Hacker News Reader

Comment by smokeyj | Hacker News Reader

I feel that Gate's comment about curing baldness is a testament to the efficacy of the marketplace. Markets only represent what the people want, and I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria. Bill is noticing a problem with people, and the markets reflect that.

The nice part about markets is they can adapt very quickly. If we were to convince enough people malaria was worth curing, we could do it! There's no rule to a marketplace that says you can't.

I see two roads you can go down in solving this problem. We can convince the public that a cause is worth investing in, or we can force the public to support a cause (by means of a State actor or other monopoly on violence). Personally, I think historical evidence proves forcing people to do anything is unsustainable and counterproductive. Just one guys opinion.

View on HN

> I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria.

I know you're getting hammered on this point already, but I feel like the other responses are coming from the angle that there are a ton of people in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and South America that don't have much money but would likely disagree with your count.

But I'll come at it from a different angle: My step-father has spent a decent chunk of change on hair-growth products. But I guarantee you if he was given the choice between curing malaria and curing baldness, he would cure malaria, and I expect this would be true of most people.

Your step-father already had the choice of donating that money to malaria research or prevention programmes. Sure, the former isn't guaranteed to lead to success, but from what I hear hair-growth products don't exactly have a stellar track record either (unlike malaria prevention programmes).

Of course. If everyone was a perfect little rational automaton then they would weigh all the factors and choose appropriately.

Bu they aren't.

Social and cultural norms, advertising, pride, self esteem, distance and on and on influence people to choose the hair products over people's lives.

I'm not saying its wrong to want to keep your hair over saving people from malaria. But I am saying its wrong to think that "the market" is this perfect thing and "rational actors" actually exist.

The market is great, but it isn't right about everything, and people don't have enough information and are too easily influenced by everything else to be considered rational about anything.

It's also entirely possible that if baldness was cured, he'd have more hair, which would give him more confidence, which would in turn affect everything in his life including his earning potential, which he may then donate to curing malaria in much greater amounts.

At least if I was selling Rogaine, that's how I might spin it.

I don't know how much I like this sort of statement. It seems like such a damning thing when someone professes that they'd do one thing, but end up doing another. We like to consider it hypocrisy, or at least inconsistency. (Note: for all I know, furyofantares' stepfather donates 2x as much money to malaria research/prevention than hair-loss prevention, I really have no idea).

But it seems like we all do this sort of thing, at least part of the time. Baldness is an issue apparently directly affecting furyofantares' stepfather, on a daily basis. Malaria isn't. Should we expect him to keep malaria constantly on his mind whenever making economic decisions?

Yes, if given a choice of spending someone else's money on research to cure either malaria or baldness, they would pick malaria. However, it seems your step-father has already made the decision about how to best spend his own money.

He may be modeling it as (or similar to) a prisoner's dilemma, with the assumption that only a huge infusion of funds could cure malaria. In this case, assuming a democracy, "spending other people's money" is more like enforcing an agreement contract in a dilemma game.

(This model is wrong, of course, but I doubt many people are aware of the expected disability-adjusted-years-gained-per-dollars-spent-on-mosquito nets statistics)

This might sound like a nitpick, but I think it's important, the parent's step-father most likely spent his money on what were advertised as cures and treatments that guaranteed to solve his baldness problems. I doubt he put that money directly into baldness research, but instead spent it on what was supposed to be a viable product.

I think it's an unfair distinction. Would I spend money on a solution that directly affects me or would I invest in a possible treatment that doesn't affect me? That belief that the first choice is available and implemented heavily skews the balance.

> I guarantee you that more people want to cure baldness than malaria.

You are so very, very wrong. More rich people want to cure baldness than malaria, because pretty much all rich countries are in climates where malaria can't thrive.

How many people do you think care more about their thinning hair than an illness that can kill their children?

The USA has ideal conditions for malaria. Washington DC was a giant malarial swamp at one point.

Florida has an abundance of skeeters, but they do not test positive for malaria.

Yes but that was not always the case. Malaria was endemic to North America and existed from Florida all the way up through Minnesota. The CDC was formed as the center for malaria control. I was responding to the point that "pretty much all rich countries" are in areas with climates not conducive to malaria. There are at least a half dozen rich countries that once were endemic to malaria. USA, Hong Kong, Australia, Italy, Singapore, etc.

I should have specified that I was talking about the US. My point was the US markets serve the US's demands very well. And if demand grew to cure malaria, the market would solve it, much like any other demand.

It seems, then, that we need to figure out how to create more rich people in sub-Saharan Africa. Capitalism isn't the problem. It is the best long-term solution to problems like these.

I think it's not as simple as that.

People who would be affected by Malaria wouldn't have the purchasing power to affect the market. Baldness is universal and so people who have money and care about cosmetic effects, can affect the market to a greater degree.

