undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbandyaboot2y ago0 comments

> Well, then we have been living in a system that's as close to fair as possible since global individual wealth has been growing for a long time.

That’s a non-sequitur.

0 comments

renewiltord2y ago

No it's not. If the property of fairness is that everyone grows wealthier then a system that makes everyone wealthier is a fair system. That's as close to a tautology as possible.

The resulting absurdity is why OP was right to ask what fairness was: everyone has their own belief in it, oriented towards equality or proportionality or some notion of deserving.

bandyabootOP2y ago

In order to claim that the system is “as close to fair as possible”, you would have to demonstrate that the system has optimized everyone’s wealth growth as much as possible. Something going up for a long time isn’t proof of optimization.

renewiltord2y ago

Well, no you don't have to optimize each person's wealth growth. It could be incredibly uneven so long as you optimize the number of people whose wealth grows.

And clearly, since it is better than every other method, it is the best by definition. If other things were not done it is because they were not possible: since possibility requires an agent to execute and since no agent succeeded in executing a better plan it is, by definition, impossible.

2 more replies

imtringued2y ago

Except even Fisher Black recognizes a potential currency trap at the zero lower bound and Fisher Black is someone who strongly believes in economic equilibrium.

At that point I can't help but think that most people who think capitalism works are delusional since this is such a fundamental problem with capitalism that can at best be handwaved with eternal inflation.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

renewiltord2y ago

No it's not. If the property of fairness is that everyone grows wealthier then a system that makes everyone wealthier is a fair system. That's as close to a tautology as possible.

The resulting absurdity is why OP was right to ask what fairness was: everyone has their own belief in it, oriented towards equality or proportionality or some notion of deserving.

bandyabootOP2y ago

renewiltord2y ago

Well, no you don't have to optimize each person's wealth growth. It could be incredibly uneven so long as you optimize the number of people whose wealth grows.

2 more replies

imtringued2y ago

Except even Fisher Black recognizes a potential currency trap at the zero lower bound and Fisher Black is someone who strongly believes in economic equilibrium.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse