"OOOh, looky there you answered jack shit about why praxology isn't retarded, my key point, because, surprise: you don't understand Austrian school."
It's not my fault you don't understand how to argue.
As a reminder, THIS is what this whole exchange has been about:
"human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals"
Which, as I stated and then demonstrated via that wikipedia link, is not at all limited to the Austrian school, but is in fact a fundamental axiom of ALL "scientific" economics. If Wikipedia is not an authoritative enough source for you, try pickup up a book on the subject.
Changing the goalposts will get you nowhere. If you want to make a different argument, go ahead and make it, but don't pretend it's the same one.
Expecting to get an objective view of backups from someone who works for a backup service isn't very reasonable.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me we've been seeing more of these "ads disguised as news" things lately. Is Slashdot trying to prime us for Slashdot 2, the "new improved" version?
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
To clarify: I will admit that to the extent these things are true, Smith wasn't describing his "real world".
But he was codifying how that real economic real world should work, if it were to work robustly. To that extent (which was part of my point), he wrote that abuses of the system, such as coercion, monopoly and oligopoly should be prevented. And of course the only real preventative agent is government.
I would argue that the years prior to 1929, and for a while after WWII, in the U.S. that "ideal" was reached to an extent never seen before or since, and partly because of that, they were also some of the most productive years in history.
"Patents for example (originally government-granted monopolies for various trades) were quite popular *long* before Smith came on the scene. His world was perhaps a fair bit closer to the ideal than today (it'd be hard not to be), but the incestuous coziness between government and business powers extends back as far as we have records. Not to mention the collusion between powerful businessmen."
All true, but these things have absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
"Such collusion wasn't even illegal for most of civilized history - as merchants it's a bad business move to screw over the nobility too much, but they don't much care how badly you screw over the commoners."
Again all true, but absolutely irrelevant to the point I made. Smith recognized that these practices must be regulated for the health of the overall economy, in order for a "capital-based" system to work properly.
"I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it."
I could find 100 authoritative sources, but I'm not going to bother.
"Economics is the social science that studies how rational individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), manage scarce resources"
"To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions."
This.
AND, though they said they tried IR, I'd be willing to bet they didn't do it right. It needs to be strobed at a high rate. But it will affect the vehicle cameras as much as others, unless they have good IR filters.
No IR, however, is going to block a camera with a good IR filter. High power UV might, but you don't want to burn or blind your passengers.
"The app is comparing DNS records with a client-side database of cheat sites, and if it finds a match sending it to Valve's servers for verification & ban-hammer. It's not sending every site you visit, unless the only sites you visit were via DNS records used by cheat developers."
It doesn't matter. Privacy violation is still privacy violation. It's akin to the NSA's "metadata". "We have it, we're just not looking at it." Does that make you angry? It should. Do Valve's actions make you angry? They should.
Saying you "only" violated the privacy of 1/10 of 1% of users is no excuse. NSA saying it's "only" actually examining the meta-data for some people is no excuse. It's violation of privacy, plain and simple.
I very much doubt people who signed the EULA knew this was going to happen. And if you didn't know it was part of the agreement, then you didn't actually agree to it. (But it is a good reminder that you should read the fine print, because if it's in there, and you signed it, you're screwed.)
"However I think in addition to being worried about US snooping, this is also a convenient opportunity for promoting local technology firms."
The thing is, though, they could have done this LONG ago. They could have paied to lay their own cables, and paid to develop their own backbone infrastructure. Instead, they decided to go the cheap route and ride the coattails of the U.S.
That's all fine, but bitching about it later makes HER look bad, because it was a choice freely made. These options have always been available. They're just making political hay out of the situation, that's all.
Correction: parent was basically true. GP was a bit off.
Really, Chernobyl all boiled down to human error. Not just one or two errors, but a whole string of errors, while simultaneously some of the automatic safety systems were turned off.
While I'm here, though, I want to mention that OP got it very wrong. The book isn't about why improbable things aren't really improbable. It's about why they ARE improbable, but happen anyway. Not the same thing.
The test involved intentionally shutting down some of the safety systems. But when another power plant shut down, calling for more electricity from Chernobyl, the planned shutdown was postponed.
When the test was postponed, the Emergency Core Cooling System remained turned off (though that did not turn out to be a major factor in the eventual accident).
