Anti-Capitalist Sentiment (with some morality)

[CoccoBill]

Did you ask how upper management incentives differ from private to government? Doesn't the need to turn a profit answer that?

I did. Government agencies do all sorts of things and operate under various financing and operating budget models. Typically, even when they create goods or services they aim for a neutral operating budget, that is, they don't aim for a profit. This doesn't mean their performance isn't monitored and audited, and that they're not penalized for poor performance. The profit incentives are, while not to the same extent as in the private sector, still there.

That was looking at things from a organizational perspective. When looking at personal level, the directors, their performance is quite identical to a corporation's director, and their incentives and motivations are largely exactly the same. At the very least, saying that profit incentives only apply to private sector is simply untrue.

In that situation, sure. Some other situations would have shareholders making more.

Then you'll surely have no problem coming up with one that sounds even remotely viable. The only one I can come up with is that if you're self-employed, it would make sense to give half of the company to someone provided that it would more than double the profits. The more people you add to the mix, the less likely it is that a shared ownership is more profitable.

You mentioned that you think the economist thing is to ignore some externality and pay attention to money things. I responded with the economist thing is handling externality in terms of money. It would be bad news if economics ignored relevant factors. Economists tend to do their best to denote what they can in terms of money, because it allows an objective measurement.

Exactly, and ignore everything they can't. Or is there a typical monetary value that economists tend to attach to eg. personal development and self-respect?

[wufwugy]

I did. Government agencies do all sorts of things and operate under various financing and operating budget models. Typically, even when they create goods or services they aim for a neutral operating budget, that is, they don't aim for a profit. This doesn't mean their performance isn't monitored and audited, and that they're not penalized for poor performance. The profit incentives are, while not to the same extent as in the private sector, still there.

That was looking at things from a organizational perspective. When looking at personal level, the directors, their performance is quite identical to a corporation's director, and their incentives and motivations are largely exactly the same. At the very least, saying that profit incentives only apply to private sector is simply untrue.

The profit motive is not primary on the institutional level in government. It is, however, primary in private business.

Then you'll surely have no problem coming up with one that sounds even remotely viable. The only one I can come up with is that if you're self-employed, it would make sense to give half of the company to someone provided that it would more than double the profits. The more people you add to the mix, the less likely it is that a shared ownership is more profitable.

Employee stock options. This is equity holders selling their equity to employees because they believe it will be more profitable.

Exactly, and ignore everything they can't. Or is there a typical monetary value that economists tend to attach to eg. personal development and self-respect?

My economics professors have spent a good deal of time teaching us to think things like this: "He values his self-respect more than the $40 he's being offered to do this thing that will hurt his self-respect. However, he'll part with his self-respect for $100." In that case, his willingness to lose that specific iteration of self-respect is equivalent to his desire to gain $100.

[MadMojoMonkey]

My economics professors have spent a good deal of time teaching us to think things like this: "He values his self-respect more than the $40 he's being offered to do this thing that will hurt his self-respect. However, he'll part with his self-respect for $100." In that case, his willingness to lose that specific iteration of self-respect is equivalent to his desire to gain $100.

That's all well and good for the class of things which "he" values monetarily.

What about the wealth of things which he values at infinity dollars?

or 0 dollars?

[wufwugy]

That's all well and good for the class of things which "he" values monetarily.

What about the wealth of things which he values at infinity dollars?

or 0 dollars?

Then it's infinity dollars or zero dollars. I mean this literally. If you're holding a snickers bar in your hand and you would not give that snickers bar to a man offering you a hundred trillion dollars for it, that snickers bar is worth more than a hundred trillion dollars to you.