This is about Part 4 of the series on understanding growth.


If we believe that man is evil in his nature, therefore that a person himself is dog eat dog (animal), then the hard hand of a ruler is called for.

Well that's no use. The top dog will just abuse the other dogs -- which is exactly what we see in most monarchies and other power structures.


If we believe that people in and of themselves, in their nature, gravitate toward good, then it is possible to loosen up the reins and live in a society that is more laissez-faire.
- Tomas Sedlacek in Economics of Good and Evil

Or we could acknowledge, as evidence shows, that most humans are extremely contextual creatures. There will be a few who are evil amidst good, and a few who remain good in evil, but the vast majority will do whatever everyone else is doing and say that's good. This awareness directs us to pay attention to the environment and the social context, and to arrange those for positive influences as much as possible. If houses have front porches and a pleasant courtyard or street, then more people will be neighborly than if garages front a noisy street.


If we listen to the leading voices of today's economics profession, we are told that we are consumers, a rational, utility-maximizing creature of their models that has taken to being called Homo Economicus. Yet, Adam Smith -- whose invisible hand has been used to justify all manner of private vice in the name of the common good -- clearly recognized that people are motivated by far more than their own rational self interest.

In order for the invisible hand to work, there must be meaningful choices. But the market tends toward monopoly, if not always by a single company, then prevailingly by megacorps or controlling organizations. If you have the money to buy meat, and there's a row of beef-pork-chicken, then you have an opportunity to choose beef (devastating to the environment) or pork/chicken (less so) but not bison (regenerative of prairies). If all consumer electronics or tractors ban self-repair, and your job requires using such, then you do not have a meaningful choice by which to penalize abusive practices by purchasing from a more ethical supplier.

A lot of things that people claim are capitalism actually undermine its principles. Kind of like how they bitch about socialism or communism without knowing what those are. Forcing people to buy any product, such as insurance, is anti-capitalist. So is denying consumers information needed to make such choices, for example, not labeling GMOs because they know damn well most people would prefer not to buy those if they had a choice.


In times past, the butcher, the brewer and the baker -- particularly in the age of Adam Smith -- would all have been people we personally knew. They lived up the street. Our kids would have played with their kids. We would likely have gone to the same church, received the same moral teachings and been part of the same circle of peers. To say our transactions were purely market-based is missing a lot. I care about the butcher, the brewer and the baker, not in some abstract way that I generally care for humanity, but in a very real way because I know them.

In this regard, today's hypermobility undermines social cohesion as well as mental health. You cannot form lasting relationships when so many people move frequently. They don't learn how. There's no chance for give-and-take. It's difficult even to make friends when they or you will just move in a year or so and you have to start all over. This environment is terrible for people.


>>Are we a society of villains or of neighbors?<<

Both exist. And whatever is in a particular time/place will tend to perpetuate itself. Change the context and most people will change with it.