The whole thing is a long story, but in brief, it was a long chain of accumulated human error that caused the accident. Automatic systems were shut down. Manual corrections to the output were incorrect. Etc.
It doesn't matter how "safe" your automatic systems are, if they're turned off.
"Doesn't matter who said it. If God himself defined capitalism as something that has never existed in the real world, then the term is worthless outside a philosopher's soiree."
I suppose I might agree with you, if that were so. The problem is that it isn't. The economics Smith wrote about were pretty much the economics of everyday existence at the time he wrote it.
"A statement which is not actually true. For example, the Austrian school doesn't make that assumption and a lot of economic behavior studies are about how humans appear to deviate from rational choice making."
(1) I didn't claim Austrian economics includes that idea, GP did. My comment referred to other schools of economics.
And (2) show me an Econ 101 class in a U.S. university that teaches Austrian economics. I've never heard of one. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea though.
Regardless, just about all the equations in macroeconomics are based in the idea that people are making rational decisions. They HAVE TO be: you can't predict the outcome of irrational behavior. Assuming irrational behavior would invalidate most of mainstream economic "science".
"Also, you're invoking the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. By your definition REAL capitalism has never existed"
No, I'm not. I'm referring to capitalism as described by Adam Smith, who is widely recognized as the person who first codified "capitalism" as an economic theory (even though he didn't use that exact phrase). I didn't just pull it out of my ass. It has a real definition, and it ISN'T just "using private capital for production". That's overly simplistic.
"Voluntary" means something you VOLUNTEER to do. If you are forced or coerced into it, that isn't volunteering so it isn't voluntary. It's that simple.
I didn't finish my post: what that means is that the more greedy corporations are, and the more government cooperates with them, the LESS you have genuine, free-market capitalism. These are not flaws of capitalism per se, because capitalism actually requires anti-trust regulation. They are failures of government.
"Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep."
Yep. Austrian economists INVENTED many of the principles and equations that other schools of economics use as fundamental tools. But you didn't seem to be aware of that.
But... nice example! It just so happens, that Keynesian economics and Neo-Classical economics (which together make up the majority of "mainstream" economists today) ALSO rely, at their very roots, on the fundamental principle that "human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Which means that to the extent Austrian economics is wrong, those other schools of economics are wrong, too. (They teach you in Econ 101 that an underlying assumption of all of economics is that human beings make rational choices to maximize their own benefit.)
So... congratulations! You just shot down basically the entire science of economics, in one Slashdot post. Or not.
"The purpose of capitalism is right there in the name - to favor those with capital."
Not really. That is about the most sarcastic and pessimistic interpretation of the word "capitalism" possible.
Never mind dictionary definitions when it comes to technical subjects. They show popular usage, not necessarily technically accurate definitions. When MOST economists say "capitalism", they mean free-market capitalism ala Adam Smith.
And free-market capitalism is NOT about exploitation, or greed, or selfishness, or any of those things. It is not about coerced exchange of goods. It is about the voluntary exchange of goods.
Even Smith, clear back then, recognized that monopoly and oligopoly are enemies of REAL capitalism, and wrote that society would need antitrust laws to keep them from forming... to keep everybody playing WITHIN the free-market rules.
It is extremely obvious that the U.S. government has (and State governments have) not been doing their jobs in that respect.
"Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism."
Nice troll. You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Please give us an actual example of these fundamental flaws you describe, rather than painting with such broad, vague brushes. I can say any school of economics is based on flawed assumptions, but without an actual example it amounts to nothing more than hot air.
Also, despite Wikipedia's use of the word, Austrian economics pre-dated "neo-liberalism" by several decades.
"What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job."
Exploit n. To take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
If you don't leave, then you are consenting. Freely given consent implies voluntary. There is no contradiction there. However: if the consent is not freely given, then it may not be voluntary.
Just so we don't get caught up in a scuffle over terminology: when I wrote "exploit" I meant it in the sense of "to coerce".
A coerced agreement may be consent but it is not FREELY GIVEN consent. That is the difference. A person might feel it is the best choice under the circumstances, but coercion implies a lack of alternatives, so the consent is not freely given.
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices. If you want broadband internet, you rent cable service from the only company in town. As a result, you pay higher rates than if there was healthy competition. The higher prices are exploitative because your choices have been artificially narrowed; it is not a "free" market.
