The businessman and the fisherman (1963) • Hacker News Board

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#111

Post by nickpp » Sun, May 07, 2023, 8:59 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

nickpp wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of income. Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation. I've also lived under communism, where they ignored this uneven contribution and tried to squash the incomes uniformly. The result was quite predictable: we were equally starving, of course. Except the nomenklatura, but that's another story.

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation. Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation? There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from…

The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours.

The best answer in that not only was the only one that got us fed unlike the alternatives that only brought suffering, death and starvation but also got us such an amazing wealth that we have the luxury to sit and debate such issues from opposite corners of the earth, in real time, on magic devices connected to the freaking cloud.

As an Eastern European, I lived through the transition from the horrors of communism to the benefits of capitalism and while it wasn't easy I am a living testament to the immense success story this change brought to these lands.

And you can also plainly see the reverse transformation from wealth to misery brought by switching away from free markets in countries such as Argentina or Venezuela.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#112

Post by isleyaardvark » Sun, May 07, 2023, 9:20 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #106

isleyaardvark wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that the archetypical businessman in this story is ultimately necessary to provide for government spending is a pretty unique take.

No, it's actually not unique at all. If you look at the history of any civilization - in its broadest sense, as the change of human society from hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed settlements to development of cities to the modern urbanized society - you'll see that "archetypical businessman" existed pretty much since forever. In fact, if you remember the story of Abraham - the one from the Bible, the first Jew - his fa…

Generally they were moved way from this paradise by force, according to virtually every historical work.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#113

Post by gremlinunderway » Sun, May 07, 2023, 9:33 PM UTC

dazc wrote: post #85

fwlr wrote: post #49

There’s a related story, unfortunately not quite as neatly packaged, and it’s about taxi drivers. A businessman gets into a taxi and starts talking to the taxi driver about (of course) business. The taxi driver is in a great mood and explains that today is a good day, this is his last trip since he has made the $400 he aims to make in just two hours. The businessman asks him what a bad day looks like, and the taxi dr…

Since driving a taxi isn't hard work he should just do 'epic' ten hour shifts every day.

I hope I'm missing the sarcasm or irony but saying driving a taxi isn't hard work is a really ignorant comment.

It's the kind of privileged statement coming from naive knowledge workers who believe that intellectual challenges are the ultimate measurement of difficulty.

Personally, I think having a job where your only challenge is solving puzzles is one of the most privileged and lucky one could have, especially if it pays well.

I'd invite anyone who's a knowledge worker to go work a 'dumb' job for multiple, mindnumbing and nonstop hours. Love this idea that taxis and McDonald's aren't "hard work" and therefore undeserving of respect or fair payment.

Hardest jobs I've ever had were those that were the most boring and you were explicitly unable to distract yourself to get through the day. Driving a taxi would actually be up there for me in terms of difficulty because at least if you were doing some repetitive manual labour like washing cars you could throw on music/podcast, zone out and you'd be healthier on your feet all day.

Driving a taxi means you have to go through repetitive, mind-numbingly boring operations for hours a day, but the whole time you have to maintain focus to avoid accidents. You cant watch anything, and because you have customers who might not like what you're playing, you probably don't have a choice in what music you listen to either. You're sitting all day barely moving, so by the end of the day you're completely stiff and don't even have the satisfaction of having physically worked hard.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#114

Post by gremlinunderway » Sun, May 07, 2023, 9:38 PM UTC

gremlinunderway wrote: post #113

dazc wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since driving a taxi isn't hard work he should just do 'epic' ten hour shifts every day.

I hope I'm missing the sarcasm or irony but saying driving a taxi isn't hard work is a really ignorant comment. It's the kind of privileged statement coming from naive knowledge workers who believe that intellectual challenges are the ultimate measurement of difficulty. Personally, I think having a job where your only challenge is solving puzzles is one of the most privileged and lucky one could have, especially if i…

add on the fact that most of your take-home pay is made through tips, you also now have to be subservient and overly nice to everyone lest you run into some entitled piece of shit who loves the personalized control they get from influencing someone's behavior with tips.

This is all btw under the assumption of a "classic" taxi job that barely even exists now. Most actual drivers work for uber/lyft, which adds a whole other layer of exploitation, pressure and stress. Good highlight of this is the Financial Times Uber Driver game. https://ig.ft.com/uber-game/

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#115

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sun, May 07, 2023, 9:44 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #111

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation. Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation? There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from…

The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours. The best answer in that not only was the only one that got us fed unlike the alternatives that only brought suffering, death and starvation but also got us such an amazing wealth that we have the l…

> The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours.

I do not agree with you.

First of all because "the free market" is so vague as to be capable of encompassing a huge variety of economic arrangements with wildly different outcomes. Secondly because it absolutely was not "the only one that got us fed" - any sufficiently long read of history will make that clear. Thirdly, because it is far from clear what the role of the ill-defined "free market" has been in the development of magic devices connected to the freaking cloud. Involved? Probably? Responsible? I'd say probably not.

