h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I even hit preview...that should be "Your".

We talked about the limits of altruism earlier in the thread. Ed put forward the idea that we're naturally altruistic whilst I believed that is limited. It seems science agrees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6591829.stm

"People do more to help a relative, even at a cost, because it helps the continuation of the genes, the British Journal of Psychology study says.

A psychology expert said being a blood relation had a significant, but not comprehensive, effect on actions."

I've said all along that the notion that people genuinely care about distant strangers was idealistic, perhaps a wonderful aspiration, but not one rooted in reality. Socialism would be equally wonderful if it worked beyond a small scale, but the reality is that it doesn't.

Define Socialism

I remember reading somewhere (no links available) that economists had done a study of fellow economists, and found them to be more altruistic than they would have expected.

Of course people help their relatives more than strangers, but that's not the same thing as not helping strangers at all, is it? And what about the charitable donations given to the tsunami relief?

A study quoted here http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,,2067674,00.html
says that 'the best performing industrial economies at the beginning of the 21st century are those that have least in common with the neoliberal model'; places like Scandinavia. Not knowing wtf you're on about when you mention socialism, I don't know if this is what you say doesn't work. Hey-ho.

"I think Blackberry is really only expressing how the majority of middle-income earners feel. They don't get the sort of benefits that the poorer ends of society do and they don't have the flash accountants lawyers and the like to find the loopholes as the rich do."

Partly that
Also that since the poor are already as taxed as they can be really and the rich have largely opted out of paying taxes the burden for any extension in the role of the state will probably fall mainly on the middle-income earners

The arguement that the right is about freedom and the left about control seems to ignore the record of most rightwing governments who tend to be in favour of more censorship, using education to teach people to respect authority, more powers for the police etc

>>You don't manage capitalism, you make sure you're in a position to reap the benefits.

Ah, but you see...some people would maintain that life is better all round when capitalism is managed for the maximum benefit to all. This contrasts with the right-libertarian attitudes which at best say that wealth creators are engines of wealth who spread benefit to all ('trickle down')...but at worst simply don't give a flying fish.


As for whether humans are naturally altruistic or not...firstly I'd be wary of taking a single psychological study as the basis of a world view. However...I'll freely admit that I'd run faster to pick up my own children if they fell off their bike than I would someone else's...but I'd still pick them up, no matter how distantly related. That to me feels like a natural human emotion.

But that's totally, totally not the point. Whether or not altruism is 'natural', we clearly, observably find mutual cooperation to be a useful strategy. That may be naked self interest (although isn't it likely that we'll have evolved to favour the most cooperative, altruistic individuals?). It also seems to me that, in the round, we must logically favour economic arrangememnts in which disparities and exploitation are not *too* severe: it makes life easier when you're not having to watch your back quite 100% of the time. Thus, as a society, we have a certain consensus that - for example - the strong are not allowed to punch the weak in the face and run off with their food. We will gang up against anyone who does so (or pay the polis to do so).

So in this light, cooperation, altruism (Socialism? ) are nothing more or less than strategies developed to make life better, given the exigencies of economics and the tendencies of the more malicious, less socially evolved amongst us.

Let me paraphrase the first post in this thread:

Blair and Brown have done a brill job with the economy, because their form of capitalism has allowed for a small number of people to become very rich.

Right?

I experienced a power cut in my electricity supply from 6pm yesterday until 9.30am today, well so my neighbour told me as I'd already left for work this morning. That's over 15 hours, the longest one I've ever experienced. (Things in the fridge will have to be thrown away, and various clocks and dates reset.) It felt pretty miserable, the 'not knowing' last night. I can understand that faults occassionally occur, but not being able to get any information is very frustrating. I wanted to phone my electricity company yesterday but there was no number in the phone book. My neighbours had a similar problem so no-one knew what the was going on. Today I went to the website and rang the number I eventually found to report power cuts, to ask what had happenned. Some Scottish voice answered, so christ knows what the call costs. "Oh no" he said. "We no longer actually supply the actual eletricity in your area in London . Your company has been taken over by us. but you need to ring the actual supplier, company Y" I told him that I was a customer of company X, that's who I paid my bills to. "Sorry" he said. "You may pay us for your electricity supply, but we are not responsible for supplying it to you. That's why we have no number in the phone book in your aarea. Try ringing this number instead!"

