Mindscape 247 | Samuel Bowles on Economics, Cooperation, and Inequality

[@Anna_Swamy_Nageshwar]

Always great to hear to Sam

[@spikarooni6391]

Our ability to share and participate in culture, like listening to these two guys talk, is at an all time high because of the internet. I would guess that our engagement with social media has increased immensely over the last few years, and it has enabled an ‘online’ sharing of culture and ideas that we’ve never seen before. The massive chunk of our population that can access social media are ‘taking off’ in an unprecedented melting pot of the almost entire population. One thing we have observed is that, when billions of people from all over the world mix online, they tend to ‘group together online‘, forming large concentrations of this or that cultural idea, be it political echo chambers or facebook groups and follower lists of every imaginable idea. The formation of these ‘groups’, when you enable the whole worlds cultural participation to mix, is kinda like a molecule falling out of solution. Some of these groups we hate, but some are Sean Carroll having a deep chat about epic academic shizzle. And I’m gorging myself on culture through my phone, listening to conversations between thinkers of every and all kind.

[@CAMBi07]

I found this really interesting. One day I will be a patron so I know my opinion doesn't matter. But more exploration of economics would be interesting.

[@TheCorneliuscheck]

Have you considered having Richard Wolff on the show ? I think he can contribute lots of valuable insight to the topic of economic theories and their development and propagation.

[@aidenmurphy9924]

Anyone who has experienced homelessness, or lacking access to food, clothing, or water knows that the only way to get these things is from the generosity of others. If you're someone with no assets, family support, or support from friends, then you know that you can only survive in this world by the grace of those around you. This is not a metaphor or hyperbole. This is reality. I struggle to put into words how jarring conversations like this sound to people who actually live or die by an economy. And I'm awed listening to people talking about an economy in these terms. I lived a life of poverty as a child, teen, and young adult in America. But now 32, I've earned multiple degrees in physics, mathematics, computer science, and statistics. I now have more wealth than I know what to do with. And I never would have accomplished what I have without government programs which fed me through primary school, funded my higher education, and housed me. Conversations like these shows both a glimpse of society's potential for improvement, and the amount of ignorance still causing suffering

[@tau3457]

Absolutely fascinating listen. And perfect questions from Sean.

[@jean-philippegrenier120]

wow that was way more interesting then I expected it to be ❤

[@aidenmurphy9924]

This guest really knows how to communicate ideas and yell stories. Which is interesting given that he's an economist and his hypothesis about the future success of economics involves modeling economics with linguistics... I wonder what in the world that even means... Is an economy a story humans tell themselves spoken with dollars? Hmmm

[@isedairi]

Fall 2013 marks 50 years since one of Sam Bowles' most ambitious projects: The establishment of a Radical Economics program at UMass Amherst. I wonder if there will be any activities celebrating this important anniversary.

[@kaseymonroe1063]

I don't understand the surprise about altruistic behavior. Whether it's a bee collecting nectar for future generations, doves watching over their fledglings, a squirrel warning others about a nearby cat, or a monkey making a call specific to seeing a snake, altruistic behavior is all over the animal kingdom. Even beyond that. Plants and fungi can network. Bacteria form colonies. Evolution is an effect of population genetics, not individual genomes. What's surprising to me is that humans find altruistic behavior confusing instead of just innocuous.

[@aidenmurphy9924]

There's arguments about the level of altruism. Like "helping others to help yourself more" type if arguments. It's not too surprising to learn that altruism is debated, but what is surprising to me is that the VALUE of altruism is debated. Because so many normal people or scientists in other fields understand that altruism is valuable.

[@rossmcleod7983]

Americans struggle with the notion more than us normal types. Fun fact, in the WW2 prisoner of war camps, they did very poorly. The rugged individualism that they championed didn’t pan out at all well.

[@anthonyward8805]

It’s not that people are surprised about altruism, it is just that altruism is a glaring hole in economics that we have no tools to model. It just highlights how wrong the selfish actor model is

[@ehfik]

bitcoin bros playing benefactor, ofc people are confused. true altruistic behaviour, seldom.

[@dmitryshusterman9494]

The issue is, how did altruistic behavior evolve

[@hopperpeace]

highly interesting

[@garydecad6233]

Sean asked a perfect question towards the end of this interesting discussion. I would have liked to hear discussion about the response since it’s not clear to me that nationalism has been a good force for the world given our history ( even though the guest was not in favor of it but saw good things about it). Requires more discussion v

[@josephrichards7624]

