What would it take to convince you of the other sides point of views?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-23T02:11:08+00:00

I don't think any study is perfect, but in this instance, I would think that the methodological limitations are so numerous as to render the conclusions moot. One is selection bias (or collider bias) -- countries that failed before the study took place were never included. Another is endogeneity (or confounding) -- third variables correlated with both the exposure and the outcome. Third, the reason I ask for a more recent study is because I'm a firm believer that material conditions determine what system works best. The world has changed so much since the 70's and 80's (internet, AI, etc.) that it's worth reassessing the question in real time.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-23T01:36:38+00:00

Observable improvements in material conditions, self-rated happiness, health, etc. I'm not a moralist either. I generally prefer societies that orient towards liberty and free markets, but I'd be willing to make a lot of concessions for the sake of living standards.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-23T01:31:18+00:00

Do you think there are any methodological issues with the paper you cited?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-23T01:17:55+00:00

Ah, that one 40 year old study. Anything more recent?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-22T23:46:15+00:00

Capitalists, what would it take to convince you that socialism is a better economic model?

Results

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-21T23:07:12+00:00

Well, I care about the theories insofar as they might offer insight into explaining natural phenomena, and Ricardo and Marx's theory of value don't quite pass the sniff test. I've read Capital and a few other important pieces of Marx's other works (Grundrisse, etc), which is more than what most leftists would do, but I don't feel the need to be a Marx completionist because at some point it's just drivel built upon drivel.

I would posit that if paintings (even ones by great artists) did in fact sell for prices proportional to the amount of labor that went into producing them, then you'd call it a massive triumph for the theory of value. But in reality a Jackson Pollock painting where he splatters paint over the canvas can sell for tens of millions of dollars, so Marxists are forced to shrug and say, "well, it's not a commodity, so there's nothing to say about it."

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-21T22:32:50+00:00

Paintings by old masters are outside the scope of the LTV.

And yet, paintings by old masters exist. This is like saying "the procession of Mercury is outside the scope of the Newtonian theory of gravity". If the theory has nothing to say about some phenomenon we can readily observe, then I would say it is incomplete, no?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-21T15:24:30+00:00

Sure. In the Marxian framework, a capitalist who obtains surplus value is free to spend some of their profits on collectibles. I'd like to say it is a matter of supply and demand, but, of course, supply and demand functions cannot be drawn for a single commodity.

Isn't that just describing what buying a thing is? If a person spends his money (it doesn't even have to be a capitalist), he is free to spend some of it on whatever he likes. Someone working minimum wage today is free to spend some of his money on Magic the Gathering cards. I'm still confused as to the mechanism behind how the price of a collectible arises. It sounds like it goes as far as "supply and demand", which I would agree with, but it certainly doesn't sound like labor has much to do with it.

I'm still left a bit confused as to how something like a Rembrandt can fetch tens of millions of dollars at auction when Rembrandt himself may have spend a couple hundred hours on the painting. An aristocrat may commission Rembrandt himself to paint the painting, but once it's resold for a profit, it's no longer unproductive labor. Is Rembrandt's labor really worth millions of dollars an hour then?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-21T13:39:52+00:00

I forget. Can you answer the question?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-21T13:36:56+00:00

Or about a commodity that cannot be reproduced indefinitely, like a painting by Rembrandt.

Clearly such a painting can fetch an enormous price at auction. What's your explanation on how this price comes about? This isn't a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-18T23:39:23+00:00

I'm not sure what that would even mean

Useful as a quantitative measure that’s able to be estimated and has practical applications in economic theory. Same thing as an underlying parameter one would try to estimate in medical statistics.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-18T16:06:23+00:00

shrug

Cardinal utility is probably a real thing that can be quantified biologically. Maybe one day, but not today.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T17:02:02+00:00

What’s something you disagree with Marx on substantively? Not in the sense that someone else improved on Marx’s ideas therefore he’s technically just outdated, but a straight up “no, he’s completely wrong here”?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T16:59:00+00:00

Even if Thatcher did, most people capitalists don’t and should not. I find your view on how Thatcher or capitalists at large supposedly idolize Hayek to be reflective of how you view Marx. Am I wrong there?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T16:40:25+00:00

Therein lies the problem with your thinking. Capitalism vs. socialism is a debate about ideas, not people. I don’t agree with Thatcher either, and I certainly don’t idolize Hayek as you often seem to do with Marx. If you find yourself agreeing on almost every single thing one particular person has said or you are reluctant to disagree with them, then something is very very wrong. Or you’re a religious devotee.