I put down the receiver.

So, I as the paying customer to company X, have no power of complaint against them when they are unable to supply me with the thing they promise to supply me with. I have to spend more money on another phone call to complain to company Y, who don't give a flying kucf cos I don't pay them anything,

Aint capitalism grand?

http://www.southern-electric.co.uk/About/

I notice on their website that there doesn't appear to be any mention of the company that physically supplies the electricity in *my* area.

Maybe they should dye all the electricity from different suppliers in different colours, so you can see where it's come from.

Excellent idea Edward.

I'm feeling a bit better now after experiencing an evening with electricity, but have restocked my candle supply, just in case. I think what most irritates me is the utter lack of information, no number being in the phone book, and the idea that it is the fault of some other company who I'm supposed to complain to. A bit like buying something from a shop and being told to go the original maker of the thing.

The public utilities, for all their faults, at least had a clear system and structure of responsibility for ALL aspects of their service. Privitisation of them has been a problem. Look at the whole thing with the railways. The companies who were responsible for the trains had no responsibility for tracks. At least the whole Railtrack fiasco has been addressed because it cost lives.

I believe that capitalism is a good thing in many circumstances, but I still think certain basic utilities are better done by a properly funded public sector.

Uh, won't the numbers you need to call be on your bills?

As she explained...the company she was contracted with denied all responsibilty for the infrastructure. Their job is simply to pump elecktrickery into the grid (or, rather, subcontract power stations to do so) and meter how much is used by their customers.

More generally...this is an excellent illustration of an inherent weakness in the Free Market model. A market is an evolutionary system. The laws of competition dictate that the workable solutions survive and the unworkable ones die off. Eventually.

In the 80's/90's, Britain followed the Keith Joseph philosophy of deregulation to stimulate competition. It was akin to tossing a deck of cards in the air and trusting that they'd spontaneously arrange themselves into a tower. Well...when it works, it can work well. For example...in electricity supply, eventually people like Fanny will get pissed off with their stupid suppliers and move to those who give less hassle. Eventually.

I keep using this word 'eventually.' It's hardly a very efficient system, is it? You wouldn't deliberately *design* a system with so much chaos (cf evolution vs Intelligent Design). Clearly capitalism only works sensibly if there's some degree of intelligent regulation. Such as legally enforced levels of service.

Take another example: Free Markets can, conceivably, deliver sensible environmental policies. If sufficient numbers of consumers see that it is in their interest to act on global warming, they will spend their money with those companies they judge to be environmentally responsible. In the end, only the environmentally responsible ones will survive. Eventually. In the long run.

But as JM Keynes said, "In the long run, we're all dead."

Utilities aren't a good example of a free market, because they aren't 'free'* markets at all, in the economics sense. They're structural monopolies, where it's cheaper to have one firm have one infrastructure, than to have many with all different infrastructures. As the *supply* is different from the infrastructure (as in Fanny's case and many more), so the Tories made *that* part a market, with all the resulting chaos. The rail system is exactly the same.

*free markets are a (wrong) shorthand for competitive markets, which are totally different to free markets. Typical economic doublespeak.

Keynes was brilliant.

>>structural monopolies, where it's cheaper to have one firm have one infrastructure

Indeed. The different companies don't come and wire up your home with their own cable. Hence Fanny's problem.

Same with hospitals. The illusion of 'choice' brought about by a pseudo-market is fatuous. If I'm bleeding by the roadside, I want to know that the nearest hospital is up to the job of stitching me back together. I don't have much consumer power in that situation.

And, yes, Keynes was brilliant. And I'm sure Pedro will want to give props to Galbraith also.

Has anyone been listening to the Reith lectures?