Hacker News Reader

Comment by anamax | Hacker News Reader

> In Bob's neighborhood, none of the houses are freshly painted, because it's in nobody's best personal interest to do it, because they don't own the places. None of the yards are weeded or landscaped, the plumbing leaks, and the wiring is hazardous. Bob commits as little of his own resources to his house, because it doesn't belong to him.

> But, I question that system. I think, if Bob weren't a rational actor

The above tells us more about your definition of "rational" than anything else. You're envy driven.

The guy above defines "rational" differently - he's greed driven. He fixes up the place that he rents because of the value that he gets.

IMHO, you're too concerned about what someone else gets. You don't even see how anyone else can think differently, hence your label "rational".

Envy is the stupid sin. It's the only sin that doesn't get you anything.

View on HN

Envy driven? It sounds to me like he's driven by altruism and a simple desire to make the place he lives more pleasant.

I really don't know where you got envy from.

Reread the exchange. ("The guy above" is not Bob.)

I'm responding to someone who thinks that it's irrational to fix up one's own house when others get significant benefit.

The person who is doing the fixup is doing it because he gets significant benefit, regardless of what other people get. The person criticizing thinks that Bob, who won't do work that benefits others without being compensated, is rational.

That's envy-talk.

Envy is worrying about what other people have/get. Greed is worrying about what you get. A greedy person will do things that benefit himself even if other people benefit without paying. An envious person won't.

Just for the record, you got that about as wrong as you possibly could -- to such an extent that I'm scratching my head at your interpretation of what I wrote -- but I can't clarify it any further because I've already made this as clear as I can.

edit: it sounds like you may not be aware that "rational actor" means a specific thing in microeconomics. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory . Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objective terms of monetary value. i.e., "I like having flowers in my yard" does not qualify as a benefit, thus a rational actor would not spend money to put flowers in their yard. The entire point of all that was to describe, in as simple of an example as I could construct, why I think that behaving only as rational actors -- i.e., measuring our benefits only in terms of monetary value -- can lead to undesirable outcomes, and why acting irrationally -- again, in the sense of microeconomics -- can lead to better outcomes for all involved.

I can't figure out where I went wrong in stating all that the last time 'round.

"Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objective terms of monetary value. i.e., "I like having flowers in my yard" does not qualify as a benefit"

If that truly is the definition of rational, then sorry, economics is sorely mistaken. Or at least the people who conduct economics that way. I always assumed it was clear that "monetary gain" is simply a placeholder for value gained. Of course "I like having flowers in my yard" does qualify.

Thinking in terms of monetary gain really makes no sense, especially since money doesn't actually have any value. It only has value if you can use money to put flowers in your yard, if you so desire.

I am not an economist but a mathematician by training, so I am not sure what economists are thinking. But they can't (all) be that stupid. Mathematically it is obvious that using such a strict definition of value (monetary gain) is unnecessary and hence should be done away with.

That said, I have problems following the "envy driven vs greed driven" argument.

>>"Specifically, in order for Bob to qualify as a rational actor, he must act in such a way as to maximize his benefit, where his benefit is defined in objective terms of monetary value. i.e., "I like having flowers in my yard" does not qualify as a benefit"

> If that truly is the definition of rational, then sorry, economics is sorely mistaken.

You're too kind - if that's the definition of "rational" that economics uses, economics is fundamentally useless.

> That said, I have problems following the "envy driven vs greed driven" argument.

My apologies.

"Greed" is concern with what you have. "Envy" is concern with what other people have.

A greedy person will do something that benefits himself regardless of whether it benefits others. An envious person will not do something that benefits himself if he thinks that other people get too much benefit from that thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com