Posted 1 day ago
To know of and put to use a machine not fully employed, or somebody’s skill which could be better utilized, or to be aware of a surplus stock which can be drawn upon during an interruption of supplies, is socially quite as useful as the knowledge of better alternative techniques. And the shipper who earns his living from using otherwise empty or half-filled journeys of tramp-steamers, or the estate agent whose whole knowledge is almost exclusively one of temporary opportunities, or the arbitrageur who gains from local differences of commodity prices, are all performing eminently useful functions based on special knowledge of circumstances of the fleeting moment not known to others.

To gain an advantage from better knowledge of facilities of communication or transport is sometimes regarded as almost dishonest, although it is quite as important that society make use of the best opportunities in this respect as in using the latest scientific discoveries. This prejudice has in a considerable measure affected the attitude toward commerce in general compared with that toward production. Even economists who regard themselves as definitely immune to the crude materialist fallacies of the past constantly commit the same mistake where activities directed toward the acquisition of such practical knowledge are concerned—apparently because in their scheme of things all such knowledge is supposed to be “given.”

Of course, these adjustments are probably never “perfect” in the sense in which the economist conceives of them in his equilibrium analysis. But I fear that our theoretical habits of approaching the problem with the assumption of more or less perfect knowledge on the part of almost everyone has made us somewhat blind to the true function of the price mechanism and led us to apply rather misleading standards in judging its efficiency. The marvel is that in a case like that of a scarcity of one raw material, without an order being issued, without more than perhaps a handful of people knowing the cause, tens of thousands of people whose identity could not be ascertained by months of investigation, are made to use the material or its products more sparingly; i.e., they move in the right direction. This is enough of a marvel even if, in a constantly changing world, not all will hit it off so perfectly that their profit rates will always be maintained at the same constant or “normal” level.

But those who clamor for “conscious direction”—and who cannot believe that anything which has evolved without design (and even without our understanding it) should solve problems which we should not be able to solve consciously—should remember this: The problem is precisely how to extend the span of our utilization of resources beyond the span of the control of any one mind; and therefore, how to dispense with the need of conscious control, and how to provide inducements which will make the individuals do the desirable things without anyone having to tell them what to do.
Posted 1 day ago
I think we ought to start calling it the "no true socialist" argument
gallantlittlebelgium asked

ordnungsokonomik:

Whenever someone even uses the term “capitalism” I feel a triple-aneurysm coming on. It’s the most slippery poorly defined concept in political science and is used with about five different meanings, normally by the same people. I think this is a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters. I have no patience for anti-“capitalists” and I get tired of trying to be cordial with them.

Now I think about it, the use of the term “capitalism” is a classic Motte and Bailey doctrine. Defining capitalism as “exploitation of the workers by owners of capital” or “state privilege of capitalists over everyone else” is the motte, treating capitalism as synonymous with free markets is the bailey. Whenever their views are under attack they retreat to the motte, but the rest of the time they stay in the bailey.

Posted 1 day ago

arkaimcity:

ch0ni:

lord-dlichnum:

winterduck:

comradebutterfly:

end-feminism:

little-kitten-doll:

huffingtonpost:

HERE’S JUST HOW MUCH IT PAYS TO BE CONVENTIONALLY ATTRACTIVE

We’ve come to expect impossible, even improbable standards of beauty to populate our magazines and our television shows. It’s another thing entirely to find they’ve invaded our workplace.

Watch Vox’s full video to see the many other ways these unrealistic beauty standards effect where we work.

Oh waaa. This is just typical Huff Post way to find some irrational way to make up a rationlization for the fake wage gap. No would should appolgize for being attractive. 

"find they’ve invaded our workplace"

Actually no, though the measurements are modern, the phenomenon is ancient. Otherwise we would still look like apes.

6’+ masterrace

I find this post to be true. I can see where other people would disagree, but I’ve always felt disadvantaged, both covertly and openly, for being ugly as fuck. I’m not gonna say I’m oppressed and start a activism movement over it, but I think there is some truth in this. 

Is there any actual science behind attractive people being more competent? Because then, this would kind of make sense. Doubt there is any, though.

Actually, there is a lot more going on here than you think.

Beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, rather it is inborn, but every so often we get these campaigns (usually aimed at women) against the very concept of beauty and the human appreciation of attractive people. These campaigns are because “Western” society has brainwashed us with unrealistic standards of beauty which women in particular strive to emulate. Of course, without this “brainwashing” we’d naturally accept people for their “inner” beauty, or something…

Appreciation for novel traits (particularly secondary sex characteristics) are notable in sexual selection - look at the sexual dimorphism among birds of paradise as a result of persistent sexual selection. Similarly, in a reverse trend; novel, highly visible, and colourful traits seem enough to explain the evolution of light skin, hair and eyes among Europeans. Human physical variation is due to differences in sexual selection, rather than differences in notions of beauty.

We have an innate taste for natural beauty and virtuosity, not mediocrity. You’ll distinguish between fine art and toddler drawings for this reason. Even if you’re ethnocentric (which has it’s own set of evolutionary explanations) I bet you can still distinguish between the attractive and unattractive of other ethnic groups - and there is nothing much culturally conditioned about "European standards of beauty" for instance. Darwin noted as much:

Mr. Winwood Reade, however, who has had ample opportunities for observation, not only with the negroes of the West Coast of Africa, but with those of the interior who have never associated with Europeans, is convinced that their ideas of beauty are on the whole the same as ours. Mr. Reade found that he agreed with the negroes in their estimation of the beauty of the native girls; and that their appreciation of the beauty of European women corresponded with ours. They admire long hair, and use artificial means to make it appear abundant; they admire also a beard, though themselves very scantily provided. Mr. Reade feels doubtful what kind of nose is most appreciated; a girl has been heard to say, “I do not want to marry him, he has got no nose;” and this shows that a very flat nose is not admired (Darwin, The Descent of Man and Selection in relation to Sex, 2nd ed.)

An explanation for all this looks to be mutational load. For instance, it’s actually a lack of deleterious mutations, not ‘good’ genes ‘for healthy,’ ‘for fit’ or ‘for smart’ that confer increased intelligence among individuals. Attractiveness may signify that an individual possesses a low level of genetic load. If someone is dumb and ugly chances are they possess a higher degree of genetic load. Figures…

For this reason identifying what is healthy and unhealthy becomes perfectly normal human behaviour — those funny looking kids burdened with higher mutational loads come in many flavours; fragile-X kids don’t look the same as those with Down syndrome, for instance. Pathogen avoidance, too, explains stigmatisation of obese people. Health, by whatever means identified, is paramount in nature.

Is attractiveness linked to competence? Perhaps. At minimum, good looks are by and large associated with health. They also reflect mate quality, naturally. A bias toward attractiveness is human nature.

More importantly, you cannot address these issues assuming individual attraction and taste is all a result of some culturally imprinted phenomena, which I imagine is what most people assume both the cause and solution to this is. There’s something more innate going on here.

(Source: vox.com)

Posted 1 day ago
Posted 1 day ago

breakfastburritoe:

dropping out of school to become part of a chicken nugget cult

Posted 1 day ago

theyuniversity:

okagami:

marypsue:

Kill the idea that naivety is an unforgivable flaw but cynicism is just wisdom, murder it, chop it up and serve it for dinner, I don’t care, just end this bullshit idea that it’s better to hate than to love and better to rot in miserable bitter resignation than to hope for the best.

image

image

In the end you should evaluate things objectively when the outcome really matter to you and make decisions based on that.

Posted 1 day ago

lazuliiiii:

my coworkers keep talking about sports, fighting, and women someone help me

Posted 1 day ago

goddessbracelet:

tsarbucks:

science side of tumblr, can you explain why there’s a void in my heart I can’t fill

image

Posted 1 day ago
Individual actors usually receive most of the benefit and pay most of the cost of their actions, making market failure the exception, not the rule. On the political market individual actors—voters, politicians, lobbyists, judges, policemen— almost never bear much of the cost of their actions or receive much of the benefit. Hence market failure, the exception on the private market, is the rule on the political market.
Which suggests that the existence of market failure is, on net, an argument against government, not for it.
David D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom (Chapter 53)

(Source: jenlog)

Posted 1 day ago

ordnungsokonomik:

My second-hand impression of American public school education (I have never visited America) is that it’s kinda nationalistic, with its celebration of the founding mythology and “Founding Fathers” of America and the ritual pledge of allegiance, and at the same time kinda socialistic (no one can escape reading Steinbeck). Yet despite being nationalistic and socialistic, it is the furtherest possible thing from National Socialism.

Amerifags is this accurate?