There wasn't enough coal otherwise. It was either that, or none. And the point is, it's a Union basically forcing a democratically-elected Government out of powernote . A State of Emergency was even declared by the Prime Minister, the second time in two years due to a strike.
Unions in the UK were rather militant in the 1970snote , the workers sometimes even more than their bosses, calling wildcat strikes without their knowledge or permission. In part, this was nothing to do with working rights, this was Political.
Keep Rolling OnIt depends: Are there more customers in country A than country B? What is the political/economical conditions/statuses present in country B? Is it more profitable to invest in the sales' department country A or in country B? How feasible is the marketability of a product/service in country B?
In short, it's best to compare the SWOT of country A in regards to its customers with the SWOT of country B in regards to its customers. If there's a way to benefit both sides economically (to use David Ricardo's notions of comparative advantage in regards to nations' companies' presences - companies from abroad can benefit local companies, provided there's healthy competition and sociocultural exchanges), great. If it's only feasible to benefit the customers from the place where there's a greater market presence, we have to accept it (for the time being - things can get improved in the future).
So, Handle, still doing the Lesswrong thing? I thought you moved on from there.
Anyway, I used to own and operate a small business, and I even hired an employee. The thing about that list is what it doesnt say. Any set of values lead to abuses if not counter-balanced by another set of values which are opposed to them. That is, even principled Capitalism will lead to monopolies, sub-standard working conditions, extreme concentrations of wealth and income, and poor quality of life for the poor, simply because Capitalism isnt a complete philosophy- which is to say that it doesnt provide a healthy and sustainable guide to behavior in every circumstance for every member of society. It doesnt say what to do with people who are too poor to afford health care, or education, or sanitary housing. It doesnt say anything about the needs of the whole, or the common good, or the public interest. If the market wont pay for an army, or a police force, or clean water, or any of a number of other things, what then? What explanation does the virtues of Capitalism give for periodic revolts by the poor, and how are these civil wars to be avoided?
The real problem with Capitalism is that it's a form of meritocracy; and unregulated meritocracy eventually leads to unsustainable concentrations of wealth and resources, which in turn leads to social chaos and violence (which is economically wasteful, if nothing else). Individuals should receive the benefits of their own labor and skill, but if they rise too far above the masses, the masses get angry. Capitalism is even worse than other forms of meritocracy, because capital itself is the primary tool for getting ahead. The more money you start with, the more you end up making.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.Michael Young
even coined the term meritocracy as a pejorative, satirical term. It wasn't originally meant to be embraced in earnest.
Tall Poppy syndrome?
I think that capitalism, as with many other philosophies or ideals, simply fails to account for one thing: human nature. A set of roles, a set of rigid roles no mater how well thought they will be will not encounter flexibility when applied to a human society which is ever-evolving and never the same.
So sure, it sounds great that you are given promotions based on merit, that fails to take into account that while giving the promotion to Alice, who actually deserves it, over Bob, who is the son of a Multinational company owner, would lose the company millions and losing those millions means we gotta fire Alice because we can no longer afford her. Why? Because human nature causes political scheisskriegs anyways so yeah.
Making things that people want? sounds logical. But I have seen people worrying more about getting the latest phone, than getting healthcare for their children, or the eduation tools like books that they need.
Just so many that take an assumption that people will behave in a certain way. And there is no way to predict how people will behave.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesAny economic model that relies on rational human agents possessing full and relevant information will fail because such agents are mythical. One might argue that aggregate behavior will be more rational through the averaging out of all the individual irrationality, but that's also wrong. Millions of people all doing the wrong things don't magically produce a nation doing the right things.
This is why a rational agent is needed to rein in the excesses, so that the capitalist system doesn't oscillate out of control.
edited 13th Apr '15 8:48:13 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Capitalism asserts that self-interest is sufficient in and of itself to generate a functional society. Neoclassicism comes at us with the "rational actor" concept, which is a way to reverse justify the self-interest component.
"Self-interest wrecks societies rather than boosts them? Okay, what if everyone were perfectly rational and had perfect information? They aren't? Well, we'll just assume that they are so our models work. What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Oh, and we can conveniently blame the failure of the system on actors who aren't sufficiently rational."
The idea behind a social democracy is that, while individuals may not be perfectly informed, they can elect leaders who are better informed and trust them to do the right thing. Of course, this is also something of a logical fallacy, although it's certainly had more success than almost any other method that's been tried throughout history. This brings us to that lovely Churchill quote.
