This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

American National Debt Crisis

1356712

Comments

  • Profit motive isn't inherent to any one system. Profit motive is inherent to people. Have you ever read Animal Farm? I'm guessing you're too young to remember when the USSR was still around, and when there was a horrific imbalance between Party leadership and the peoples of Russia themselves. Greed is universal, no matter how much we want to think we're capable of putting Marxist ideals into practice.
  • edited July 2011
    Profit motive is inherent to people.
    That's a cultural thing.

    There are cultures where sharing is more important than personal gain. In fact, biological evolution suggests a person will sacrifice himself for another to propagate his or her genetics (for example, siblings and children). This is not profit motive, but whether it is "altruism" is also to be debated.

    People will help other people. The trend of people not helping people, and/or taking advantage of them, is far more common in urban or densely packed areas. When there is little actual need for interdependence for survival, and anonymity due to high numbers of people, then there is little need to care for one's neighbors. This allows greed to overwhelm community support. In rural areas, it is a rare thing indeed for one person to take advantage of another out of greed. The interdependence and community monitoring are effective stopgaps to what you call a universal problem. The solution has nothing to do with economics at all.

    Profit motive doesn't fit the culture of people who are interdependent upon each other for survival in close knit communities.

    Yes, you can argue you and I don't live in that, but it is a much harder argument to make that profit motive is intrinsic to human nature universally.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • The Bureau of Land Management oversees leasing, fees, research, and use of natural resources on federally-owned land. It's annual operating budget hovers around $1 billion and the agency claims to generate between five and six times that amount, mainly in energy production (a huge part of this is offshore drilling).
  • edited July 2011
    There is no such thing as altruism. There is only self-interest.
    In rural areas, it is a rare thing indeed for one person to take advantage of another out of greed.
    Are you fucking kidding me? You really think so?
    Post edited by Jason on
  • edited July 2011
    There is no such thing as altruism. There is only self-interest.
    In rural areas, it is a rare thing indeed for one person to take advantage of another out of greed.
    Are you fucking kidding me? You really think so?
    I guess I meant rural areas of undeveloped countries. Rural areas of developed countries still have all survival needs met without as much interdependence upon one another. As an example, when a car breaks down or gets stuck in snow in Houghton, MI, three people will stop and spend three hours helping. No compensation is asked.

    This is in stark contrast to more populated areas.

    It is a pattern based on sociological interaction, not fundamental human nature.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • In rural areas, it is a rare thing indeed for one person to take advantage of another out of greed.
    Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
  • edited July 2011
    In rural areas, it is a rare thing indeed for one person to take advantage of another out of greed.
    Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    I guess I met too many Wisconsin farmers who got taken advantage of when they moved to the more to urban areas, because they were previously unexposed to people trying to screw them at every opportunity. It's pretty funny, you're right. Good argument.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • @Bryan
    You're making a Noble Savage fallacy.
  • edited July 2011
    @Bryan
    You're making a Noble Savage fallacy.
    So there is absolutely no trend of people being less inclined to take advantage of others due to sociological conditions such as population density and survival need? I said nothing of "human nature being good" as this fallacy claims. I said there are other pressures at work that prevent humans from behaving in ways of ultimate greed.

    EDIT: and my point is that profit motive does exactly the opposite, it pressures ultimate greed to succeed.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • I guess I meant rural areas of undeveloped countries.
    This makes it sound like you're saying that human nature is good. It also isn't true. Citizens of undeveloped countries are more likely to wrong each other in the name of greed, because there is a greater scarcity of resources.
  • edited July 2011
    I guess I meant rural areas of undeveloped countries.
    This makes it sound like you're saying that human nature is good. It also isn't true. Citizens of undeveloped countries are more likely to wrong each other in the name of greed, because there is a greater scarcity of resources.
    Actually, if they are reliant upon each other to utilize those more scarce resource, they are less likely to create an offense or upset amongst the others; this would cause the individual to ultimately lose access to resource by way of ostracism. It doesn't imply any universal good.

