
Journal Morosoph's Journal: Free Markets do not require Self-Interest 9
This diary entry grows out of this post of mine.
It is motivated by repeated critiques of (for example) the GNU GPL or proponents of strong copyright law where it is perceived that a side-effect of reducing the ability to horde is synonymous with reducing output. Such a perspective only makes sense to the extent that creativity is conditioned by a restricted definition of reward.
What if reward can involve benefit to others? This concept seems natural to us when we consider such things as benefit to our families, or when we seek political advantage for a chosen cause, but not always so natural when we're considering trade, worker relations, or supply and demand. What if I demand not just the lowest price, but an adequate wage for specified workers in the form of "fair trade"?
"Fair trade" produce doesn't typically have massive market share, this is true, but then we do not have very much information to base our purchasing decisions upon. Also, some people don't think of it as a consumer choice as much as a political statement, the implicit politics being left wing, a collection of folks that they might or might not wish to be associated with.
In what sense, then, can a "fair trade" purchase be efficient? The answer to that becomes clearer when we realise that efficiency itself is a relativistic concept. Efficiency only make sense when we decide for ourselves what constitutes "progress" and "cost", so that the ratio can be known. "Fair trade" then involves a concept of progress that includes the end workers' well-being. Clearly that can be sustained whilst reducing the end price through mechanisation, better mechanisms of delivery, and such like. Thus buying "fair trade" produce still drives the market to find superior allocations of resources.
What then about the new development of "copyleft" licenses, such as Creative Commons "share-alike" licenses or indeed the GNU GPL? Here we see creation by people who value that others make use of their works, and others yet in turn. This act in itself must undermine the perspective of those who believe that an incentive to create is synonymous with keeping things to oneself. Thus the fact that the GPL is in use undermines the central justification used by those who oppose it on intellectual property grounds!
For those who haven't read it yet, you really should read Coase's Penguin!
You missed the magic word... (Score:2)
That could mean that someone is willi
Utility (Score:2)
Re:Utility (Score:2)
I retitled "Addressing a Popular Economic Fallacy" to something more likely to draw in those who hold such a fallacy.
Also: although my liberalism has a libertarian edge, I was referring to your (excellent) suggestion in my earlier post.
Re:Utility (Score:2)
Re:Utility (Score:2)
I was not arguing for pure altruism, and besides, I think that you're wrong. People often act against their own interests, usually stupidly, sometimes not. Motivation is not the same as selfishness in normal English usage. I make efforts to eat only free-range chicken, for example, but there's not that much in it for me (yes, it tastes nicer, but I'm not very rich at the moment). I simply make a habit of it becau
Re:Utility (Score:2)
Re:Utility (Score:2)
I agree, but there are easier means to the same end. In terms of maximising personal satisfaction, I am doing poorly. I can leverage existing motivation, but the result need not be as great as if I'd set out to maximise the quantity of what made me feel good.
You always need to factor in the opportunity cost.
Besides. Why do I feel better? I've put work into my moral development in the pas
Re:Utility (Score:2)
You are right about easier means to the same end, but given past experience, I would argue that by eating free-range chicken, as opposed to, say, volunteering to dig wells in rural India, is based on the different choices you've made, which at the time you felt was in your best interest.
You could give up eating meat, which you probably believe to be a minor sin (particular once you learn how the animals are slaughtered.) But, you choose not to. You're ser
Re:Utility (Score:2)