OK -- another. Thank you for your work. It is helpful. The other thing is: money is a place-holder -- it is ALWAYS a place-holder. It NEVER has meaning in itself -- it indicates something about the people and society in which it operates. Inasmuch as this post is literally about "hoarding money", which is what wealth is, it seems to me it behooves one to discuss something about the status conferred on individuals and households in which the hoarding of money has gone to extremes. This is not true of every society -- you don't need to impinge too much on anthropology, and yet it would be good to clarify what it means that the justice system tends to prefer the well-being of those who have higher levels of hoarded wealth. Humans are status-seeking animals. If Justice is not blind in this society, its bias should be clarified -- it is not toward those who are better warriors, or better inventors, or who benefit society more -- in this society it is a bias in favor of those who hoard more wealth. This has to do with how power is wielded in this culture -- money confers the capacity to warp the system in one's favor. We covet it; our justice system defers to it; perhaps we should consider if that is a characteristic of a "good" society.
I was working on a post about this. I like your version better. Thanks for the shoutout to Decode Econ. Can I cross post this to my account this week? I would love to collaborate
Just one small but fundamental point: utility does not mean "happiness". It doesn't mean "benefit" either. It literally means "getting what you want" -- whether it's good for you or not. Everyone should always keep in mind Becker and Murphy's 1988 "Theory of Rational Addiction", which clearly and for all time drove a sword between utility and well-being. The distinction, critical for the entirety of Behavioral Economics, shows up everywhere. I have made a pledge never to make this error, and urge anyone interested in terminological accuracy to do so as well.
That's a very important point. Utility is a really broad term and often can be an over-simplification. Might be an idea for article - thank you for the comment!
Awesome Post. Love how intricate and Insightful this study is.
Also, thanks for the Decode Econ shoutout!
OK -- another. Thank you for your work. It is helpful. The other thing is: money is a place-holder -- it is ALWAYS a place-holder. It NEVER has meaning in itself -- it indicates something about the people and society in which it operates. Inasmuch as this post is literally about "hoarding money", which is what wealth is, it seems to me it behooves one to discuss something about the status conferred on individuals and households in which the hoarding of money has gone to extremes. This is not true of every society -- you don't need to impinge too much on anthropology, and yet it would be good to clarify what it means that the justice system tends to prefer the well-being of those who have higher levels of hoarded wealth. Humans are status-seeking animals. If Justice is not blind in this society, its bias should be clarified -- it is not toward those who are better warriors, or better inventors, or who benefit society more -- in this society it is a bias in favor of those who hoard more wealth. This has to do with how power is wielded in this culture -- money confers the capacity to warp the system in one's favor. We covet it; our justice system defers to it; perhaps we should consider if that is a characteristic of a "good" society.
I was working on a post about this. I like your version better. Thanks for the shoutout to Decode Econ. Can I cross post this to my account this week? I would love to collaborate
Sure and really appreciate it!
Just one small but fundamental point: utility does not mean "happiness". It doesn't mean "benefit" either. It literally means "getting what you want" -- whether it's good for you or not. Everyone should always keep in mind Becker and Murphy's 1988 "Theory of Rational Addiction", which clearly and for all time drove a sword between utility and well-being. The distinction, critical for the entirety of Behavioral Economics, shows up everywhere. I have made a pledge never to make this error, and urge anyone interested in terminological accuracy to do so as well.
That's a very important point. Utility is a really broad term and often can be an over-simplification. Might be an idea for article - thank you for the comment!