> That is not a feature or consequence of capitalism. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for fraud are independent of the economic system itself.
This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?"
> For instance, in the following article [1] (top relevant, second overall google search result for 'why buy an electric car'):
The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize.
> This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?"
The statement which I responded to, that capitalism begets fraud as a feature of capitalism, is wholly untrue. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for any crime, whether economic or otherwise, have nothing to do with an economic system. There isn't any other rational response to your claim.
> The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize.
My stance is that economic self-interest is broadly irrefutable, it doesn't require perfect rationality or all (perfect) information.
To a consumer uninterested in something other than price (ie, all motivations in which they care about being equal), power company A (nuclear) selling power for $0.01/kwh vs company B (coal) selling power for $0.005/kwh, the consumer is likely going to choose power company B, due to cheaper price, unless they have some pathological reason for choosing A (it could be that a higher price in itself is perceived as being higher quality, which is the case for many products).
> The statement which I responded to, that capitalism begets fraud as a feature of capitalism, is wholly untrue. Fraud exists in any economic system, and the punishments for any crime, whether economic or otherwise, have nothing to do with an economic system. There isn't any other rational response to your claim.
You're projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make nor claim to have. I didn't suggest or imply that all forms of capitalism uniquely generate fraud. They do exist in every system. You're angry with my phrasing not sufficiently hedging your concerns. You're also strictly wrong about how legal and regulatory systems impact economic systems. It's neither true nor true of how the literature evaluates said systems.
> My stance is that economic self-interest is broadly irrefutable, it doesn't require perfect rationality or all (perfect) information.
I think you're wrong, and overreaching with econ-101. This is like saying "Supply and demand is never violated." It's violated all the time.
If we're in the league where "I cite a magazine article" is considered to be a useful citation proving your point, then I cite all of Dan Ariely's work meant for consumption by lay-folk.
> You're projecting an argument onto me that I didn't make nor claim to have. I didn't suggest or imply that all forms of capitalism uniquely generate fraud. They do exist in every system. You're angry with my phrasing not sufficiently hedging your concerns. You're also strictly wrong about how legal and regulatory systems impact economic systems. It's neither true nor true of how the literature evaluates said systems.
I'm not projecting anything, your statement reads as
> [companies will commit fraud when the] penalty for fraud is less than the profit of fraud. It's a fundamental feature of capitalism when untethered from objective assessments of value.
To me, you're saying that "fraud is a fundamental feature of capitalism, unless regulated", which implies that fraud is an unavoidable consequence of capitalism unless the authorities step in to prevent it. The tone of your phrasing suggestions specifically that capitalism is directly correlated with fraud. If you didn't intend to make this suggestion, I can understand your consternation to my rebuttal.
Capitalism has nothing to do with fraud. Capitalism has nothing to do with law enforcement and crime punishment.
> If we're in the league where "I cite a magazine article" is considered to be a useful citation proving your point, then I cite all of Dan Ariely's work meant for consumption by lay-folk.
To my point in that article, the 'evidence is everywhere' as illustrated by the broad availability of information to support my claim. Just look at the marketing around electric vehicles and solar in general; you'll see a strong unifying factor of 'economic motivation' in those mediums.
Here's the top result for 'why buy solar' [1]. Top factors are all entirely economic. Clearly, the marketing around these products would prioritize most people's primary motivation for acquiring those products.
> The tone of your phrasing suggestions specifically that capitalism is directly correlated with fraud. If you didn't intend to make this suggestion, I can understand your consternation to my rebuttal.
But not enough to not be defensive about your reading, it seems.
> To my point in that article, the 'evidence is everywhere' as illustrated by the broad availability of information to support my claim.
This is a pretty lousy comeback to my argument. A better comeback might have been, "Why would economic penalties for fraud be effective if you're arguing that economic self-interest doesn't have a strong effect on the actions of humans?"
> For instance, in the following article [1] (top relevant, second overall google search result for 'why buy an electric car'):
The question is not, "Can humans rationalize decisions?" The question is, "On balance, is 'economic self-interest' a good model for predicting human behavior at any given scale?" No one here is arguing that humans can't rationalize.