If you look at the ‘output’ of the University of Oxford’s politics department, you will find that in the last decade, it gave us Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and Jacob Rees-Mogg.
"And for the uninitiated on the dictator problem, it is a game where [...] If the other person rejects the offer, you both get nothing." This is the ultimatum game, not the dictator game; which is a variant of the ultimatum game where if the offer is rejected, only the second person gets nothing. The first person - the dictator - gets what they claimed for themselves regardless of the second person's action.
"[...]extremely lopsided splits where the first person keeps 80%, 90% or even more of the money get rejected by the other person in almost all cases. People will incur personal costs (the other person loses out on the possibility of gaining a small amount) to punish unfair and asocial behaviour by others." If we apply this reasoning to the government of a nation, we could understand a few things, and moreover, it confirms what you wrote in your article yesterday. Dictatorial governments with a strong centralization of power and wealth survive as long as they support economic growth sufficient to maintain an acceptable share of the pie shared with the community. Those in command in China know this. Those in command in Russia also know this, but relying solely on the trade of raw materials. The same happens in Africa where, not by chance, a civil war breaks out every day because the pie is always eaten by the usual suspects. At this point, using serious economic projections (not those where, for example, Pakistan surpasses the GDP of the USA by 2100), one could roughly estimate the danger of a civil war in Russia, where, in fact, the matter has already been extensively tested.
You forget - like most westerners bathing in liberal democracy often do - the 'wealth' of stability ie security itself despite possible high(er) levels of poverty occuring simultanously.
Having safe streets, not having to worry whether family members will return home tonight, not having to worry whether you'll be able to keep your earnings, is crucial to all.
The historic memory of citizens, in exactly China and Russia - which have known chaos, death & destruction at massive scale, as well as foreign meddling / occupation / intervention(s) pre- and during these times - allows for greater leeway for gov's as long as they maintain order.
And think of Afghanistan: despite western media focus on stonings of supposed adulterers, most Afghans welcomed the Taliban since finally there were safe streets. Before, there would be a 'checkpoint' every ten miles or so where you'd be relieved of some of your earnings / harvest etc. Rapes and child abuse by warlord's local puppets were at the order of the day.
When the US and allies overthrew the Taliban their warlord allies reinstated these puppets and renamed them The National Police...US soldiers then had to work with them while their military and civil bosses had no time for bad news.
You are absolutely correct. Stability and security are key ingredients that are often taken for granted. In a stable and secure environment, people are much more willing to endure inequalities.
One example I often give which is not about emerging markets like Russia or China is Switzerland. Few people know that Switzerland has one of the highest levels on income and wealth inequality in Europe (we all know why). Yet, it is also one of the safest and cleanest countries in the world. Guess what, unlike in the US or the UK, there is no debate about inequality in Switzerland (or at least none that I am aware of), while in the US and UK, the press across the entire political spectrum is constantly discussing inequality (they just use different terminologies and emphases in what they view as 'elites' and 'people').
I believe it also depends on the size of the pie, the number of guests at the banquet, and the fact that a larger pie is served each evening than the day before. Probably in a hypothetical experiment, one should also consider the minimum slice size (that's the panem et circenses I referred to in my previous comment). As long as I have a slice of that minimum size and every evening they bring me a larger one, or at least they don't shrink it, I might be attracted to the portion of the fat man at the head of the table, but in the end, I am satisfied. In Switzerland, I believe this principle ultimately applies. And to a different extent also in China and Russia. In China, for years, more and more people have sat at the banquet having an ever-larger slice, they would be missing out if they complained. The same thing in Russia with Putin. In Africa, however, the pie is small, one eats and the others go hungry. There's an episode of The Simpsons where they go to Central Africa for a week, they arrive in this country, greeted by a local guide, where there's the usual dictator; they leave and the local guide has become the new dictator while the old dictator serves them coffee on the return flight. What I mean is that if Russia continues on this path of reckless management of public affairs, and an unexpected acceleration of the energy transition happens (including the nuclear fusion front) with the sudden loss of the advantage that allows for acceptable portions of pie, then it would probably end "African", with big problems also for all of us; because of political and geographical fragmentation and a nuclear arsenal that would fall into the hands of the first tour guide that passes by.
"Utilitarians would argue that the first person should offer as little money to the other person as possible. This way, the first person maximises her utility." - that's not how utilitarianism works. You try to maximise the total utility, not your own. (Well, at least in philosophical utilitarianism. I don't know if economic "utilitarianism" differs.)
None of this really explains why effective altruism doesn't make sense. The idea that we should try to maximise the expected utility makes complete sense to me, as a utilitarian. If what you instead mean to do is criticise utilitarianism, go ahead, but you won't say anything that hasn't been said a million times already.
