Just desserts

[GrowingSmaller]

Is it right that people from unequal economies which have piled and piled wealth:

A) pay more for a bag of rice, and

b) suffer outsourcing to foreign lands - where labour and life are cheaper - now that global markets have opened up?

Personally I think the countries deserve it, but the people... who were merely born into the trap, don't.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am liking this linked image as a analogy for inequalities, I think any dynamic economy has inequalities, I am not a believer in flatlander functions (the more vibraitons the more the signs of life, a flat economic landscape is dead...), and theres a constant rerouting of energy from one area and "maxima" to another area or "minima" as culture and productivity evolve and refocus over time within a free market system.


financial networks outsourcing landscape risk - Google Search:

 

[grasping the after wind]

Right? Who knows the whole gamut of things and circumstances that make something about one's economic condition right or wrong? I surely cannot judge that. One has what one has. The several factors that go into acquiring what one has may have an ethical or a moral implication but those implications are not related to the amount in one's purse but how that amount got there. If, for instance, one has taken the fruits of the labor of another without their permission and without returning something of equal value then I would say one's purse is wrongfully filled. Others might and do strongly disagree with that and even count doing that as a good and moral thing to the point that not doing just that is considered immoral by some. To pinpoint what is right in such a situation seems to depend upon one's perspective.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Theres maybe a significant difference between maximising inequality and optimising inequality.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Right? Who knows the whole gamut of things and circumstances that make something about one's economic condition right or wrong? I surely cannot judge that. One has what one has. The several factors that go into acquiring what one has may have an ethical or a moral implication but those implications are not related to the amount in one's purse but how that amount got there. If, for instance, one has taken the fruits of the labor of another without their permission and without returning something of equal value then I would say one's purse is wrongfully filled. Others might and do strongly disagree with that and even count doing that as a good and moral thing to the point that not doing just that is considered immoral by some. To pinpoint what is right in such a situation seems to depend upon one's perspective.

Well my ethical outlook is about rational attraction to being.

For a country this may mean one thing (or one level of intervention eg monetary policy or law setting), for an individual another, for the global population including future generations a third. Also there are many means and ways for RAB.

To answer "is this good?" we ultimately ask who for, for how long and in what way. Its dependent on the agents at a personal level, brother.

People will claim there's so much interpersonal muddle only scepticism has the answer, but - with a sandwich in my mouth - I doubt it.

So the analysis would be for a global population vast global inequalities have been unfair, because they don't represent optimal distributions of wealth and economic activity for the population considered as a whole. Optima does not equal maxima. As a species (in terms of collective bargaining with the laws of nature) we ought to think we "deserve better", because its in our interests to regard optima as better than maxima, and therefore choose them.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Theres maybe a significant difference between maximising inequality and optimising inequality.

All are created equal. I see absolutely nothing economic about equality. The amount in one's purse does not make one either more or less than any other. Having things does not make one better and not having things does not make one worse. Nor vice versa. Money is amoral, Possessions are amoral. The amount of each one has is not a moral question. Only the matter by which one has gained possession of those things and how one uses such things has any moral or ethical implications i.e. If one has gained one's possession by immoral means or has used one's possessions to accomplish immoral ends vs having gained them by moral and ethical means and using them for moral and ethical purposes. Just the fact of possessing is not immoral or unethical. I do not accept the idea that equality can be measured by comparing the amount of things people possess.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well my ethical outlook is about rational attraction to being.

For a country this may mean one thing (or one level of intervention eg monetary policy or law setting), for an individual another, for the global population including future generations a third. Also there are many means and ways for RAB.

To answer "is this good?" we ultimately ask who for, for how long and in what way. Its dependent on the agents at a personal level, brother.

People will claim there's so much interpersonal muddle only scepticism has the answer, but - with a sandwich in my mouth - I doubt it.

So the analysis would be for a global population vast global inequalities have been unfair, because they don't represent optimal distributions of wealth and economic activity for the population considered as a whole. Optima does not equal maxima. As a species (in terms of collective bargaining with the laws of nature) we "deserve better", because its in our interests to regard optima as better.

I disagree. We are not a homogeneous collective group that can be simply defined as a species but rather a collection of billions of distinctly different individuals each with varying needs and wants and there is no possible governmental or economic system or way of living that could either maximize or optimize economic happiness for that group. The amount of diversity in humanity is simply too vast to come up with one way to satisfy any large portion of that population. This is why any attempt to "fix" everything so that all will be happy ends with the benevolent fixers deciding it is necessary to either imprison or exterminate those that won't agree to be happy about the "fix"

 

[DaisyDay]

Is it right that people from unequal economies which have piled and piled wealth:

A) pay more for a bag of rice, and

b) suffer outsourcing to foreign lands - where labour and life are cheaper - now that global markets have opened up?

Personally I think the countries deserve it, but the people... who were merely born into the trap, don't.

Do they pay more relative to their income/wealth? Are the bags of rice equal? Here in the First World, our rice is clean, conveniently packaged, conveniently shipped within reach and white rice is vitamin-fortified to prevent beriberi.

 

[durangodawood]

...Personally I think the countries deserve it, but the people... who were merely born into the trap, don't.

If you remove 'the people' from consideration of the country... whats left? The land? The animals?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

All are created equal. I see absolutely nothing economic about equality. The amount in one's purse does not make one either more or less than any other. Having things does not make one better and not having things does not make one worse. Nor vice versa. Money is amoral, Possessions are amoral.

But they can add or detract from that which gives life value, tings like art, friendship, diet etc.

The amount of each one has is not a moral question. Only the matter by which one has gained possession of those things and how one uses such things has any moral or ethical implications i.e. If one has gained one's possession by immoral means or has used one's possessions to accomplish immoral ends vs having gained them by moral and ethical means and using them for moral and ethical purposes. Just the fact of possessing is not immoral or unethical. I do not accept the idea that equality can be measured by comparing the amount of things people possess.

That sounds a historical. Ok, mere numbers aren't relevant, but in terms of history, people can and do use their money to their advantage.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Do they pay more relative to their income/wealth? Are the bags of rice equal? Here in the First World, our rice is clean, conveniently packaged, conveniently shipped within reach and white rice is vitamin-fortified to prevent beriberi.

I never knew that thanks. But I think they pay more, prices can be pushed up by increased rents etc on business premises, cost of living in etc.

Cost of Living

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you remove 'the people' from consideration of the country... whats left? The land? The animals?

Um that's a good question. Countries are legal political entities, and not proper people with moral responsibility - yet they are often treated as if they were people. Like such and such is an evil, or a good nation. I suppose they are analogous to people.

I loose analogy might be a person, and a cell. A cell has no responsibility, but the person has. People are like "cells" in a nation, but are not individually responsible for the bahaviour of the nation. Even an elected president changes over time, and is a function of the peoples choices etc.

But we see harted for nations, eg flag burning.

I don't think countruies are conscious, but maybe they have agency and emergent properties which make them partially morally apt.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

What Is Organizational Moral Agency?