Timeline for Are the differences between capitalism's and socialism's analysis of resource distribution fairness fundamental?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 24, 2021 at 4:44 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 "For the situation to not be Pareto-optimal, at least one participant has to be an idiot" Not at all. The classic prisoner's dilemma is an example where the rational equilibrium is precisely the non-Pareto optimal outcome. | |
| May 3, 2021 at 17:27 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | A non-Pareto-optimal scenario is, like, Alice and Bob are sitting underneath a tree full of low-hanging juicy apples and starving to death. That just does not happen. | |
| May 3, 2021 at 17:25 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | It's worth pointing out that nearly every conceivable scenario is Pareto-optimal. Pareto-optimality doesn't really tell you very much. For the situation to not be Pareto-optimal, at least one participant has to be an idiot, but even in that case, one could argue that the idiot cannot get a better outcome without someone spending the time to help them, and therefore the situation actually is Pareto-optimal. | |
| Apr 30, 2021 at 16:18 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Ben: My point was much more of an argument against the claim that such configurations are in fact Pareto optimal. That is, if simple behavior changes can improve the lot of the "starving" while not harming (or actually improving) the condition of the rich, then the state can hardly be said to be optimal. Of course, if I'm understanding the idea of Pareto optimality properly, it's inherently flawed, since it assumes a fixed amount of goods which are redistributed. But with most things in the real world, you can always produce more. | |
| Apr 29, 2021 at 22:19 | comment | added | Ben | @jamesqf The specific point in that quote was about there being a possible configuration of the economy that is Pareto optimal where some people are rich and others starving. I believe the point of that statement is that the starvers in this scenario can't "simply change their behaviour", or it wouldn't have reached Pareto optimality yet; it's a criticism of the concept of Pareto optimality as a condition to aim for. Your laissez faire capitalist response is addressing a completely different argument (one about people starving in the real world while others are rich). | |
| Apr 28, 2021 at 4:53 | comment | added | jamesqf | @eclipz905: Your link is paywalled. | |
| Apr 28, 2021 at 4:52 | comment | added | jamesqf | @Fizz: That's why I said "at least in most cases". And of course we can find many examples of "crippled" people making a decent living. | |
| Apr 27, 2021 at 19:17 | comment | added | eclipz905 | @jamesqf something something ... bootstraps. | |
| Apr 27, 2021 at 18:20 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 182 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2021 at 18:04 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 3 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2021 at 17:59 | comment | added | 264 champagne bottles on ice | @jamesqf: not if they can't work at all, e.g. the crippled. On laissez-faire they should just die (unless they were born rich). | |
| Apr 27, 2021 at 17:58 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1020 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2021 at 17:46 | comment | added | jamesqf | To which the laissz faire capitalist might well respond that (at least in most cases) the "starvers" can stop being starvers by simply changing their behavior, and doing so would also increase the pleasures of the rich. | |
| Apr 27, 2021 at 17:29 | history | edited | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 132 characters in body
|
| Apr 27, 2021 at 17:07 | history | answered | 264 champagne bottles on ice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |