This is the thesis of Collapse by Jared Diamond, which I think is worth reading even if you subscribe to criticisms of Diamond from the anthropological academy. It’s truly amazing to me that any...
As I said before, I'm really starting to think the inability to "plan long-term" is a human problem, and not an economics problem.
This is the thesis of Collapse by Jared Diamond, which I think is worth reading even if you subscribe to criticisms of Diamond from the anthropological academy. It’s truly amazing to me that any collection of human beings accomplishes anything at all as evolution seems to have prepared us much better to destroy things than build them.
This problem is a basis for a lot of modern psychology. Behavioral economics, for example, is an entire field based on figuring out how to "nudge" people in the right direction, because humans are...
I'm really starting to think the inability to "plan long-term" is a human problem, and not an economics problem.
This problem is a basis for a lot of modern psychology. Behavioral economics, for example, is an entire field based on figuring out how to "nudge" people in the right direction, because humans are exceptionally bad at long term planning.
Or rather, it's more apt to say that people will prioritize the now to the close to now, rather than the long time from now. This is because you live in the now - the present self - not the future self or the past self. One of the founders of behavioral economics, Kahneman, found this out by testing participants willingness to accept pain through different levels of stimulus. The relevant findings were that people were most averse to trials in which the pain was experienced primarily at the end (closest to the present self) and that a gradual reduction of pain towards the end (closest to the present self) reduced all pain measures.
I think they may be more aware of their actions than you might think: The Super Rich of Silicon Valley Have a Doomsday Escape Plan...
Yet we have an entire class of people who are aware of global warming, aware the corporations they own contribute far more to it than individuals do, and yet still continue to live as though global warming isn't happening and they aren't part of the problem. They are happy to literally keep killing the planets ecosystems to they can have more wealth now. They are happy to risk the entire future of their entire fucking species for that "I want it now!" mindset.
I think they may be more aware of their actions than you might think:
I think that's different. I see that prepping behavior as more like "I have so much money that I might as well spend some to make sure I'm prepared for the world falling apart, even if it's a...
I think that's different. I see that prepping behavior as more like "I have so much money that I might as well spend some to make sure I'm prepared for the world falling apart, even if it's a remote possibility."
It's basically "apocalypse insurance", I don't think there's necessarily any awareness attached to it.
Behaviors indulged in the rich are not just condemned in the poor, but used as a justification to punish them, denying them access to resources that keep them alive, such as healthcare and food assistance. Discussion of poverty has become almost impossible without moral outrage directed at lazy “welfare queens”, “crackheads” and other drug addicts, and the “promiscuous poor” (a phrase that has cropped up again and again in discussions of public benefits over more than a century).
Are we doing "eat the rich" here or no? :) Seriously though the moralizing of wealth has been one of the most egregious sins of our culture. The idea that "hard work = success ALWAYS" makes it...
Are we doing "eat the rich" here or no? :)
Seriously though the moralizing of wealth has been one of the most egregious sins of our culture. The idea that "hard work = success ALWAYS" makes it natural to believe that not being successful is a moral failing. But as we can see, pretty obviously btw, is that bad people do bad things regardless of their wealth. And those who have the means will do much greater harm through their careless actions. I think we have a lot of work to do, but it's important that we stop equating success with moral righteousness.
I also think there’s a sort of irrational 'presumption of innocence' going on. I.e., 'They’re rich, so they don’t need to take advantage of the system. Why would they?' If there’s anything that’s...
I also think there’s a sort of irrational 'presumption of innocence' going on. I.e., 'They’re rich, so they don’t need to take advantage of the system. Why would they?' If there’s anything that’s sunken in as I’ve grown up, it’s that human nature is rather predictable at a macro level. Demographics don’t really matter at a certain scale—most people will game any system as far as they think they won’t be caught. Allowing privacy to be pay-to-play is something that we condone (in the U.S., at least) at our peril. Don’t put blinders on and concentrate on individual wealthy people, though. Plenty of the problem lies with corporations—and for lots of wealthy families corporate and private wealth are highly conflated. If all white collar crime was fully scrutinized and prosecuted, I think legal fees and financial investigators' overtime pay would comprise the majority of the U.S.'s GDP.
I call them Dragons, because they sit on monstrous hordes of wealth while desolating the world around them.
This is the thesis of Collapse by Jared Diamond, which I think is worth reading even if you subscribe to criticisms of Diamond from the anthropological academy. It’s truly amazing to me that any collection of human beings accomplishes anything at all as evolution seems to have prepared us much better to destroy things than build them.
This problem is a basis for a lot of modern psychology. Behavioral economics, for example, is an entire field based on figuring out how to "nudge" people in the right direction, because humans are exceptionally bad at long term planning.
Or rather, it's more apt to say that people will prioritize the now to the close to now, rather than the long time from now. This is because you live in the now - the present self - not the future self or the past self. One of the founders of behavioral economics, Kahneman, found this out by testing participants willingness to accept pain through different levels of stimulus. The relevant findings were that people were most averse to trials in which the pain was experienced primarily at the end (closest to the present self) and that a gradual reduction of pain towards the end (closest to the present self) reduced all pain measures.
I think they may be more aware of their actions than you might think:
The Super Rich of Silicon Valley Have a Doomsday Escape Plan
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2018-rich-new-zealand-doomsday-preppers/?cmpid=socialflow-facebook-business
Wealthy Americans ship doomsday bunkers to New Zealand - report
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2018/09/wealthy-americans-ship-doomsday-bunkers-to-new-zealand-report.html
EDIT:
Some more
Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich
Some of the wealthiest people in America—in Silicon Valley, New York, and beyond—are getting ready for the crackup of civilization.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich
A Guide to Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich
http://www.realclearlife.com/finance/guide-doomsday-prep-super-rich/
I think that's different. I see that prepping behavior as more like "I have so much money that I might as well spend some to make sure I'm prepared for the world falling apart, even if it's a remote possibility."
It's basically "apocalypse insurance", I don't think there's necessarily any awareness attached to it.
Are we doing "eat the rich" here or no? :)
Seriously though the moralizing of wealth has been one of the most egregious sins of our culture. The idea that "hard work = success ALWAYS" makes it natural to believe that not being successful is a moral failing. But as we can see, pretty obviously btw, is that bad people do bad things regardless of their wealth. And those who have the means will do much greater harm through their careless actions. I think we have a lot of work to do, but it's important that we stop equating success with moral righteousness.
I also think there’s a sort of irrational 'presumption of innocence' going on. I.e., 'They’re rich, so they don’t need to take advantage of the system. Why would they?' If there’s anything that’s sunken in as I’ve grown up, it’s that human nature is rather predictable at a macro level. Demographics don’t really matter at a certain scale—most people will game any system as far as they think they won’t be caught. Allowing privacy to be pay-to-play is something that we condone (in the U.S., at least) at our peril. Don’t put blinders on and concentrate on individual wealthy people, though. Plenty of the problem lies with corporations—and for lots of wealthy families corporate and private wealth are highly conflated. If all white collar crime was fully scrutinized and prosecuted, I think legal fees and financial investigators' overtime pay would comprise the majority of the U.S.'s GDP.
If anyone is interested in a book-length read on this topic, check out Matt Taibbi's The Divide.