Hacker News Reader

Comment by haberman | Hacker News Reader

> Our current economic system defines economic productivity to be the thing that generates the highest economic returns according to the rules of the system.

If by "the rules of the system", you mean the idea that things are worth what people will voluntarily pay for them, then I agree with your definition. But that's not tautological. It is a distributed price-setting process that everyone contributes to through their own economic choices.

When it comes to charity, people contribute time and money based on their perceived impact. As a donor, I would value 100 new houses higher than 10 new houses, but that's just me. Other people are free to make different choices.

View on HN

What is clean air worth? What do you pay for it? In the US, you pay taxes which are distributed under the purview of a democratic republic, whose officials may decide to create an EPA, which may enforce rules, etc. Tautologically, clean air is now worth something in the US, because the system pays for it. But it wasn't the case 100 years ago. Or in another timeline where Nixon didn't create the agency. It's worth something because the conditions of the system aligned its interest with that outcome, not because of some direct preference of the populace. In many countries, clean air isn't "worth much" because you can't pay for it, even though the people want it badly.

> It's worth something because the conditions of the system aligned its interest with that outcome, not because of some direct preference of the populace.

You make it sound as though "the system" is a sentient agent that acts independently of the preference of the populace. Democracy in the US is far from perfect, but don't you think that the creation of the EPA was at least somewhat related to the preference of the populace?

Sure, the system generally may loosely correlated with the long-term preference of the populace depending on the government, such that people don't revolt. But the system is designed to keep itself in power or maximize its own goals. It doesn't decide any more than water decides to take the path of least resistance downhill.

Did the populace decide they like bread and milk in the back corner of the grocery store, or does the capital-maximizing system decide its best if you walk through the aisles to get there? Are impulse purchases of gum at the checkout aisle because people really wanted gum when they walked into the store? On and on it goes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com