News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by eldavido on Friday April 22, 2016 @02:19PM (#11551314)
Do you listen to EconTalk? Michael Munger (famous econ prof) has what he calls the "Munger test", which is, does this proposal/statement about business/government/academia/etc. presuppose ideal human beings to carry it out, or the venal, petty, real people we know?
Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by mhb on Friday April 22, 2016 @02:25PM (#11551372)
He named the argument for free market capitalism vs. socialism after himself? Wow.
Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by kbutler on Friday April 22, 2016 @04:41PM (#11552430)
That's the "invisible hand" - different concept.

Invisible hand: two people following their own greed by engaging in a non-coerced, knowledgable exchange, produce a surplus benefit, in which both individuals are better off.

Munger test applied to the idea of the invisible hand: Does it work for greedy people? yes. If one party won't be better off as a result of the exchange, they won't participate.

Munger test applied to the idea of increasing revenue by increasing tax rates on the ultra-wealthy: Does it work for greedy people? Not linearly, because they'll have a great incentive to find ways to restructure or shelter their income from the increased taxes.

Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by nickff on Friday April 22, 2016 @02:46PM (#11551585)
It's actually a simple public choice-based test; there is no single argument for capitalism and against socialism (, there are many).
Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by SpaceCadetJones on Friday April 22, 2016 @02:46PM (#11551579)
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you explain?
Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by khedoros on Friday April 22, 2016 @03:06PM (#11551774)
It's based on the idea that capitalism works because it harnesses greedy self-interest, while a pure communist state would fail because there's no direct connection between doing extra work and getting extra benefit.

Capitalist farmer grows 10% more food; they make higher income from the sale of their crops. Communist farmer grows 10% more food; the farmer doesn't see extra benefit. Why bother to do the extra work?

The ideal person might answer "For the greater benefit of my fellow countrymen". A realistic person might answer "Come to think of it, I wonder how little work I can do before I actually see concrete negative consequences".

Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by st3v3r on Friday April 22, 2016 @05:31PM (#11552686)
Problem is, those arguments always assume the people are doing things fairly. In many instances, instead of extra work, it's cutting corners.
Re:San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings by alphapapa on Thursday April 28, 2016 @03:37PM (#11591399)
No, it doesn't assume that. Competition incentivizes independent agents to compete, and customers evaluate who offers the best goods and services, serving their own self-interests.