To be clear, “cheat” or more commonly “take” doesn’t necessarily refer to actually cheating the system, it refers to reducing the amount of resources the other player has.
Let’s imagine that in each transaction you gain ‘points’ depending on how the transaction went.
If 1 player cheats and the other shares, the cheating player receives 1 point (this is your standard transaction of giving money for goods or services or working for money). If both players share, they both receive 0.5 points (this is a transaction where both parties gain money, like a brokerage account). If both players cheat, both players get 0 points (this is when you say “fuck it I don’t want it it’s too expensive” or they say “sorry you can’t afford that”). This is the standard point assignment for a capitalist system or a zero sum game. (Assuming the paying party pays an equivalent sum to that gained by the receiving parties. Failing to do so is usually called Fraud lol)
In this scenario, the optimal solution is to always cheat because it offers the highest average point return. Assuming the other player plays randomly (ie, you are a company selling your stocks to an irrational population like in reality), the average is (1+0)/2 or 0.5. Someone who is kind and always shares has an average point return of (0+0.5)/2 or 0.25. Thus cheating is encouraged.
Contrast this with an economic system that is not a zero sum game - one where creating value for other players also increases your value. The exact mechanism of rewarding “share” over “take” is specific to the economic model in question. As an example, let’s pretend you get an extra 0.6 points from Big Brother when you pick the share option. Now, your average point return is (0+1.1)/2 In this scenario, cheating is discouraged because the total points created on average are lower than sharing and in the case of repeated interactions, cheating reduces the likelihood that the other player will choose share in the future.
The broad concepts with little substance are not convincing me. I understand the nature of capitalism I just don’t understand how it is exclusively responsible for all bad things in the world today. I’m being a little facetious but come on I have directly asked you to tell me how capitalism is exclusively responsible for climate change and you hit me with what I have to assume is someone else’s words that aren’t actually answering the question. How would any other system stop oil?
You asked how capitalism encouraged greed. I explained why greed is the optimal solution under a capitalist system. A capitalist system is a zero sum game, and in zero sum games greed is the optimal solution as dictated by game theory. Therefore, greed is encouraged by capitalist systems.
As to the new question you’re posing in this comment, capitalism isn’t necessarily solely responsible for climate change. Environmental theory and economic theory share a large overlap, but are not the same circle.
It is trivial to say that in a system which encourages social benefit over individual benefit, improving environmental conditions would be an obvious benefit that would be capitalized upon. However, without real history of such a system we can’t be certain of the nature of people under that system.
Okay, I’ll accept that I interpreted your initial question differently than you intended it. I should have clarified what you were referring to.
I’ve already stated that capitalism is not solely causing human driven climate change, other things obviously influence it as well. However, I will argue that capitalism encourages human driven climate change more readily than other socioeconomic models. This is because climate destroying methods of profiteering tend to make profits faster, and as discussed in many Economics 101 classes, “money now is more valuable than money later” because it can be invested. Ecologically friendly methods of profiteering tend to make profits slower and less often.
Okay, let’s try the numbers route:
To be clear, “cheat” or more commonly “take” doesn’t necessarily refer to actually cheating the system, it refers to reducing the amount of resources the other player has.
Let’s imagine that in each transaction you gain ‘points’ depending on how the transaction went.
If 1 player cheats and the other shares, the cheating player receives 1 point (this is your standard transaction of giving money for goods or services or working for money). If both players share, they both receive 0.5 points (this is a transaction where both parties gain money, like a brokerage account). If both players cheat, both players get 0 points (this is when you say “fuck it I don’t want it it’s too expensive” or they say “sorry you can’t afford that”). This is the standard point assignment for a capitalist system or a zero sum game. (Assuming the paying party pays an equivalent sum to that gained by the receiving parties. Failing to do so is usually called Fraud lol)
In this scenario, the optimal solution is to always cheat because it offers the highest average point return. Assuming the other player plays randomly (ie, you are a company selling your stocks to an irrational population like in reality), the average is (1+0)/2 or 0.5. Someone who is kind and always shares has an average point return of (0+0.5)/2 or 0.25. Thus cheating is encouraged.
Contrast this with an economic system that is not a zero sum game - one where creating value for other players also increases your value. The exact mechanism of rewarding “share” over “take” is specific to the economic model in question. As an example, let’s pretend you get an extra 0.6 points from Big Brother when you pick the share option. Now, your average point return is (0+1.1)/2 In this scenario, cheating is discouraged because the total points created on average are lower than sharing and in the case of repeated interactions, cheating reduces the likelihood that the other player will choose share in the future.
The broad concepts with little substance are not convincing me. I understand the nature of capitalism I just don’t understand how it is exclusively responsible for all bad things in the world today. I’m being a little facetious but come on I have directly asked you to tell me how capitalism is exclusively responsible for climate change and you hit me with what I have to assume is someone else’s words that aren’t actually answering the question. How would any other system stop oil?
You asked how capitalism encouraged greed. I explained why greed is the optimal solution under a capitalist system. A capitalist system is a zero sum game, and in zero sum games greed is the optimal solution as dictated by game theory. Therefore, greed is encouraged by capitalist systems.
As to the new question you’re posing in this comment, capitalism isn’t necessarily solely responsible for climate change. Environmental theory and economic theory share a large overlap, but are not the same circle.
It is trivial to say that in a system which encourages social benefit over individual benefit, improving environmental conditions would be an obvious benefit that would be capitalized upon. However, without real history of such a system we can’t be certain of the nature of people under that system.
No I didn’t I asked what is exclusive to capitalism that is causing this [human driven climate change].
Okay, I’ll accept that I interpreted your initial question differently than you intended it. I should have clarified what you were referring to.
I’ve already stated that capitalism is not solely causing human driven climate change, other things obviously influence it as well. However, I will argue that capitalism encourages human driven climate change more readily than other socioeconomic models. This is because climate destroying methods of profiteering tend to make profits faster, and as discussed in many Economics 101 classes, “money now is more valuable than money later” because it can be invested. Ecologically friendly methods of profiteering tend to make profits slower and less often.