Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

this thread isn't making me happy

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
The way to maximize freedom is to maximize choice

[/ QUOTE ]

Ugh. Clueless. I like lots of choices but choices are hardly tied to freedom. For instance if the government breaks up a large firm under the guise that its a monopoly, then they are both acting to increase choice and negate freedom.

[ QUOTE ]
Paraphrase: Too much choice causes paralysis, unable to choose

[/ QUOTE ]

In any case where many consumers face a burdensome process of compiling and understanding information there is a profit signal for an agent to specialize in that information, and provide service to the consumers by closing that information gap.

Any kind of paralysis due to too much choice is either a) the result of government interference (controlling what agents can and cannot do) or the result of agency service not being taken advantage of yet or has been determined by the market to be unprofitable.


[ QUOTE ]
Some choice is better than more, but more choice is not better than some. There is some magical amount, I'm not sure what it is, but I'm confident that we've passed that point where more options improve our welfare

[/ QUOTE ]

Some magical amount is what economists call market equilibrium.

He has absolutely no clue, nor can he ever have a clue, as to what number of choices *I* want to have, or what number of choices *someone else* wants to have.

The whole framework of welfare economics thought is seriously [censored]. By violently intervening into a market to restrict choice, you do so at the expense of some people in order to benefit some people. There is no cardinal measurement of value, so there is no way to sum and subtract how much value some gained and some lost, and so there is no way to determine if you've increased overall welfare.

The marginal utility of every dollar spent by every different individual is different, and so using $ as that cardinal measurement of value is just as [censored].

[ QUOTE ]
Income redistribution makes everyone better off

[/ QUOTE ]

Jesus [censored] Christ.

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Happiness is not an economic issue. It is a personal issue.

[/ QUOTE ] Happiness is actually quite literally the central economic issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Happiness has nothing to do with economics. Economic exchanges occur based on preferences, which are based on values, which are based on the subjective importance an individual assigns to certain scarce resources.

I do a lot of things, voluntarily, that make me unhappy. I went to blockbuster and paid $4 to rent "The Pianist." I knew what it would do to me. I watched it and almost cried my eyes out. I was completely unhappy when it was over, just like I knew I'd be.

I just went to the gym that I paid $40 this month to. I worked out so hard I almost puked. I knew I would, and I hurt a lot right now.

Economic exchanges are purposeful actions that attempt to achieve certain desired ends, ends which may or may not have anything to do with happiness.

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
Economic exchanges are purposeful actions that attempt to achieve certain desired ends, ends which may or may not have anything to do with happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not that the outcome is your happiness, but rather that you are happy with the outcome (ie, you gain the most utility from a specific outcome).

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Economic exchanges are purposeful actions that attempt to achieve certain desired ends, ends which may or may not have anything to do with happiness.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is not that the outcome is your happiness, but rather that you are happy with the outcome (ie, you gain the most utility from a specific outcome).

[/ QUOTE ]

No, its about being satisfied with the outcome (or perhaps more accurately "less unsatisfied", since total satisfaction would yield no further action), but not happy with the outcome.

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]


Jesus [censored] Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't it?

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

Then your definition of happiness isn't the colloquial definition. That's strictly utility.

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Jesus [censored] Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your position is that being taxed is actually good for you, there's really no sense of arguing with you. An argument about diminishing marginal utility or helping the poor is one thing, but calling redistribution pareto-efficient because it helps the rich is beyond ridiculous.

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]

Happiness has nothing to do with economics.

[/ QUOTE ]

lmao. Happiness is probably the fastest growing area in economic research today.

Re: The Axiom of Choice
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Jesus [censored] Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why doesn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

If your position is that being taxed is actually good for you, there's really no sense of arguing with you. An argument about diminishing marginal utility or helping the poor is one thing, but calling redistribution pareto-efficient because it helps the rich is beyond ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say, hypothetically, you could prove 100% that having less money made you happier. How, exactly, would it be ridiculous?