"You see that gold mine over there? Imma exploit the shit outta that bitch, and getting your panties in a twist over nomenclature ain't gonna stop me!"
"Nomenclature" aside, exploiting a piece of ground is different from exploiting people. Some people might use them together but they are not the same things.
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
History doesn't lie: no economic system has ever beaten capitalism. Not one. Ever.
I should add: he also seems to have the mistaken impression that Austrian economics is somehow anathema to altruism, which is ridiculous.
To be blunt, either the author or OP needs a lot of schooling in both politics and economics. One of the two is -- or perhaps both are -- conflating completely separate ideas into a great, hopeless muddle.
Based on this review, I think this is a book that can be safely ignored without negative consequences.
"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".
Slashdot Mirror
"OOOh, looky there you answered jack shit about why praxology isn't retarded, my key point, because, surprise: you don't understand Austrian school."
It's not my fault you don't understand how to argue.
As a reminder, THIS is what this whole exchange has been about:
"human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals"
Which, as I stated and then demonstrated via that wikipedia link, is not at all limited to the Austrian school, but is in fact a fundamental axiom of ALL "scientific" economics. If Wikipedia is not an authoritative enough source for you, try pickup up a book on the subject.
Changing the goalposts will get you nowhere. If you want to make a different argument, go ahead and make it, but don't pretend it's the same one.
This.
Expecting to get an objective view of backups from someone who works for a backup service isn't very reasonable.
I could be wrong, but it seems to me we've been seeing more of these "ads disguised as news" things lately. Is Slashdot trying to prime us for Slashdot 2, the "new improved" version?
"Yeah, and if you volunteer for something becaues your options are "A. take this specific offer, however constraining or B. die from starvation/preventable illness" it doesn't fit the 'classic' model of coercion"
As long as there are people constraining you to those choices, yes it does. In fact what you describe is very close to the definition of coercion.
"and the libertarian crowd would be all for it."
Nonsense. That is exactly the kind of situation that Libertarians are vehemently against. Again you demonstrate that you don't know the slightest thing about what you're talking about. You don't have to take my word for it. Go to the Libertarian party website and read about their actual position on force and coercion.
To clarify: I will admit that to the extent these things are true, Smith wasn't describing his "real world".
But he was codifying how that real economic real world should work, if it were to work robustly. To that extent (which was part of my point), he wrote that abuses of the system, such as coercion, monopoly and oligopoly should be prevented. And of course the only real preventative agent is government.
I would argue that the years prior to 1929, and for a while after WWII, in the U.S. that "ideal" was reached to an extent never seen before or since, and partly because of that, they were also some of the most productive years in history.
"Patents for example (originally government-granted monopolies for various trades) were quite popular *long* before Smith came on the scene. His world was perhaps a fair bit closer to the ideal than today (it'd be hard not to be), but the incestuous coziness between government and business powers extends back as far as we have records. Not to mention the collusion between powerful businessmen."
All true, but these things have absolutely nothing to do with the point I made.
"Such collusion wasn't even illegal for most of civilized history - as merchants it's a bad business move to screw over the nobility too much, but they don't much care how badly you screw over the commoners."
Again all true, but absolutely irrelevant to the point I made. Smith recognized that these practices must be regulated for the health of the overall economy, in order for a "capital-based" system to work properly.
"I made an actual argument, and you haven't defended the notion of axiomatic idiocy at all. Because guess what: sane economists, contrary to your delusions, don't use it."
I could find 100 authoritative sources, but I'm not going to bother.
From Wikipedia's page on "economics", paragraph 1, sentence 1:
"Economics is the social science that studies how rational individuals, groups, and organizations (called economic actors, players, or agents), manage scarce resources"
[emphasis added]
"To do so whilst reserving the ability of the limo owners cameras to work is unreasonable, and doesn't deserve any suggestions."
This.
AND, though they said they tried IR, I'd be willing to bet they didn't do it right. It needs to be strobed at a high rate. But it will affect the vehicle cameras as much as others, unless they have good IR filters.
No IR, however, is going to block a camera with a good IR filter. High power UV might, but you don't want to burn or blind your passengers.
"The app is comparing DNS records with a client-side database of cheat sites, and if it finds a match sending it to Valve's servers for verification & ban-hammer. It's not sending every site you visit, unless the only sites you visit were via DNS records used by cheat developers."
