>If you sincerely believe Tesla creates more "value" than Toyota, which sells 10 times more cars per year than Tesla ever has, I have a great deal for you on a bridge in Brooklyn...)
Is there any notion of economic value of an object other than what people are willing to pay for that object?
I'm convinced stocks are a good idea (as long as we have capitalism ^^^^Arise, ^^^^ye ^^^^workers ^^^^from ^^^^your ^^^^slumber, ^^^^Arise, ^^^^ye ^^^^prisoners ^^^^of ^^^^want. ^^^^For ^^^^reason ^^^^in ^^^^revolt ^^^^now ^^^^thunders... ), but the stockmarket is such a bad one. The latter creates such weird incentives and such horrible behavior. Same with the trading of other peoples debts.
>Is there any notion of economic value of an object other than what people are willing to pay for that object?
There does happen to be a theory that the value of a commodity is dependent on the abstract human labor socially necessary to produce it, but it makes speculators and rent-seekers very uncomfortable
I dunno, if the economy works how you're/that brave soul seem to imply, why don't a bunch of teslas / spacexs / steel mills / doo-dad factories just spring into existence through the sheer willpower of the proletariat?
for all their circlejerking about facts and hard data they sure love pulling numbers out their ass and relying on their feelings
for all their worship of logical fallacies they wouldn't recognize their own bias if it bit them in the rear.
And people want to learn how to be rational from them? a three year old could teach calculus better than they teach rationality
I admitted I pulled the numbers out of my arse to demonstrate that it's just my impressions and not based on hard data.
Impressions and intuitions are usually better than nothing. If I do get hard or more detailed data, I would rely on it instead.
This is just a critique of a caricature of rationalists.
Doesn’t Musk now plan to make weapons of war? (rockets to mars are
cancelled, it is now rockets that supply weapons, sort of amazon but for
tanks).
I mean there is something to say for the idea that a US hegemony
creates the most stable situation in the world (compared to a non
hegemony (sorry been reading a little bit to much mil history like stuff
recently)) but still, dunno how good Musk is from that alone.
There is also the tesla truck, which is basically a car for rich
people to
survive the apocalypse. (E: one good thing about the various tesla
vehicles, they will look great when used as science fiction movie props,
for some reason they all look evil).
E: Also, there is a weird thing in comparing Tesla with other car
makers which nobody should forget, other car makers have to pay for
advertising, as for some reason, Tesla has a legion of fanboys willing
to work for free advertising Teslas expensive cars.
“I would like to see these points re-framed without using the
words”capitalist” or “exploit(ation)”. These word-tokens are interfering
with my ability to understand what the point actually is.”
“I’m not sure if there’s a distinction to be carved between”wealthy”
and “capitalist”.”
” Those same workers under another CEO would have a company worth
maybe 0B. Try again. ”
How does someone sound so sure of themselves while also explicitly
arguing from facts in their imagination
They don't actually think it's from their imagination. They think they have a much better than normal chance of being right, because their thought processes are far above the mere irrational mortals who surround them.
all folks like Eliezer Yudkowsky and Scott Alexander do is teach people to be utterly confident in the nonsense they think up
"I have a very good and powerful brain, which is why I can't discuss this topic using any of the words that everyone else uses to discuss it. You have to come up with an alternative way to talk about it with a novel vocabulary because I get so triggered by anything that implies that Elon Musk isn't a superhero I simply can't think. I have a very powerful brain."
The fact that this isn’t downvoted into oblivion is so discrediting
of the EA community!
It could arguably be considered effective altruism to flatter
billionaires to get them to donate money, but hell if telling people
that billionaires’ expensive toys are actually
alreadyefficiently bettering
humanity is anything but misguided piss-swill.
I really expected more of the EA community. I guess it makes sense in hindsight though. You can draw direct parallels with liberalism:
>liberals: create a problem
>liberals: "we're going to fix it by continuing what we were doing!"
EA has a very large overlap with educated westerners, from countries who gained all their wealth from exploiting other countries. It's kind of ironic that these drones seem to support the exact same things that created these vast inequalities across the world in the first place. I don't know if it stems from some kind of privilege, entitlement or if they're really just clueless.
Maintaining that status quo while focusing on unimportant things(market value) that feel good might satisfy their saviour complex better than _actually_ fixing the problems(another parallel with liberalism).
[deleted]
[deleted]
This guy thinks Superman is real.
Doesn’t Musk now plan to make weapons of war? (rockets to mars are cancelled, it is now rockets that supply weapons, sort of amazon but for tanks).
I mean there is something to say for the idea that a US hegemony creates the most stable situation in the world (compared to a non hegemony (sorry been reading a little bit to much mil history like stuff recently)) but still, dunno how good Musk is from that alone.
There is also the tesla truck, which is basically a car for rich people to survive the apocalypse. (E: one good thing about the various tesla vehicles, they will look great when used as science fiction movie props, for some reason they all look evil).
E: Also, there is a weird thing in comparing Tesla with other car makers which nobody should forget, other car makers have to pay for advertising, as for some reason, Tesla has a legion of fanboys willing to work for free advertising Teslas expensive cars.
“I would like to see these points re-framed without using the words”capitalist” or “exploit(ation)”. These word-tokens are interfering with my ability to understand what the point actually is.”
“I’m not sure if there’s a distinction to be carved between”wealthy” and “capitalist”.”
” Those same workers under another CEO would have a company worth maybe 0B. Try again. ”
How does someone sound so sure of themselves while also explicitly arguing from facts in their imagination
lmao
The fact that this isn’t downvoted into oblivion is so discrediting of the EA community!
It could arguably be considered effective altruism to flatter billionaires to get them to donate money, but hell if telling people that billionaires’ expensive toys are actually already efficiently bettering humanity is anything but misguided piss-swill.
EDIT: piss-shill?