In point of fact, most movements towards Keynesian systems have come on the heels of crises of unfettered capitalism as a way for the elite class to keep their heads attached to their necks, because the alternative is usually a Marxist revolution with Mme. Guillotine as special guest. So, self-interest.
edited 13th Apr '15 1:57:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Rationality or not, whatever economical system depends on supposedly being able to predict the behavior of humans will have flaws, because we humans have flaws. So we would need something that is capable of having a way to deal with those flaws. Problem is we are so flawed that we would find a way to make a flaw out of those flaw-cushions.
Basically we're fucked. Might as well got to Mc Donald's and gorge ourselves on heart attacks on a plate.
I don't even eat meat...
edited 14th Apr '15 9:17:45 AM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesI don't share that same pessimism, necessarily. Human history has shown that we are capable of rising to the occasion given sufficient impetus. We enacted the New Deal, put men on the Moon, got civil rights, can fly across the globe in a matter of hours. We just need incentives.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Well the last sentence is a joke, I just decided not to pothole it to Joking Mode. Because I am lazy.
For the previous, it simply acknowledges that though we can get better we're prolly still gunna be flawed. I do not think perfection is possible.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesMost human flaws are predictable and systematic, known as biases. We can account for them and pre-empt them. It's not even that hard, but it's a new, bigger box to think in.
edited 14th Apr '15 1:55:49 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Not only are they not predictable or reliable, they are not the only variable at play, for there are others like time, opportunity, and context.
A person going through economical problems might not necesarily indulge in theft, but might if along with other things (Opportunity, desperation, impulsiveness) preent themselves.
Likewise, how or what or when a person buys, how they save or how they make money is incredibly tied to the context of many an other thing.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesDude, if I went through the trouble of making such a categorical statement, the least you can do is not give me such a flippant contradiction. Key phrases: cognitive bias
and behavioral economics
. They are predictable, often frighteningly so.
Read the words chosen by each and every single one of those biases. "Tendency" is the word that is repeated there because it is not a certainty. And as it is not a certainty we cannot even treat it as a theory. It simply shows that human logic does not work like mathemathical logic like a boolean dicothomy.
In fact in the frame of capitalism, if behavior was that predictable, then we could get people to choose a product and one product alone, yet, competition exists. It really, really, really, really is not and it is not predictable with our current knowledge.
And you know, saying "This guy was born from a poor family whose father abandoned them, belong to a racial minority in a war-torn country, has no education and there are local war problems, and people like that have a tendency to become some sort of criminal" is as predictive as saying "When it rains, the street will get wet".
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes'Predictable' means 'predictable'. It doesn't mean 'deterministic'. But the important part is that, the larger the number of agents, the more the overall behaviour will resemble the predicted average, the more useful the prediction is. And we're getting better and better at understanding and predicting those things. We're not at Hari Seldon levels yet, not by far, but we've made significant and measurable progress. As in, the applications measurably save billions of dollars.
In either case, I suggest that you tone it down a little, because you're coming off as excessively aggressive and vindictive, and I have no idea what set you off.
edited 14th Apr '15 2:41:50 PM by TheHandle
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.Indeed, macroeconomics as a science would not be possible without aggregate behavior.
The fundamental objection to "rational actor" theory is not: "Humans are irrational, so you can't predict them at all." It's "Humans are irrational, so you can't base a theory on rational behavior."
However, you can predict human behavior if you start with the precept that they have biases. For example, the bias to save money in a bust and spend money in a boom.
edited 14th Apr '15 2:46:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
At no times are those biases using the word "predictable", just "tendency". It is a descriptor. It is an amorphous construct created to base theories upon, like, say, the gaussian bell. Just because we know what the gaussian bell is about in its function, it does not mean we will be able to fruitfully discern where each person is going to, without a doubt, fit in that bell.
While it is useful when it deals with masses of people, it is still not predictive. Look at many an economic crisis, or depressions. How can those be predicted?
Yet those tendencies are not able to predict the flow of the general economy. They are used to know hwen it is better or more convenient or whatever to sell but from there to predicting how it will who wil buy etc, is a big stretch.
edited 14th Apr '15 2:50:40 PM by Aszur
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesYou'd be surprised how predictable individual behavior is, Aszur. The whole science of marketing is based on creating and manipulating biases.
edited 14th Apr '15 3:27:13 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

As for the winter of discontent; that's was all around a reaction to inflation. Unions have the right to protest reductions in pay raises. And this sort of thing doesn't usually happen. Strikes are saved for extreme situations, and making things inconvenient is kind of the point of such things. Blocking hospital entrances should definitely be made illegal, though.