It doesn't matter. Privacy violation is still privacy violation. It's akin to the NSA's "metadata". "We have it, we're just not looking at it." Does that make you angry? It should. Do Valve's actions make you angry? They should.
Saying you "only" violated the privacy of 1/10 of 1% of users is no excuse. NSA saying it's "only" actually examining the meta-data for some people is no excuse. It's violation of privacy, plain and simple.
I very much doubt people who signed the EULA knew this was going to happen. And if you didn't know it was part of the agreement, then you didn't actually agree to it. (But it is a good reminder that you should read the fine print, because if it's in there, and you signed it, you're screwed.)
"However I think in addition to being worried about US snooping, this is also a convenient opportunity for promoting local technology firms."
The thing is, though, they could have done this LONG ago. They could have paied to lay their own cables, and paid to develop their own backbone infrastructure. Instead, they decided to go the cheap route and ride the coattails of the U.S.
That's all fine, but bitching about it later makes HER look bad, because it was a choice freely made. These options have always been available. They're just making political hay out of the situation, that's all.
Correction: parent was basically true. GP was a bit off.
Really, Chernobyl all boiled down to human error. Not just one or two errors, but a whole string of errors, while simultaneously some of the automatic safety systems were turned off.
While I'm here, though, I want to mention that OP got it very wrong. The book isn't about why improbable things aren't really improbable. It's about why they ARE improbable, but happen anyway. Not the same thing.
"Not quite true."
Neither of those is quite true.
The test involved intentionally shutting down some of the safety systems. But when another power plant shut down, calling for more electricity from Chernobyl, the planned shutdown was postponed.
When the test was postponed, the Emergency Core Cooling System remained turned off (though that did not turn out to be a major factor in the eventual accident).
The whole thing is a long story, but in brief, it was a long chain of accumulated human error that caused the accident. Automatic systems were shut down. Manual corrections to the output were incorrect. Etc.
It doesn't matter how "safe" your automatic systems are, if they're turned off.
"Doesn't matter who said it. If God himself defined capitalism as something that has never existed in the real world, then the term is worthless outside a philosopher's soiree."
I suppose I might agree with you, if that were so. The problem is that it isn't. The economics Smith wrote about were pretty much the economics of everyday existence at the time he wrote it.
"Yeah, I had a feeling the phrase "econ 101" would come up, because that's as far as any Austrian dipshits ever seem to pay attention."
That seems like a pretty arrogant ad-hominem for somebody who couldn't find a real reason for claiming Austrian economics is wrong.
Get back to me when you have an actual argument to make.
"A statement which is not actually true. For example, the Austrian school doesn't make that assumption and a lot of economic behavior studies are about how humans appear to deviate from rational choice making."
(1) I didn't claim Austrian economics includes that idea, GP did. My comment referred to other schools of economics.
And (2) show me an Econ 101 class in a U.S. university that teaches Austrian economics. I've never heard of one. I don't necessarily think it's a bad idea though.
Regardless, just about all the equations in macroeconomics are based in the idea that people are making rational decisions. They HAVE TO be: you can't predict the outcome of irrational behavior. Assuming irrational behavior would invalidate most of mainstream economic "science".
"Also, you're invoking the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. By your definition REAL capitalism has never existed"
No, I'm not. I'm referring to capitalism as described by Adam Smith, who is widely recognized as the person who first codified "capitalism" as an economic theory (even though he didn't use that exact phrase). I didn't just pull it out of my ass. It has a real definition, and it ISN'T just "using private capital for production". That's overly simplistic.
"Voluntary" means something you VOLUNTEER to do. If you are forced or coerced into it, that isn't volunteering so it isn't voluntary. It's that simple.
I didn't finish my post: what that means is that the more greedy corporations are, and the more government cooperates with them, the LESS you have genuine, free-market capitalism. These are not flaws of capitalism per se, because capitalism actually requires anti-trust regulation. They are failures of government.
"Yeah, thinking Austrian school has no bearing on reality is reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal "uneducated" of me. Yep."
Yep. Austrian economists INVENTED many of the principles and equations that other schools of economics use as fundamental tools. But you didn't seem to be aware of that.
But... nice example! It just so happens, that Keynesian economics and Neo-Classical economics (which together make up the majority of "mainstream" economists today) ALSO rely, at their very roots, on the fundamental principle that "human beings take conscious action towards chosen goals."