I feel like you just skipped what I believe was smokeyj's entire point: that perhaps it's possible to convince people that a cure for malaria is a cause worth investing in, even if it doesn't affect them personally. It's not a truism that people who are sufficiently well off will necessarily care more about their impending baldness than the lives of others.

You're right, I did skip over some of his point. I would like to think that there is more to the notion than theory though. In practice, cures and treatments for baldness are self-sustaining --advertising > want > investment in treatments > more ads. Malaria (or similar affliction) have different dynamics and are not self-sustaining. (at least I don't see that). It's nice to think we could convince people to care about Malaria the same way they care about baldness (superficially this is a crass comparison), but the benefit (re Malaria) is remote and not immediate. Now, maybe it's not impossible. People unaffected personally by bigotry can show interest (and put effort) into ending bigotry, for example. I think that and Malaria are examples of 'big society'. So, maybe there is hope...

Correct, treating baldness has more demand. My point is we can influence demand with things like outreach and awareness programs.

I'm curious, of all the things killing poor people, who decided malaria was at the top? Some people see clean water and food as a higher priority. Why should anyone tell me how to donate? Do people really have such level of faith in the benevolence of central planners?

>The nice part about markets is they can adapt very quickly. If we were to convince enough people malaria was worth curing, we could do it! There's no rule to a marketplace that says you can't.

This is a big problem of free market fundamentalism, in my opinion. It's far too optimistic about how rational people are.

I do still think that capitalism might be one of those "it's crap but all options are worse" kind of thing. At least for now.

> This is a big problem of free market fundamentalism, in my opinion. It's far too optimistic about how rational people are.

I think it's a problem with your understanding, in my opinion. If you accept that people are inherently irrational, wouldn't a representative government be equally irrational? Unless of course one accepts the notion of the benevelent actor who burdens himself with the task of propellingn society foward against its will. A parental figure in a sense, who safeguards his sheep for the greater good. You essentially believe in batman, and I'm the optimistic one. I say this lightheartedly, simply trying to illustrate my view.

The difference is that people are more willing (or perhaps capable) to be rational and idealistic about long-term abstract decisions like voting for a candidate who wants to ban unhealthy food, than about immediate everyday decisions like whether to eat a salad or a donut...

While that's not entirely implausible, if we start structuring societies around that idea, then the state could justify any action to a scary extent. You know, for the greater good, we know better, yadda yadda.

Well, that's a bit of a false dichotomy.

But for argument's sake... Even if people (as in, most people) are irrational, that wouldn't necessarily lead to their rulers being irrational, would it? After all, we supposedly* select people who are good at ruling to be rulers, just like we supposedly select people who are good at healing people to be doctors. They are expected to be better at it because they are interested in it, have studied it and are focused to do it, not because they're supermen.

* yes, this could be tad optimistic, especially under democracy because of the very irrationality of most people

> we supposedly* select people who are good at ruling

The consumer is irrational, but the voter is rational? This is a contradiction.

The operative difference between a purchase and a vote is that purchases are (1) voluntary, and (2) continually adjusting to changing conditions.

Please reread my comment. Everything you said was covered there already.

You're putting words into dscrd's mouth. They didn't say that people are "inherently irrational", which would imply that making a rational decision would be some extraordinary occurrence.

Likewise, I wonder if it's reasonable to claim that people are "inherently rational", because we all know from experience that it doesn't require extraordinary circumstances for a person to make an irrational choice. People make both rational and irrational decisions all the time!

I know you're trying to make a lighthearted jest, but your benevolent actor = batman illustration seems a little too mean-spirited in its chiding. You start by misconstruing dscrd's meaning, and end by claiming that dscrd's "essentially believe[s] in batman".

I don't think it's unreasonable (irrational?) to presume that people are capable of increasing the amount of rationality they wish to apply to a problem based on its stakes (although we have plenty of anecdotes to support the counterpoint to this, as well), while still constantly making irrational choices on things which are (or appear to be) lower-stakes.

For example: I probably wouldn't build a house next to a coal power plant. I would consider that to be a rational decision. On the other hand, I may be a smoker, or really, really love doughnuts. There may be rational components to each of those (they give pleasure), but when viewed in the light of my decision to not live next to a coal power plant (I don't want to eventually get sick), they seem like pretty irrational decisions (because they'll eventually make me sick).

If I'm misinterpreting dscrd's argument please help me out. I interpreted his critique to markets as they won't work because they represent the will of the people, and sometimes the will of the people is wrong (because they're irrational)? He seemed to accept that argument and wanted to push it forward..

> There may be rational components to each of those (they give pleasure), but when viewed in the light of my decision to not live next to a coal power plant (I don't want to eventually get sick), they seem like pretty irrational decisions (because they'll eventually make me sick).