    Seriously, I feel like sociology is a completely foreign topic. I keep saying "pressure", "sociological pressure," "sociological", etc, but people are either ignoring it or not understanding it. I'm not sure which.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • edited July 2011
    I guess I met too many Wisconsin farmers who got taken advantage of when they moved to the more to urban areas, because they were previously unexposed to people trying to screw them at every opportunity.
    They were exposed to fewer people overall. The proportion of people who genuinely try to dick you over is very low. When you live in a placed where you interact with 500 people regularly, you'll almost never run into one.

    Now move to a city where you run into 10,000 people per day. Guess what? Your odds of running into a douchebag increase dramatically because there are more people around.

    EDIT:
    Seriously, I feel like sociology is a completely foreign topic.
    No, it's just the softest of the "sciences" and thus an area full of disagreement and a lack of adequately controlled variables.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I guess I met too many Wisconsin farmers who got taken advantage of when they moved to the more to urban areas, because they were previously unexposed to people trying to screw them at every opportunity.
    They were exposed to fewer people overall. The proportion of people who genuinely try to dick you over is very low. When you live in a placed where you interact with 500 people regularly, you'll almost never run into one.

    Now move to a city where you run into 10,000 people per day. Guess what? Your odds of running into a douchebag increase dramatically because there are more people around.
    This. Opportunity.
  • edited July 2011
    The proportion of people who genuinely try to dick you over is very low.
    This is also an effect of the small town culture upon the individual. There are pressures against douchebagery; you are not as anonymous and you can't get away with things as easily. It isn't just correlation or statistics, there is a bit of causation as well. As the causation reduces foreign douchebags, it also reduces exposure of locals to douchebagery such that they are less inclined to conceive of the notion.

    Should I begin digging through Google Scholar for social psychology and sociology papers to support my argument? Will that help at all?

    We basically have gotten into a nature vs nurture debate, which cannot be proven only argued ad nauseum.

    I do not make the claim that people are inherently good or bad, but that sociological pressures dictate behavior. Further, the sociological effect of a societal device that encourages greed yields a populace more prone to greedy tendencies.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • I'm willing to bet that something similar to the GIFT is in effect too. In a giant city, you dick over a random guy on the street, you'll probably never see him again. Dick over a guy in a small town, he probably knows your name.
  • Will that help at all?
    Yes.
    There are pressures against douchebagery; you are not as anonymous and you can't get away with things as easily.
    But do those pressures actually stop anyone from doing those things? Small town people love to gossip - in fact, everyone loves to do it. It's an essential mechanism through which we define our social circles. So if nobody made drama, nobody would be able to gossip.

    Cite me these statistics you're talking about.
  • edited July 2011
    Cite me these statistics you're talking about.
    What statistics? I'm talking sociological pressure and research regarding that.
    I do not make the claim that people are inherently good or bad, but that sociological pressures dictate behavior. Further, the sociological effect of a societal device that encourages greed yields a populace more prone to greedy tendencies.
    For example, if you want, I can find expectation studies, where people act based on the expectations of others. That supports my quote here. There might be ones that even focus on the external expectation of greed, if I'm so lucky.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • dsfdsf
    edited July 2011
    It's like the internet. Many people use it as an opportunity to be a raging asshole since they are pretty anonymous. But then you take a place like this where people can act like a dick and then meet up with everyone at a convention. People will remember how you behaved on the forum and probably shun you.
    Post edited by dsf on
  • As I said, GIFT.
  • edited July 2011
    I'm talking sociological pressure and research regarding that.
    That's what I mean - cite the research you're using to support your conclusion.
    People will remember how you behaved on the forum and probably shun you.
    I'm betting this doesn't happen as often as you might think. I only have personal experience, though - no objective studies.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • Do people who act like shit heads meet up with you in person?
  • Do people who act like shit heads meet up with you in person?
    Do you know Scott Rubin?
  • Do you know Scott Rubin?
    Women shun him ^_^
  • I don't really find Scott Rubin offensive
  • edited July 2011
    I'm talking sociological pressure and research regarding that.
    That's what I mean - cite the research you're using to support your conclusion.
    So my primary argument is based on the Pygmalion Effect, which is most famously studied in depth in this scholarly article. The study (and many others like it), find that people modify their behavior to the perceived expectations (or Social Norms) of others. As an example of this in effect, see this article regarding sociological implications of expectations on how people color their views about certain avenues of research. Another example is in authority experiments, where an authority figure's expectations of the person under scrutiny cause them to do things we might say are evil, when the person would never otherwise do such a thing. The most famous example of this is Stanley Milgram's Obedience Study (try taking a psychology class and not hearing about this one). It calls into question whether evil can even be a fundamental part of humans; in Milgram's experiment, it isn't even learned but is forced (as a consequence of external sociological pressure). Stealing bread specifically to feed one's family is an example of evil/greed that is not learned but forced due to pressure. After long enough, or without knowing anything else, it might become learned.

