Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

The point that we are consumers first and producers second is a very good one. We absolutely need to accept that jobs are a cost, not a benefit.

But the article goes way off the rails towards the middle:

"But capitalism as such is not interested in quality of life. It is essentially a system for producing things to sell at a profit, the greater the better."

This is silly. Insofar as capitalism makes normative claims, the claims are merely that people should be able to do as they wish with their own property. It also makes the positive claim that allowing people to do this will typically increase utility for all market agents.

I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy? Huh?

View on HN

I think the point he makes in the middle is a good one, even if he oversimplifies capitalism's claims. Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market. And you can see many instances of (especially deregulated) capitalism spin out profound and unethical unhappiness (e.g., the US meatpacking industry in the early 20th century). The point he is raising is that there is an essential disconnect between the things that we as human beings care about (eg, quality of life, improving the world, raising families, aesthetic pleasures, knowledge) and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit).

As for the conclusion, I agree he does sort of get in the weeds a bit (what kind of education does he see as training consumers? I never took a class on that...). But he seems to be getting at the idea that part of the role of education in capitalism is empowering free agents to make ethical, informed purchasing decisions so that the free market veers toward good. If we aren't educated on broad topics and don't have autonomous free thinking, we might not believe in global warming and therefore not create a market for electric cars; or we not care about the ethical treatment of animals, so disregard organics and keep our cheaper Tyson products.

Increasing market utility under capitalism says nothing about increasing the quality of life of the market agents - it says nothing on the role of happiness or quality of life in a free market.

Are you claiming there is some huge gap between utility and happiness/quality of life?

Note that utility is defined as what people choose for themselves. How do you define happiness or quality of life?

...and what agents in capitalism care about (eg, profit).

You make the same fallacy the OP does. Agents in capitalism care about utility, not profit.

See this piece I wrote a while back, for example, which explains why we have such a large leisure class in America in a purely utility maximizing framework. (Hint: profit != utility.)

http://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wor...

> I'm also not sure what the heck he is talking about in the conclusion - people without a liberal education are unable to make their own choices about what to buy?

In my opinion he is talking about an uneven playing field.

There is a multi million dollar advertising industry which is applying psychological tricks to lure people into buying goods which might not be in those peoples best interest.

On the other hand there are many studies that show that people do not feel any luckier above a certain money threshold, that a larger car makes you only slightly happier for a couple of months and that most people on their death bed regret not having spent enough time with their family.

Of course this is nothing you hear about in the superbowl half time since it is not in the "interest of capitalism" as the author states it.

Maybe those things should be taught at school to counterbalance the effects of advertising.

"Such freedom in turn requires a liberating education, one centered not on indoctrination or social conditioning."

And yet, it would be easy to consider the education the author envisions as indoctrination and social conditioning itself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com