If you were put in that position and stripped of all of your privileges, you would also be likely to make similar decisions (not exactly, but we can observe given medians).

That's why we need a UBI - to give the poor people leverage. We saw it a bit with the unemployment bonuses - companies are having to raise their wages finally and are complaining about it, and we might finally see inflation. Every keeps treating it like a bad thing, but in reality, the late 70s with high inflation were the most "equal" times historically, since inflation with wage indexation is actually more akin to a wealth tax on the rich, which I totally support.

You’ve got some reading up to do on behavioral economics. Humans (real ones, not model economic actors) can’t and don’t make optimal decisions except in very special circumstances.

That doesn't answer my question at all.

Of course. Never meant to, just pointed to a direction that you seem to be unaware of.

>Never meant to, just pointed to a direction that you seem to be unaware of.

What gave you that impression? In my initial comment I acknowledged the concept of excusing suboptimal decision making due to "psychology of decision making when poor and struggling". How is that different than what you're saying?

You call it 'excusing'.

That seems like the right characterization to me? Definition from wiktionary:

>3. (transitive) To provide an excuse for; to explain, with the aim of alleviating guilt or negative judgement.

Earlier in the thread there was definitely a tone of negative judgement. ie. "people show up all the time with a litany of complaints and a litany of awful, awful budget mistakes they have no interest in fixing"

Negative judgment is exactly what is off mark. Real humans make mistakes. No whys or buts or excepts. They just do and they shouldn't be blamed for what is essentially being human. IOW people can't be reasonably expected to make rational, self-interested choices.

(It's actually amazing this is almost a Nobel-prize worthy observation in economics. This is psychology 101.)

If you ask why or what kinds of mistakes they make, now that is where the books go deep. Suffice to say those mistakes are not unpredictable and people can be nudged to make a better (dare I say correct) choice.

>Negative judgment is exactly what is off mark.

Right, but I'm not the person giving the negative judgement. I specifically recognize the possibility of "excusing" them (ie. not negatively judging them) in some cases, and ask whether they should be excused in some cases or all cases. After this long conversation it appears you believe in the latter. Is this correct?

There is a difference between "explaining" and "excusing". There is a level of personal responsibility that needs to happen. But we also, as a society, need to understand the reasons that people make sub-optimal decisions and work to provide valid ways people can learn to make better ones. I'm not excusing individuals making poor decisions, but rather trying to find the explanation for it in a non-judgement fashion.

I'm not accusing you of this, but in my experience, the people who preach "personal responsibility" often do not take the time to understand the issues preventing people from making good decisions, and so aren't even working on the right problem in many cases. And in saying that, please be aware that I do feel there is a place for personal responsibility and it's an important factor in anyone improving their situation. Just not the only factor needed.