    These pressures to which I keep referring are brought about by authority (such as parents while you are growing up), society (through devices like peer pressure), and internal expectation (as in, the epistemological sense of "expectation").

    The profit motive, as a fundamental part of our culture, is a societal pressure that works in much the same way the behavior bias of the Milgram experiment works (authority, be it your parents, your boss, or rich people say that making more profit is better, and the goal of life really) or the perception bias due to expectation works (you are told by many in our society that the profit motive is the only viable economic system). By selecting a societal device with a foundation of greed, the individuals in that culture are pressured to pursue that greed.

    Here is at least one article that suggests sharing is far more natural for children of age 2 or less. There is some implication, then, that the lack of sharing (greed) might be, in part, learned. I could not easily find studies that try to explain the devices for such learning. Nature vs nurture is still pretty hotly debated amongst psychologists, but I know of few who still believe that these are mutually exclusive; some people's nature is to be more influenced by others (nurture).

    Of course, and again, there will be greedy people in any situation. This anecdotally suggests not all people are inherently good in nature. This, however, does not mean all people must be greedy in nature. The anecdotes that lead you to believe greed is human nature are all founded in cultures with greedy societal norms; neither you nor I can separate how much of the greed in those anecdotes is due to human nature and how much is due to societal norm, but we can recognize both forces exist.

    I merely suggest that it might be wiser not to choose societal norms which encourage behavior such as fraud and cheating to "get ahead," which is precisely what greed via the profit motive encourages.

    As a secondary thought, what motivates us to even want to "get ahead"? That also is worth examining.

    EDIT: to those making the argument that humans are inherently greedy, I suppose now that I've done my part, will you do yours? Cite your research. I don't doubt that you can find research to support your position. That's why academia is fun.
    Post edited by Byron on
  • I don't really find Scott Rubin offensive
    He's offensive, he's just a shit head.
  • I don't really find Scott Rubin offensive,
    we just disagree sometimes.
  • I don't really find Scott Rubin offensive,
    we just disagree sometimes.
    As several people I have spoken to have said, you need to build up a Scott tolerance. In the course of this, however, you will have the intense urge to PUNCH THE MOTHERFUCKER IN THE FUCKING FACE.
  • I don't really find Scott Rubin offensive,
    we just disagree sometimes.
    I think we can all agree that it is Scott's fault that we have a national debt crisis.
  • I don't really find Scott Rubin offensive,
    we just disagree sometimes.
    As several people I have spoken to have said, you need to build up a Scott tolerance. In the course of this, however, you will have the intense urge to PUNCH THE MOTHERFUCKER IN THE FUCKING FACE.
    I'm not sure when I built up my tolerance, but I no longer feel the urge to inflict bodily harm on him. :P
Sign In or Register to comment.