Which means that to the extent Austrian economics is wrong, those other schools of economics are wrong, too. (They teach you in Econ 101 that an underlying assumption of all of economics is that human beings make rational choices to maximize their own benefit.)
So... congratulations! You just shot down basically the entire science of economics, in one Slashdot post. Or not.
"The purpose of capitalism is right there in the name - to favor those with capital."
Not really. That is about the most sarcastic and pessimistic interpretation of the word "capitalism" possible.
Never mind dictionary definitions when it comes to technical subjects. They show popular usage, not necessarily technically accurate definitions. When MOST economists say "capitalism", they mean free-market capitalism ala Adam Smith.
And free-market capitalism is NOT about exploitation, or greed, or selfishness, or any of those things. It is not about coerced exchange of goods. It is about the voluntary exchange of goods.
Even Smith, clear back then, recognized that monopoly and oligopoly are enemies of REAL capitalism, and wrote that society would need antitrust laws to keep them from forming... to keep everybody playing WITHIN the free-market rules.
It is extremely obvious that the U.S. government has (and State governments have) not been doing their jobs in that respect.
"Well, Austrian economics is easy to take apart as pseudo-scientific bullshit based on fundamentally flawed assumptions rather than empiricism, so forgive my lack of concern over that quibble, especially since the neoliberal policies that are treated as the conclusion of the theory are fundamentally an anathema to altruism."
Nice troll. You didn't address the actual point but used it as a jumping off point to change the subject and rant about your lack of education in economics.
Please give us an actual example of these fundamental flaws you describe, rather than painting with such broad, vague brushes. I can say any school of economics is based on flawed assumptions, but without an actual example it amounts to nothing more than hot air.
Also, despite Wikipedia's use of the word, Austrian economics pre-dated "neo-liberalism" by several decades.
"What utter nonsense. Many people are exploited in their jobs. Yet they could give up the job."
Exploit n. To take advantage of (a person, situation, etc), esp unethically or unjustly for one's own ends
If you don't leave, then you are consenting. Freely given consent implies voluntary. There is no contradiction there. However: if the consent is not freely given, then it may not be voluntary.
Just so we don't get caught up in a scuffle over terminology: when I wrote "exploit" I meant it in the sense of "to coerce".
A coerced agreement may be consent but it is not FREELY GIVEN consent. That is the difference. A person might feel it is the best choice under the circumstances, but coercion implies a lack of alternatives, so the consent is not freely given.
Example: American cable TV and internet companies. In most parts of the U.S., their use can be said to be coerced because there are few if any other choices. If you want broadband internet, you rent cable service from the only company in town. As a result, you pay higher rates than if there was healthy competition. The higher prices are exploitative because your choices have been artificially narrowed; it is not a "free" market.
"You see that gold mine over there? Imma exploit the shit outta that bitch, and getting your panties in a twist over nomenclature ain't gonna stop me!"
"Nomenclature" aside, exploiting a piece of ground is different from exploiting people. Some people might use them together but they are not the same things.
"You can exploit the hell out of people with their "consent" when they're left with no other options"
Nonsense. That isn't "consent". There's nothing "voluntary" about that at all. Coerced behavior is not "voluntary", in any sense of the term. They are mutually exclusive.
"The pragmatic reality of starvation tends to intrude on Smiths perfect hyper-rational world, and the only laissez faire answer to that is social darwinism"
Smith described the provably best economic system the world has ever seen, which led to a smaller percentage of people starving than ever in history. Can you somehow show that is not true? I doubt it, since it is a fact.
Even China has fewer starving people now that it has adopted more elements of Capitalism.
History doesn't lie: no economic system has ever beaten capitalism. Not one. Ever.
I should add: he also seems to have the mistaken impression that Austrian economics is somehow anathema to altruism, which is ridiculous.
To be blunt, either the author or OP needs a lot of schooling in both politics and economics. One of the two is -- or perhaps both are -- conflating completely separate ideas into a great, hopeless muddle.
Based on this review, I think this is a book that can be safely ignored without negative consequences.
"You've just reinvented "enlightened self-interest" under the 1 millionth new name! Click here to claim your prize."
I also wish they'd get their economics straight. Exploitation is not "capitalist". Exploitation tends to occur even more in non-capitalist economies. In fact, exploitation of others is directly contrary to Smithian capitalism and free markets, which depend on purely voluntary exchanges. Exploitation is rather the opposite of "voluntary".