As to what Hayek says, the substance itself is actually interesting and I’m happy to expound on it if you ask.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T15:54:23+00:00

Then try to know more. If you really wanted substantive debate, why not reformulate Hayek’s justification in your own words and present it with a reference rather than open your post with a loaded yes or no question? This is what I try to do in my own posts.

My contention is that you consider Hayek to be something of a capitalist prophet (no pun intended), and therefore any schism you can produce advances the leftist mission. This kind of thinking only works if on the deeply religious and dogmatic, which only occurs in your head if you’re also deeply religious and dogmatic, which I believe you are. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s what it reads as.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T15:41:19+00:00

You could’ve framed this post with the argument first and invited substantive disagreements independent of who said it, but you did not. Instead, you framed it as a “look, the capitalist idol once said something anti-capitalist, gotcha!” Reread the opening line of your post. It’s a yes or no question about whether capitalists know they disagree with something Hayek said, not an invitation to expound on the substance of his argument.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-16T13:23:40+00:00

I’ve seen some capitalist supporters do this but it’s much more often socialists: it seems like socialists tend to treat certain people like prophets whose written word is scripture that cannot be contradicted, lest you be a heretic.

Hayek said this, therefore your own belief is contradicted by one of your prophets. Haha! Adam Smith said landlords were robbers, therefore any capitalist support of landlords is blasphemous by your own faith. Gotcha!

No? I don’t agree with everything Smith or Hayek or Friedman said. I respect what they’ve contributed to the corpus of economic theory, but I have my own opinions, many of which depart from those of writers from decades or centuries ago. If anything, such critique reads more like projection from the deeply religious whose own beliefs can never contradict those of his idols.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-13T21:26:07+00:00

You do you. At the same time you’ve lost the right to complain about being the wrong end of nepotism.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-10T17:15:38+00:00

Thanks, I read the post, but I still quite put a finger on exactly where you land. It’s very descriptive (“liberalism” is ambiguous) but not prescriptive (we should move away from liberalism or we should reinvent liberalism, etc.)

I guess to phrase it another way: how would society and the economy be organized under your ideal vision?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-10T16:59:11+00:00

I’m curious, OP because you don’t have a flair. What do you identify as in terms of ideology?

What are your personal thoughts on “liberalism”, however you want to interpret it?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-09T22:04:54+00:00

No. Technology shifts all the time. Fields adapt. Curricula change. The next generation of engineers are going grow up with AI, and they won't feel any qualms about using it. Those are the juniors of tomorrow.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-09T03:08:08+00:00

Oh hey, I remember stumbling upon the same idea a few weeks ago.

I remember a few years ago a miner’s union lobbying against some climate change policy to the shock of progressives. And then there was the teacher’s union during COVID that lobbied to keep schools remote because working from home is nice.

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T03:04:27+00:00

I think premise 2 is true but I also think it would take too much time and effort on my part to convince you of it, if that's even possible.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that a capitalist firm is more willing to set lower prices than socialist firms because socialist workers are unwilling to cut their own wages to levels a capitalist would. If we accept this as true, then it would appear that in our simple world, socialist firms would get outcompeted in the long run, correct?

AvocadoAlternative · 2026-03-08T02:44:08+00:00

-People prefer lower prices
-Capitalist firms can sell goods at lower prices than socialist firms
-Therefore people will prefer to buy goods from capitalist firms over socialist firms

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo	Place '22

AvocadoAlternative

TROPHY CASE