But all the actual productive capacity of the economy is in people who are making positive-sum contributions. The “nation” of positive-sum builders and helpers is, by necessity, richer than the “nation” of zero-sum takers. In actual resources if not dollars.
-
Show this thread
-
Imagine if everyone went on a sort of “strike” all at once: don’t work with or for anyone you think is sleazy or unfair. Don’t do any job you think is pointless or immoral. Just actually listen to your personal judgment. Would everyone starve?
9 replies 1 retweet 24 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
And just because someone is unpleasant doesn't mean they net destroy value. The beauty of markets is they function as a universal API for value & trade. Abstract out the sleaze. Destroy this and you destroy the economy and return us to scrabbling in dirt in little kin groups.
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo
I don’t think you should use “unpleasantness” as your gauge! Some people are hard to work with at first but you grow to respect and appreciate them. Considered judgment includes but is not limited to your first impression.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @patrissimo
Markets aggregate human local judgments. They work to the extent that those judgments have a tendency to correlate with what people value. That means somebody has to make the judgments!
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @patrissimo
If a critical mass of people overrides their own opinions then markets will lack liquidity, just as a stock market comprising entirely index funds would not have any information in its price signals.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
A business doesn't need to care, and shouldn't care, about whether its suppliers like celery. Or dress as furries. Or are considered unpleasant by some people. It cares about price & quality - the things inside the API. Expanding that care is IMO antithetical to economic scale.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo
Wow, I am not talking about doing that either, that would indeed be unreasonable.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Good! It sounded like you wanted people to cut economic ties with people they were currently tolerating, by incorporating more factors into their decisions. To "boycott" a new class of people. Was that not what you were calling for?
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @patrissimo
I’m saying that you shouldn’t personally work closely with people you think are untrustworthy or otherwise bad, or work at jobs that you think are bad, after having given the matter serious thought. Don’t act on what you know are shallow prejudices, act on your *best* judgment.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes
You don’t care who your suppliers are as people because you don’t engage with them as people. You do personally engage with your coworkers, bosses, and employees. And even there, you judge them by their *work* behavior; there’s no need to snoop in their private lives.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @patrissimo
Real life example: a computer security engineer thinks he was hired to prevent cyberattacks. Over time he realizes that this is mostly security theater and he was instead hired to *appear* to prevent cyberattacks. This bothers him ethically. He should quit. (He did.)
0 replies 0 retweets 4 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.