Isnt his comparison with the shirt and labour as being qualitatively different actually a matter of degree? With the shirt for example, it is true that i will get a shirt just as i thought that I would, and, if i dont receive the shirt then i can go to the police to ask for the shirt. However, this doesnt exclude times when i believe that a shirt will last me for 8 years, and it doesn't. This isnt illegal, and excluding warranty, it certainly doesn't appear that i can take someone to court for the shirt not being as high of a quality as i believed that it would be. I can however, use a social tool of assigning poor quality to the product of the shirt to tell people and effect the demand of that brand. Game theory can still be applied to the shirt buying scenario as the seller is trying to think what the buyer thinks/wants and the seller is trying to think the same. Now, the speaker already stated how the labour situation is more game theory based, however can't it still relate to supply and demand too though? If the employee researcher decides to do a limited amount of work, then his work history and references will show this. Just like the consumer who assigns quality to the shirt as a social tool reducing the demand, the past employer will give a poor reference to the employee who did a terrible job. I accept that they're may be different to a degree, but either the free market principle OR the game theory principle seem to be applicable to both. In addition, his game theory approach to the labour market seems to imply that if an industry was one where outputs can be completely operationalized (think KPIs), then they should never have a diminsihed labour supply. This would require that they use only contracts that pay through the outputs that they desire (commision). In this situation, there is no risk to the employer as they do get what they want just like in the supply demand deacription of the shirt transaction. To me this seems an emperical way to falsify his theorom. Very interesting discussion!

[@travisfitzwater8093]

What can be done when society freerides off of high contributing individuals?

[@Pr1marySourc3]

are you saying butterfly economics without saying butterfly economics?

[@davidpeppers551]

21:50 ---- The fear of losing a job because you are paid more than market rate?? More than minimum means you are exploitable? What of the worker who cannot afford an interruption in income because he is barely scraping by as it is? What of that end of the labor market? Someone who has to work and keep working just to have minimum sustainance. Aren't they even more exploitable that a well paid - a little above average pay- employee?

[@davidpeppers551]

23:17 ---- Power is non economic? Really? How is power NOT economic? Does it not come from material well being which was extracted from the economy? In what way is power non economic? Please explain.

[@parthosen5942]

Power WAS assumed to be non-economic in the neoclassical mathematical paradigm, which is clearly something that is impractical and what Bowles is arguing against as well. Political economy has always involved axes of power since before neoclassics.

[@UnMoored_]

52:42 "... but what I do know is that natural selection cannot produce an altruistic species and the reason for that is pretty obvious. Altruism is defined as benefitting somebody else as a cost to yourself." This is complete nonsense and more importantly, this thinking is a typical consequence of disciplines which suffer limitations by ignoring the ongoing progress in the study of child/human development. Mentoring and guiding people in general is very rewarding unless your family and peer-group culture emphasizes material success and status above all else.

[@BrandoEats]

If only Nietzsche lived to hear about group selection. "God is dead, and interest groups was the killer" 😅

[@Pr1marySourc3]

hah economics profs on a philosophy pod are hilarious. classical economics has a prediction problem lol. yeah unless one thinks that the currant reality is precisely intended. the way of our world is exactly what they wanted. don’t forget your intentionally stance my bro!

[@davidpeppers551]

20:48. Now what about the labor side? A worker often puts up his labor and time based on a promise from the employer as to working conditions and pay. The worker can't get back his time if the employer turns out to be a liar and the opportunities are non-existent. What of skills and knowledge development that would have elsewhere better served the worker. He cannot be compensated for that loss. The employer -- and this is not that rare --- says that at the end of two weeks that there is no pay. Then what? Perhaps he begs the forgiveness of the worker and promises pay to be current by the end of the month. Two months later the employee leaves without pay. He is a low level employee and his chances of recovering these lost wages are slim to none. Why? Because he hasn't the power to do so. He knows it. The employer knows it. The employer knows he can get away with it because billions of wages go unpaid every year and often even when back wages are ordered by the court, the employers get a discount and likely never have to pay interest on the lost wages they owe. A discount. Yes. A discount. They owe a billion and the court says ro pay back $600 million and then the lawyers take their cut so the employee gets the shaft either way. The employee also end up losing more time to the court. The employer wins even when they "lose!" Power is what is missing in all these economic formulas. They ignore power dynamics. They ignore power disparities. Of course, the people who benefit the most from this convenient amnesia, are tge most powerful people, who, in turn, ratchet up their wealth at ever greater speeds. The level playing field fantasy and the invisible hand BS, serve tge wealthy well. Neoliberalism is a system of power masquerading as a system of maximizing freedom.

[@parthosen5942]

That is exactly his point. Power is missing, and the work done by these heterodox economists is an attempt to integrate power into the behavioural framework of economic actors. The employer cheating the worker is a failure of the law and contract enforcement, and that is certainly something to also take into account. But initiating this paradigm shift from the neoclassical framework is a big deal in itself.

[@joshua3171]

personally I wouldn't be asking for economic assistance thanks all the same

[@travisfitzwater8093]

In the pleistocene, humans? You want to know how they lived. This is going to sound weird but look at pack hunting dogs in Tanzania. This is not a perjorative. There are vestigial behaviors still observable in the common human.