But it's fine, I'm not trying to convince you. We just don't see the world in the same way.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#116

Post by gremlinunderway » Sun, May 07, 2023, 9:49 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #111

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation. Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation? There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from…

The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours. The best answer in that not only was the only one that got us fed unlike the alternatives that only brought suffering, death and starvation but also got us such an amazing wealth that we have the l…

Who's "we" in the "best answer we found so far" statement?

Ignoring for a fact that having magic devices that do some esoteric operation isn't a useful measurement of any kind of 'wealth' (as if having the privilege to own an iPhone while working 10 hour mind-numbing days at an amazon warehouse is 'luxury'), you do realize that the fact you're posting here when most of the world under the free market lives in abject subsistence poverty speaks to the fact that our system only works when we're able to parasitically suck wealth, resources and labour from less powerful countries.

Also, somehow doubt those pensioners and others in the 1990's who lived through the former USSR's transition to "the free market" were really enjoying their new found freedoms as life expectancy, wages and quality of live plummeted except for a handful of the very same nomenklatura in charge before becoming even more insanely privileged than before.

The 'free market' in this conception is just letting the 'nomenklatura' types of people be even more insanely wealthy than everyone else because now they have even less guardrails preventing them from exploiting and manipulating everyone around them for self-enrichment.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#117

Post by gremlinunderway » Sun, May 07, 2023, 9:53 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #111

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which is a reflection of an intensely unequal distribution of productivity and value creation. Well, I can't disagree with that claim. But it's not really all that interesting, in and of itself. The question is: to what extent, and with sort of multiples, should differences in wealth/income reflect the distribution of productivity/value creation? There are a wide range of answers to that question, all the way from…

The only one who can answer that question is the free market. And while not satisfying for everybody, it certainly is the best answer we found so far while trying various forms of organisations with this humankind of ours. The best answer in that not only was the only one that got us fed unlike the alternatives that only brought suffering, death and starvation but also got us such an amazing wealth that we have the l…

Also, setting up the only other alternative to an uncontrolled free market as being Soviet communism to begin with is incredibly ignorant and naive.

I'm sure this same scenario played out during aztec human sacrifices. Someone asks "do we really need to do all these human sacrifices to ensure a good harvest?" and the other responds "well, maybe not, and its not satisfying for everybody, but its probably the best answer we found so far. Do you want to live off bugs in the jungle? That's your only other choice, sorry"

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#118

Post by smsm42 » Sun, May 07, 2023, 10:31 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #108

smsm42 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's actually not unique at all. If you look at the history of any civilization - in its broadest sense, as the change of human society from hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed settlements to development of cities to the modern urbanized society - you'll see that "archetypical businessman" existed pretty much since forever. In fact, if you remember the story of Abraham - the one from the Bible, the first Jew - his fa…

David Graeber and David Wengrow would like a word with you regarding your simplistic, monotonic version of human history. "The Dawn of Everything" covers, with multiple redundant stories, why this concept of "the way human civilizations evolved" is wrong. That doesn't mean that none of them did, but absilutely not all of them. It certainly wasn't a straight path from hunter-gatherer to more or less anywhere in the wo…

I never claimed it was a straight uniform path. I only claimed whatever path there was, the concept of production surplus likely played a role, and the concept of trade too - and the tradesmen, aka "businessmen" - were somewhere nearby to facilitate it.

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#119

Post by smsm42 » Sun, May 07, 2023, 10:33 PM UTC

isleyaardvark wrote: post #112

smsm42 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's actually not unique at all. If you look at the history of any civilization - in its broadest sense, as the change of human society from hunter-gatherer tribes to fixed settlements to development of cities to the modern urbanized society - you'll see that "archetypical businessman" existed pretty much since forever. In fact, if you remember the story of Abraham - the one from the Bible, the first Jew - his fa…

Generally they were moved way from this paradise by force, according to virtually every historical work.

By force of what? Alien invaders from space? Random natural phenomena? Or some other humans, who somehow became more powerful and numerous? How did they manage to achieve that and why they chose to achieve that, instead of staying in their own paradise?

Re: The businessman and the fisherman (1963)

#120

Post by smsm42 » Sun, May 07, 2023, 10:36 PM UTC

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #110

smsm42 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is capable, but the whole point of the story is that he doesn't want to use this capability, and is lauded for that.

He doesn't wish to organize his life around maximizing his output. The entire point of the story is to get people to consider to what extent that makes sense, and under what circumstances. If you consider a good life to be precisely how the fisherman already lives, it takes a rather compelling argument (and it make even require compelling force) that he should behave otherwise.

> If you consider a good life to be precisely how the fisherman already lives

That's a pretty big if. I'd start with asking how is dental care in his village. Does the village doctor use anesthesia? Would the anesthesiologist accept fish as a payment, and how many fishes a pain-less root canal treatment costs? Maybe after learning the answers to these questions I'd consider some other definition of a good life.