> Recently they had some declaration (I’m not gonna look it up) about “human mathematics” but economics is against this desire too.
If you think about it Economics is basically against humanity, all of it. The economic systems serves money, not people. It's apotheosis will be an economy that produces enormous amounts of something, but purely in the service of producing more, and nothing for useless things like people or their satisfaction.
It's about time we stopped confusing that system with a law of nature.
Economics can provide a framework for understanding trading and its effects, both beneficial and harmful: In theory voluntary trade should be mutually beneficial. If the benefit is not divided fairly, then ideally you can decline to trade or decide to trade with someone else, but in practice this may not be practical (for example in the face of collusion, unions, cartels or monopolies, or in the case of basic necessities.) Trades can also have negative externalities.
> In theory voluntary trade should be mutually beneficial. If the benefit is not divided fairly, then ideally you can decline to trade or decide to trade with someone else, but in practice this may not be practical
The assumption there is that you have something to trade. If you don't, economics says "kindly, FOAD." It doesn't care about your well-being, it doesn't care about your satisfaction, it doesn't care about human flourishing. It only cares about if you've got something some guy with money wants to buy.
And we're on track to eventually having a few guys (maybe even no guys) with all the money, who don't need to buy anything from anyone.
If you mean the current iteration of economics that bundles both ongoing costs and variable costs into the discrete price of an item, then yes you have inherently discovered that economics the way it currently is built with its singular price vector obsession is deeply misanthropic.
What is called efficient in economics is actually deeply inefficient.
To me it's strange how people don't seem to understand that betting on "capital having power", like team red does, is a losing bet and will always be a losing bet.
The answer has always been pricing in the continuous cost. It's efficient and it fixes the vast majority of problems.
> giving an even smaller group of this already small group an exalted position.
The arc of hyper-automation is something of a collapsing pyramid. First you automate the factory workers, then the factory supervisors, then whatever is left of the company.
Bleh.
> Recently they had some declaration (I’m not gonna look it up) about “human mathematics” but economics is against this desire too.
If you think about it Economics is basically against humanity, all of it. The economic systems serves money, not people. It's apotheosis will be an economy that produces enormous amounts of something, but purely in the service of producing more, and nothing for useless things like people or their satisfaction.
It's about time we stopped confusing that system with a law of nature.
Economics can provide a framework for understanding trading and its effects, both beneficial and harmful: In theory voluntary trade should be mutually beneficial. If the benefit is not divided fairly, then ideally you can decline to trade or decide to trade with someone else, but in practice this may not be practical (for example in the face of collusion, unions, cartels or monopolies, or in the case of basic necessities.) Trades can also have negative externalities.
> In theory voluntary trade should be mutually beneficial. If the benefit is not divided fairly, then ideally you can decline to trade or decide to trade with someone else, but in practice this may not be practical
The assumption there is that you have something to trade. If you don't, economics says "kindly, FOAD." It doesn't care about your well-being, it doesn't care about your satisfaction, it doesn't care about human flourishing. It only cares about if you've got something some guy with money wants to buy.
And we're on track to eventually having a few guys (maybe even no guys) with all the money, who don't need to buy anything from anyone.
If you mean the current iteration of economics that bundles both ongoing costs and variable costs into the discrete price of an item, then yes you have inherently discovered that economics the way it currently is built with its singular price vector obsession is deeply misanthropic.
What is called efficient in economics is actually deeply inefficient.
To me it's strange how people don't seem to understand that betting on "capital having power", like team red does, is a losing bet and will always be a losing bet.
The answer has always been pricing in the continuous cost. It's efficient and it fixes the vast majority of problems.
"yes you have inherently discovered" "is actually deeply" "and will always be" "has always been"
Are you a robot? If you are _the law_ requires your disclosure when asked.
> giving an even smaller group of this already small group an exalted position.
The arc of hyper-automation is something of a collapsing pyramid. First you automate the factory workers, then the factory supervisors, then whatever is left of the company.
Every human intellectual endeavor is going to become obsolete. Large swathes of humans may become so.