What is the best economical model and why is it the model of rational self interest?
What is the best economical model and why is it the model of rational self...
After I smoke a beer, daddy's cummies taste weirder.
if its so great where is the part that says it will not theaten the well being of the people to which the individual belongs?
Perhaps the bottom 10% of those people should aim towards being more rational; then, everyone from the group would be coasting towards the best possible outcome.
Don't blame how much you suck on other people making good decisions; instead, look inside, and see that if you killed yourself, everyone, on pure hard indisputable mathematical average, would be making better decisions and be better as a whole community.
even if everyone in your society became more rational there would still be a bottom 10%. why is concern for a given percent of the society to which you belong not necessary to an economic model thats meant to help that society flourish.
the best economy is one that best benefits the people that are part of that economy. isnt it then contradictory if an economy ends up hurting some of the people that are part of that economy?
my point being rational self interest can include fucking over people that belong to your economy, in which case the rational self interest model does not best benefit the people of that economy
It doesn't benefit the losers, who were probably non-participants anyways. Welcome to the mayoral order, you communist faggot. If 10% of the population doesn't make the cut, because their brains don't work, but everyone else is doing better than they would under any possible system, those are losses that are acceptable to all but 10% of us(and the faggots like you who derive self-esteem from virtue signaling on their behalf).
debunking your shit theory
a rational self-interested individiual uses all available information to achieve their goals.
No they don't. First off, nearly everyone is irrational. Some people donate when they see a homeless man on the street instead of spending that money on themselves. Some buy organic shit that costs more than normal greenies, which is irrational, because why would you spend more than you have to. Second, people don't use all of their information. Brexit is one example when people were lured by moronic promises like 350 mil € every week could be spent on NHS, when in reality GB made a net contributions of a mere 150 mil a week. They can't and won't analyze a situation in front of their face is their lifes depended on it.
Man, I love how neo-cons have so muddied the water's with John Nash's schizophrenia that people think flawed behavioral models are "economic models". Because if you're going to poison the well you may as well do it as epicly as possible.
a rational self-interested individual attempts to achieve something desirable to his or her own self
what do you call when someone does something desirable for someone else? i.e. tipping, donating to charities etc, helping some old pedestrian after they fall etc.
I mean, that introductory micro 101 sure is fun and all, but wait till the reality hits you OP.
Free market capitalism
"i'll just call him an idiot, that should disprove his comments
why would you do that, go on the internet and shitpost?
A society full of self interested individuals is much more prosperous, also you can have a condom of individuals interested in a small sector of their work, such as the Ford model of production. The only drawback is that one day some people may not even know what they are doing, that being a small 10%
GL getting low-IQ subhumans to behave rationally. Enjoy South Africa 2: Electric Niggaboo
the question is, can you have a society full of self interested individuals?
an economic model thats meant to help that society flourish.
I don't think you understand what "economic model" means.
Their still acting in what they think is their best interest. They are just too fucking stupid to understand it's not.
But you are right, this entire idea only works when people on average are not retarded. Nat soc would also likely rail under these conditions however as they are retarded and lazy as fuck. Nat soc requires hard working believers to make the whole thing actually work.
people are ratiomal
That's why we're all on Veeky Forums wasting our time right?
Because if you think people are willingly to spend finite resources (i.e., time and money) out of collective interest youre a fucking idiot
The issue is that "rationality" is poorly defined in the context of this conversation. If it's a defining quality that all people behave rationally, your statement doesn't mean much because you still have to figure out why individuals do what you don't understand. If rationality is defined as some set definition outside of your model, all someone has to do is provide an example of someone doing something different and your model needs revised.
both on a psychological and a sociological level this way of understanding human behaviour is nothing but a gross oversimplification at best, but mostly just plain wrong.
John Nash, the mathematician mainly behind this model actually stopped believing in it himself, and even apologized for ignoring the fact that people are largely empathic beings who are (some more than others of course, also depending on the situation that they are in) driven by moral considerations for the most part. He mainly apologized because he noticed that people who believe that they are only after their own self-interest tend to take immoral decisions easier. Self-fulling prophecy, yes.
It performs best because its way more efficient for individuals to make decisions than for a huge entity like a government. Large scale control of the economy would have to be given to a fuckhuge computer.
It also limits the chance of a huge catastrophe, individual bad luck or dumb choices won't wreck the whole economy. Many individuals get fucked, but fuck them anyway.
so your saying there is no difference between an economy that seeks to benefit most participants and an economy that seeks to all participants. that theyre equal? or is it best to benefit most and worse to benefit all? also just because the 10% dont do shit doesnt mean their not part of the economy.
also I stopped going on facebook because the virtue signalling is out of hand and disgusting. how the fuck would I derive self esteem from my anonymous posts on a bengali quilting forum? who am I trying to impress? these are honest questions that I'm trying to follow to logical conclusions.