Revealed Preferences (people are liars)

[Luxoris]

[ QUOTE ]
So I'm going to choose to do something that I would prefer not to do? Tell me more.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, people sometimes have no preference and still take action.

Second, people's preferences are frequently formed on faulty information and therfore their actions don't represent the action they would take in their own self-interest.

Third, even when fully informed people sometimes act against their own preferences.

[Borodog]

But of course magical angelic omnipresent, omniscient, omnibenevolent bureaucrats and politicians suffer none of these failings.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm disagreeing that their stupidity or laziness or lack of information reveal their true preferences. People are subject to numerous fallacies and irrationalities.

Let's take a few examples.

Lack of insight
- Nerd wants to get laid before he's 20. This is really, really important to him. However, he never approaches girls or tries to improve his social skills, because he's unable to understand the solid empirical link between doing this and getting laid.

[/ QUOTE ]

He values not getting rejected and not reading/practicing all that PUA crap over getting laid. That's his revealed preference.

[ QUOTE ]

Lack of information
- A mother really doesn't want children to work in factories. If she saw children working, and knew the name of the company, she would be appalled and never buy their products again. However, she is unable to get information on any products produced in another country as they go through several sets of hands before ending up in her Walmart. Companies don't voluntarily disclose this information (or do so fraudulently) because it saves them a lot of money (which their shareholders want).

[/ QUOTE ]

She values cheap products over the costs of finding out that the company is employing children either through information searches or finding companies that promise no child labour (or setting one up herself). Those are her revealed preferences.

[ QUOTE ]

Poor assessment of risk
AJ Green (part owner of Absolute) wants to be very wealthy and live an awesome life. He already has millions, and thinks he can get away with cheating people on his poker site which is worth hundreds of millions of dollars over the next ten years. The maximum profit he can gain from cheating is a couple of million. Yet he cheats anyway. His desire for security and profit would make the rational choice not to cheat - and yet he did because of his terrible assessment of risk.

There are heaps more.

[/ QUOTE ]

He values the quick buck over the long term cash. Those are his revealed time preferences.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm going to choose to do something that I would prefer not to do? Tell me more.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, people sometimes have no preference and still take action.

Second, people's preferences are frequently formed on faulty information and therfore their actions don't represent the action they would take in their own self-interest.

Third, even when fully informed people sometimes act against their own preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

You two aren't using the same definitions. Either fix it or stop wasting your time.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I'm going to choose to do something that I would prefer not to do? Tell me more.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, people sometimes have no preference and still take action.

Second, people's preferences are frequently formed on faulty information and therfore their actions don't represent the action they would take in their own self-interest.

Third, even when fully informed people sometimes act against their own preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand the word preference.

[owsley]

So basically your argument is:

"Point to something everyone can agree is negative"

"Demand that people give their freedom and choices over to me for their own goddamn good, I know what is best. I will be a benevolent dictator, I promise."

"Profit"

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
So basically your argument is:

"Point to something everyone can agree is negative"

"Demand that people give their freedom and choices over to me for their own goddamn good, I know what is best. I will be a benevolent dictator, I promise."

"Profit"

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. I'm responding to the rather dubious assertion that people's actions are in line with their true values and desires. This is frequently not the case, and I'm giving reasons why

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Lol. Pretense of knowledge FTW.

[ QUOTE ]
The bottom line: Politicians and bureaucrats can SAY what they want to happen and actually want that to happen, but fall into numerous fallacies (i.e. "I know what's best for everyone, regardless of their individual means and ends and the laws of economics be damned!" ), irrational tradeoffs, or poor understanding of the available information or its consequences. This has the potential to cause complete social failure from intervention. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I disagree. Advanced societies such as those in the West have elaborate systems of oversight and corroboration built by very intelligent people (things like a constitution, bills of rights, houses of parliament, separation of powers, election procedures).

[ QUOTE ]
"I know what's best for everyone, regardless of their individual means and ends and the laws of economics be damned"

[/ QUOTE ]
When there are shared goals and finite goods, someone has to make that decision. Under any system, there can only be one road going past the front of yours and your neighbor's house. Between you, you have to decide how to manage it. Similarly, there is only one Yellowstone. Management has to be delegated to someone on behalf of all, and that someone will suffer from all the problems you describe.

I happen to think that a solid political system is the best way of ensuring that such decisions get made in the public interest without majorly hurting personal liberty. You may disagree.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm responding to the rather dubious assertion that people's actions are in line with their true values and desires.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is so except for situations where people's desires are irrational (e.g. I want a 5,000 square ft house in my neighborhood in Toronto for under $400,000, but if I don't "act" on that it's not because me actions don't reflect my desires).

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So basically your argument is:

"Point to something everyone can agree is negative"

"Demand that people give their freedom and choices over to me for their own goddamn good, I know what is best. I will be a benevolent dictator, I promise."

"Profit"

[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. I'm responding to the rather dubious assertion that people's actions are in line with their true values and desires. This is frequently not the case, and I'm giving reasons why

[/ QUOTE ]

And what happens after you "prove" that people's actions are not in line with their "true values and desires"? You fix this by forcing choices upon them for their own good. What other way are you going to fix this?