemplars of non-capitalism you'd like to put up against 20th century capitalism? Or Castro's Cuba?

I hardly need to respond. The mass murder and mass impoverishment brought about by communism are a matter of historical record; as is the prosperity brought about by free market capitalism. And the economic welfare of all IS the point of capitalism. It flows naturally out of the private profit motive, as Adam Smith pointed out.

Is the argument here that Stalin, who killed 40 million and enslaved and impoverished the rest; and Mao, who killed 40 million, were the exemplars of non-capitalism you'd like to put up against 20th century capitalism? Or Castro's Cuba? — fishfry

No.

I hardly need to respond. — fishfry

You hardly have. Respond to Jesus, the communists aren't posting.

Respond to Jesus, the communists aren't posting. — unenlightened

As far as I can tell from the responses to my initial remark, the communists ARE posting. I truly wish that people longing for socialism/communism or the abolishment of the free market will take an honest look at the actual track records of China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba in the 20th century. Not only in economics, but in terms of human rights and outright mass murder of their own citizens. Coming soon to a bankrupt neo-socialist empire near you.

Truth.
Justice.
Kindness.
Democracy.
Respect for person. — unenlightened

What about democracy? Typically, it's easier to exclude the US from analysis of this feature of wealth or poverty.

Maybe what you mean is that one can falsely claim to hold these values, when in fact one does not. — Bitter Crank

How is that qualified or evaluated?

Which part -- that someone has falsely claim belief & allegiance, or the beliefs themselves?

The behavior of people who actually believe in the cited values is--taken as a pattern--different than those who do not actually believe in those values. One would expect more fraudulent behavior, illegal behavior, cruelty, terror, and so on from someone who thinks truth, justice, kindness, democracy, and respect for persons are meaningless words.

As for the meaning of these -- or any other words -- there are reference sources which report how the meanings of these words have been defined in social processes. "Truth" wasn't defined on Mt. Olympus. "Truth" was defined by discussion and by people using the word in ways that others found understandable and acceptable. That's how most words come to have meaning. A few, like using "charm" to name a quark, are arbitrary.