Sounds like value theory to me. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis. Donuts make me reeeaaally happy, so I'll indulge. To make up for it, I'll run a mile. I like eating a donut and running a mile over not having a donut at all. It's not a matter of rationality, but preference -- which is what value should reflect. The creation of value can't be institutionalized by a central planner because preference is so diverse and changes at a rate quicker than any beurocracy can address. Again, just one persons observations.

>If I'm misinterpreting dscrd's argument please help me out. I interpreted his critique to markets as they won't work because they represent the will of the people, and sometimes the will of the people is wrong (because they're irrational)? He seemed to accept that argument and wanted to push it forward..

Yes, that was pretty much my critique: people are often irrational. I think you mispresented that critique by taking it to absurdity. Continuum or slippery slope fallacy?

I guess I don't agree with your use of "rational". Motives such as selfishness and greed are perfectly rational. They may not be altruistic, but they sure as heck make sense. I associate irrational behavior with children, the insane, and mentally handicapped. These are people who are not capable of reasoning. Corrupttion, cronyism, and greed all make perfect sense.

Saying free markets aren't effective due to mans selfish nature is a reasonable observation. I agree that markets would be more effective with more altruistic agents. But then again, what wouldn't be? I believe whatever shortcomings in human nature that voluntarily interacting people face (ex, selfish agents in a market) will only be magnified in a Statist society. A "bad guy" trying to game the market with anticompetative practices sucks. What sucks more is this bad-guy gaming the government, and everything government regulates (hint, everything).

No, this is not a problem with market fundamentalism, whatever this is, but with properties ascribed to market fundamentalism.

Advocates of free markets tell you that the outcome is such and such if and when market participants can serve their interest as they see fit. They don't tell you that the outcome will be what you call "rational".

I had a professor once who invested in the stock market a lot. He invested a lot in Apple, but he always looked dismayed. When we asked him about it, he replied: "the market can remain irrational longer than I can stay solvent." So while, I believe that the market is ultimately rational, there are delays which can make it appear irrational.

You appear to be assuming that wanting to cure malaria in some other country is more rational than wanting to cure one's own baldness. Can you provide an argument for that?

Instead of rational, I would say valuable. Curing malaria can be more valuable than one's own baldness due to altruistic motives such as love, empathy, compassion. It can also be valuable for selfish motives. People do things like donate and volunteer all the time, so I don't think it's an unheard of concept.

All this is true, and the point is that "free market fundamentalism" is perfectly consistent with it. Free market fundamentalism doesn't assume people are "perfectly rational"; it assumes that people value things and will do things that they reasonably expect to lead to things they value. (I realize that you know this, but I'm not sure the parent poster to mine does.)

You got it wrong: more DOLLARS want to cure baldness than malaria.

You're correct, but in a "true" market the Federal Reserve wouldn't devaluate currency held/saved by the public, thus allowing the markets to better represent the productive agents of the economy (hint: all the people who go to work everyday). The skew isn't due to capitalism, but the crony nature of finance and banking. One biased opinion.

  We can convince the public that a cause is worth investing in,
  or we can force the public

I think this is a fundamental distinction. I am surprised and dismayed so many (smart and intelligent) people do not appear to consider it critical. Perhaps I have a different perspective after having lived in a non-democratic country for about half my life? I am not sure.

>I guarantee you that more people want to spend money on a cure for baldness rather than saving millions of lives, because people are selfish

Fixed that for you. Healthcare and medicine break down when they become for-profit instead of for-health ventures.

> Healthcare and medicine break down when they become for-profit instead of for-health ventures.

Saying for-profit and "for-health" (whatever that means) are mutually exclusive is simply not true. I just picked up some allergy medication yesterday for $10 that is performing excellent. My exercise equipment is manufactured at a very fair rate. I think a profit motive was critical in providing me this invaluable preventative care.. so I can't see it your way. I think a more true statement would be, ventures that are heavily regulated break down, and I would agree.

Unsustainable maybe, but then historical evidence proves no political endeavor is sustainable. Most sustainable entity really goes to the the Catholic Church. On that note I'd argue historical sustainability is not a great way to choose political models.

As for counterproductive, the US has a number of good examples of "forcing" people to do things being productive. WWII and the moon landing are the classic examples. Of course, since I'm not a free-market capitalist but a staunch advocate of democracy, I don't really view government-directed activities as forced but rather democratically directed.

Markets represent what rich people want.

How did they get rich in the first place? Hint: It wasn't by charitable donations.

> Markets represent what rich people want.

Do you want to tell us, that it is the rich people that crowd the Walmarts and other temples of mass consumption? If that are your rich people over there in America, then GOD may have pity with you!

Where is my baldness vaccine?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com