"And for the uninitiated on the dictator problem, it is a game where [...] If the other person rejects the offer, you both get nothing." This is the ultimatum game, not the dictator game; which is a variant of the ultimatum game where if the offer is rejected, only the second person gets nothing. The first person - the dictator - gets what they claimed for themselves regardless of the second person's action.
Empirical results for dictator game experiments differ from those of ultimatum game experiments. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S074959781730523X
Sorry, I stand corrected. You are absolutely right.
"[...]extremely lopsided splits where the first person keeps 80%, 90% or even more of the money get rejected by the other person in almost all cases. People will incur personal costs (the other person loses out on the possibility of gaining a small amount) to punish unfair and asocial behaviour by others." If we apply this reasoning to the government of a nation, we could understand a few things, and moreover, it confirms what you wrote in your article yesterday. Dictatorial governments with a strong centralization of power and wealth survive as long as they support economic growth sufficient to maintain an acceptable share of the pie shared with the community. Those in command in China know this. Those in command in Russia also know this, but relying solely on the trade of raw materials. The same happens in Africa where, not by chance, a civil war breaks out every day because the pie is always eaten by the usual suspects. At this point, using serious economic projections (not those where, for example, Pakistan surpasses the GDP of the USA by 2100), one could roughly estimate the danger of a civil war in Russia, where, in fact, the matter has already been extensively tested.
You forget - like most westerners bathing in liberal democracy often do - the 'wealth' of stability ie security itself despite possible high(er) levels of poverty occuring simultanously.
Having safe streets, not having to worry whether family members will return home tonight, not having to worry whether you'll be able to keep your earnings, is crucial to all.
The historic memory of citizens, in exactly China and Russia - which have known chaos, death & destruction at massive scale, as well as foreign meddling / occupation / intervention(s) pre- and during these times - allows for greater leeway for gov's as long as they maintain order.
And think of Afghanistan: despite western media focus on stonings of supposed adulterers, most Afghans welcomed the Taliban since finally there were safe streets. Before, there would be a 'checkpoint' every ten miles or so where you'd be relieved of some of your earnings / harvest etc. Rapes and child abuse by warlord's local puppets were at the order of the day.
When the US and allies overthrew the Taliban their warlord allies reinstated these puppets and renamed them The National Police...US soldiers then had to work with them while their military and civil bosses had no time for bad news.
From VICE's remarkable documentary This Is What Winning Looks Like: https://youtu.be/Ja5Q75hf6QI?t=1683
https://youtu.be/Ja5Q75hf6QI?t=2476
You are absolutely correct. Stability and security are key ingredients that are often taken for granted. In a stable and secure environment, people are much more willing to endure inequalities.
One example I often give which is not about emerging markets like Russia or China is Switzerland. Few people know that Switzerland has one of the highest levels on income and wealth inequality in Europe (we all know why). Yet, it is also one of the safest and cleanest countries in the world. Guess what, unlike in the US or the UK, there is no debate about inequality in Switzerland (or at least none that I am aware of), while in the US and UK, the press across the entire political spectrum is constantly discussing inequality (they just use different terminologies and emphases in what they view as 'elites' and 'people').
I believe it also depends on the size of the pie, the number of guests at the banquet, and the fact that a larger pie is served each evening than the day before. Probably in a hypothetical experiment, one should also consider the minimum slice size (that's the panem et circenses I referred to in my previous comment). As long as I have a slice of that minimum size and every evening they bring me a larger one, or at least they don't shrink it, I might be attracted to the portion of the fat man at the head of the table, but in the end, I am satisfied. In Switzerland, I believe this principle ultimately applies. And to a different extent also in China and Russia. In China, for years, more and more people have sat at the banquet having an ever-larger slice, they would be missing out if they complained. The same thing in Russia with Putin. In Africa, however, the pie is small, one eats and the others go hungry. There's an episode of The Simpsons where they go to Central Africa for a week, they arrive in this country, greeted by a local guide, where there's the usual dictator; they leave and the local guide has become the new dictator while the old dictator serves them coffee on the return flight. What I mean is that if Russia continues on this path of reckless management of public affairs, and an unexpected acceleration of the energy transition happens (including the nuclear fusion front) with the sudden loss of the advantage that allows for acceptable portions of pie, then it would probably end "African", with big problems also for all of us; because of political and geographical fragmentation and a nuclear arsenal that would fall into the hands of the first tour guide that passes by.
'People will incur personal costs'. And monkeys. Cucumber is good enough until the neighbor gets a grape...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo
"Utilitarians would argue that the first person should offer as little money to the other person as possible. This way, the first person maximises her utility." - that's not how utilitarianism works. You try to maximise the total utility, not your own. (Well, at least in philosophical utilitarianism. I don't know if economic "utilitarianism" differs.)
None of this really explains why effective altruism doesn't make sense. The idea that we should try to maximise the expected utility makes complete sense to me, as a utilitarian. If what you instead mean to do is criticise utilitarianism, go ahead, but you won't say anything that hasn't been said a million times already.