Economics Questions

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

hayekianxyz — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 18:50:38 GMT

Brainpolice:
What Hoppe has done (or, more accurately, what you have done, via referance to Hoppe), in this particular case, is to conflate a particular cultural bias with an economic law. There is no economic law that says that your cultural preference is innately the most competitive. This is little more than confirmation bias.

Nobody has conflated any cultural bias with economic laws. The demonstrating has merely been that various lifestyles are better suited to the market than others, and as such, without the state they will become more prominant and others will decline. Now if you ask me it seems to be somewhat obvious that cultures that emphasise the importance of responsbility as well as the importance of social etiquette will do better than others.

Brainpolice:
Then why are you insisting on the claim if you admit that it is largely dependant on - semantics?

Because the subject is important besides the semantics.

Brainpolice:
There is nothing inherently "culturally conservative" about - having a family and taking care of one's children. This is a near-universal trait in a sense.

Yes and no, conservatives stress the importance of a strong family structure far more than other groups.

Brainpolice:
That's simpy false. He predicts a much more isolated social order - and encourages it.

Yes, an isolated social order. He also admits the businesses will most likely not discriminate to the same extent private residences will.

Brainpolice:
It could just as easily be said that government enforcement of what it percieves to be "multiculturalism" will fail, and that multiculturalism could very well have a non-governmental context.

I would agree with that, but it's not relevant anyway.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

Brainpolice — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:59:41 GMT

It seems like we have veered from the initial question, which is NOT the morality or immorality of racism, but its practical economic aspect. The question should be (1) is racism a rational ideology? and (2) is it economically beneficial, in the long-term, to have mass-discrimination? To both questions, my answer is "no" - racism is not a rational ideology, and to discriminate based on cultural preconceptions of race even when it clearly is in opposition to individual merit and economic benefit is irrational, and inherently has negative economic effects when compared to more strictly economically-based decision-making.

That is what this is about, not some retarded "culture war" bullcrap.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

scineram — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:35:02 GMT

Who does that?

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

eliotn — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:31:01 GMT

GilesStratton:

Is that what the voice on the PC telescreen told you? I'm curious which cases are immoral and which cases are not?

Is it moral to force businesses to discriminate?

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

Brainpolice — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:05:51 GMT

Acquired? So it it's acquired how is it that the PC establishment after all these years trying and all this money spent still hasn't managed to stamp it out? I can't walk around my university without seeing signs warning racists that they're going to the gulag.

Giles, you are setting up a false dichotomy between being totally PC and being either openly racist or indifferent to it. That is a false dichotomy, and I'm getting sick of watching people knee-jerkedly being called PC for not being completely indifferent to racism. Racism is not a strictly PC issue, and viewing it as an irrational presupposition does not automatically make someone PC.

And yes, it is aquired. The concept of racial identity itself is not innate, it is learned. The idea that people are "naturally racist" is absurd because, well, not only is this dependant on a blatant naturalistic fallacy but it simply flies in the face of the facts - which is that attitudes about race are cultural phenomenon. People are not born with a concept of race identity.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

Brainpolice — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 17:03:30 GMT

I am perfectly able to discuss the matter without involving Hoppe, but I do not see the issue of bringing in a thinker who I believe has made great advances in this area. It is no difference from invoking Mises in a discussion concerning praxeology. You claimed that it is unreasonable to place culture above economics, and I agreed with you and yet stated that nobody has done so, and in fact Hoppe has done the exact opposite, I do not see what issue one could take with that.

What Hoppe has done (or, more accurately, what you have done, via referance to Hoppe), in this particular case, is to conflate a particular cultural bias with an economic law. There is no economic law that says that your cultural preference is innately the most competitive. This is little more than confirmation bias.

Well, yes, I do think you're correct here. One may simply change the terms in question, but then the best objection you can make is simply the terms in which the debate is framed. I don't think I've ever stated that low time preference lifestyles are conservative, although most certainly a lot of features of conservatism are indicative of low time preference.

Then why are you insisting on the claim if you admit that it is largely dependant on - semantics?

Correct, ideology does not translate into action. But that's besides the point, I do not expect it to do so, rather, I merely expect people to live culturally conservative lifestyles consciously or not. As for God, family and country. The second of those almost certainly does result in lower time preference to the extent that individuals begin to provide for many future generations. As for God, I would most certainly argue that if one perceives they will be held accountable for their actions for eternity they are more likely to be more careful about the actions they indeed take.

The thing is - what you expect people to be like isn't necessarily what they actually are like. These are all rather speculative opinions.

There is nothing inherently "culturally conservative" about - having a family and taking care of one's children. This is a near-universal trait in a sense.

It does not necessarily follow that because someone believes in an afterlife, they will have a lower time preference in "this life". In some cases the exact opposite could be true - one could disregaurd this life as merely transitory and want to whisked away to the afterlife sooner than later, which certainly is not indicative of a low time preference.

All you've demonstrated is that people will continue to work with one another, Hoppe does not deny this. Rather, he affirms it.

That's simpy false. He predicts a much more isolated social order - and encourages it.

No, it doesn't. But I never intended it to, I only inteded it to show that government enforcement of what it perceives to be conservatism will fail.

It could just as easily be said that government enforcement of what it percieves to be "multiculturalism" will fail, and that multiculturalism could very well have a non-governmental context.

I'll admit, it is conceivable, what I doubt is whether or not it is feasible.

I doubt if the attempt to preserve monoculture or to have absolute cultural isolation in the industrial and post-industrial age is economically feasable.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

hayekianxyz — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:27:35 GMT

For Juan.

Howard Fishbein, a researcher at the University of Cincinnati, maintains that from infancy human beings are naturally predisposed to recognize differences. He says that the ability to discern difference served ancient societies by helping them keep their guard up against outsiders who might hurt or kill them. Research indicates that by the age of 3, children develop a sense of "outsiders"-people who are different from themselves-and because of societal influence, may target those outsiders for prejudicial behaviors (Sleek, 1997).

Source.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

hayekianxyz — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 13:07:10 GMT

Thedesolateone:
I will dispute that children are necessarily race conscious

I wouldn't but as it's anecdotal I'll leave the issue there.

Thedesolateone:
racism is rather stupid I think, and certainly acquired.

Acquired? So it it's acquired how is it that the PC establishment after all these years trying and all this money spent still hasn't managed to stamp it out? I can't walk around my university without seeing signs warning racists that they're going to the gulag.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

hayekianxyz — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 12:59:36 GMT

eliotn:
the moral issue arises in certain cases of discrimination

Is that what the voice on the PC telescreen told you? I'm curious which cases are immoral and which cases are not?

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

Thedesolateone — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 11:19:01 GMT

I will dispute that children are necessarily race conscious - racism is rather stupid I think, and certainly acquired.

But this doesn't matter - opinions of different races are necessarily subjective and there's no point arguing about it, just as there's no point arguing about the relative merits of different works of art etc. The key point is: is having racist prejudices coercive? No, no it's not. So racism is ethically neutral.

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

eliotn — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 05:41:51 GMT

GilesStratton:
it follows that if individuals wish to enforce enforce their own multicultural morality on the population the market won't acheive this end. If the market won't acheive this end the state will.

What about saying that they must use coercion?

GilesStratton:
Discrimination is an is. It's part of human nature, and I don't see why it is wrong from a moral perspective.

Discrimination, as a general feature of human nature, is not morally wrong. Rather, the moral issue arises in certain cases of discrimination. Is it right for someone to choose the white person over the black person, when the latter is more qualified?

Re: The Economics of Discrimination

Juan — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:10:34 GMT

GS:
People are by their nature race conscious,

Unfounded assertion.

call it a survival mechanism.

Well, maybe we all know that brown people are natural murderers...So whites who avoid brown people are more likely to survive and pass their genes to their offspring ?

Actually, there's a good reason why children tend to be far more race conscious than adults,

"far more". Proof ? None.

they've not been brainwashed that it's a bad thing.

Well, maybe bigotry is a bad thing...