Socrates is side-stepping the issue, as he always did, taking advantage of his friend's inability to articulate himself well.
One can see from his friend's meandering talk that he was trying to describe how excessive love of gain can corrupt, and later how evil men would deceive others so as to make gains by things which the violated party will later realize (or perhaps not realize) are worthless. Think snake oil merchants.
However, Socrates, in his usual style, takes advantage of imprecise language to twist meanings around until he's altered the topic of discussion (as his friend suspected, but couldn't articulate) into something where he can be demonstrated to have the right answer (all men love gain) with a notable absence of discussion about his friend's concern about excessive love of gain and dishonest gain.
There's a reason why they killed him: nobody likes a smart ass.
Where you look for trickery you will find trickery. Look for the wisdom and you will find that instead.
What you actually mean by "excessive love of gain" is that some people either do not see or do not count the externalities of their activities - they see only the gain for themselves and not the loss for others, for example.
For example, a thief doesn't care that you lose $1000 for every $100 he makes, so he is happy to go about this wholesale destruction of wealth for his own gain. But then he is not evil because he loves gain, but because he disregards other people's losses.
Taking a less evil example, a man buying a cheap pair of shoes from walmart does so for the gain of what he perceives to be a good-value-for-money pair of shoes. He either does not care, or more likely does not realise that these cheap shoes will probably fall apart soon (thus costing him more to buy a new pair of shoes) and that some people on the other side of the world were exploited to make those shoes, and that this caused them suffering, and could be a direct cost to him too in this inter-connected world, both in opportunity cost of some perhaps smart people being exploited to make shoes, and in the losses caused by a possible war somewhere else. This man is also not evil because of his love of gain, but simply because of his ignorance, or perhaps stupidity.
All men do love gain. And, as Socrates argues, all men should love gain. But some men are evil (unrelated to their very healthy and natural love of gain), and some men are fools (so they do not know how to pick things which will provide them actual gains).
The classic "loves gain too much" example of the last couple of years, investment bankers, might fall into either category. But whichever the case, they are not evil because of their natural love of gain, but because of either their short-sightedness ("Prices will keep rising forever!"), or their lack of caring for the externalities of their actions ("I don't care if the economy loses $100m so long as I get a $1m bonus").
Gain is good.
Greed is good.
Stupidity, ignorance and lack of compassion are evil.
tl;dr; :: The point that Socrates successfully makes is that it's not love of gain (excessive or not) which is the problem, but the fundamental nature of the person expressing that love. Everyone loves gain, but some people don't give a shit who they hurt to get it.
While the final, deplorable behavior is disregard for the social cost of ones own gain, one cannot discount the germination and growth of greed as an otherwise upright man is slowly corrupted by the gains he makes, and his priorities shift towards higher gain as concern for the damage done to others falls by the wayside. The quote "for the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil" did not arise from a vacuum, nor did "absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Ultimately, one can argue that it is a weakness of character, but thus far it's been incredibly rare to see those with great power (through gains) remain uncorrupted for long.
But could you not argue it from the other perspective?
In your first example one could say it is your thief's love of gain that causes him to disregard other people's property. Similarly, with your shoe example, it is the man's love of gain (shoes for cheap) that allows him to willfully disregard the exploitation involved in the construction of the shoes. This man's desire to get a good deal on shoes (gain) prevents him from purchasing more expensive locally made shoes which were not made through the exploitation of some laborer in a developing country.
Thus it is the love of gain that causes people to disregard property, the suffering of others, and act irresponsibly with other's money (following from your banker's short sightedness). That, to me, implies that it is the love of gain that is the root of many evil actions. There are many good stupid people in this world.
Traditionally, "Greed" has meant desire for gain out of balance with external costs.
I mention it not to pick a nit, but because I often seen the "greed is good" idea justified in the same way you (rightfully, in my opinion) justify "Gain is good".
Greed, by definition, means the gain which is no longer good!
> He either does not care, or more likely does not realise that these cheap shoes will probably fall apart soon
Or, he's got enough money for a cheap pair of shoes and something else he needs, but can't afford the latter if he pays more for the shoes.
> Taking a less evil example, a man buying a cheap pair of shoes from walmart
BTW - I've done the relevant experiments (including shoes). Yes, some of the walmart stuff doesn't last as long, but the price discount more than makes up for the difference. (In other words, something that last 2x as long costs 3x as much.)
Since you disagree, what products, specifically, support your assumption? (You have relevant experience, right?)
As you read this, keep in mind that in Socrate's time the money supply was fixed. So any extra coin your pocked was one less coin for everyone else.
With a fiat currency, we tend to "create" money of thin air.
The money supply is intended to grow with the economy. Obviously the speeds of growth don't always match, you end up with inflation or deflation.
You are correct, mining did increase the money supply! I hugely oversimplified things. But central banks do tend to be a more steady supply of new currency then mines.
If we consider mining to be an economic activity in itself - given that it requires capital labor, etc. in order to undertake - wouldn't the scale of mining operations within a given community be proportionate to the scale of the overall economy?
Presuming that mining generates a consistent supply of new silver, wouldn't this actually be a fairly decent way of scaling the money supply in proportion to economic growth?
And if even if the money supply is fixed, wouldn't economic growth cause deflation, and just make each unit of currency worth more?
wouldn't the scale of mining operations within a given community be proportionate to the scale of the overall economy?
If we consider mining success as a function of investment AND natural deposits, then if the natural deposit goes to 0, investment can go to infinity without increasing the success rate.
A steady slow growth of the money supply has been proposed as a way to eliminate bubbles. No one has tried it, for all we know it is not much worse or better than what we have now.
Deflation gives everyone a great reason to save. This can turn into an economic death spiral. Exceptions do apply, as for example after a destructive war there can be strong enough demand to rebuild that the economy grows even with mild deflation.
> If we consider mining success as a function of investment AND natural deposits, then if the natural deposit goes to 0, investment can go to infinity without increasing the success rate.
Sure, but people are still mining silver 2500 years later. I don't know if the same mines are still in use, but so what if they're not? Economies adapt: a local mine going dry might incentivize exploration, which might in turn lead to even faster economic growth. People searching for new silver mines once ended up naming a whole country after the stuff.
> A steady slow growth of the money supply has been proposed as a way to eliminate bubbles. No one has tried it, for all we know it is not much worse or better than what we have now.
a local mine going dry might incentivize exploration, which might in turn lead to even faster economic growth.
This might be true in a modern commercial banking driven economy. But in the old days, the mines running dry usually resulted in a reduction in the local economy.
Now on a very large scale you could argue that it caused empires like Rome to push and push farther, all the way to the tin mines of the British isles.
Isn't this precisely what we do have now?
You could argue, modern day West (and then unified) Germany had it, and with its dominance of the ECB the EU might have it... for now.
But many other central banks are well beyond slow and steady, Zimbabwe comes to mind, but in a way also the BOJ.
Mining yields depend primarily on the quantity and accessibility of reserves, neither of which can be enhanced by capital investments. The discovery of new mines has caused significant fluctuations in prices, see for example
Note the subtle but important difference between "fixed amount of money" and "fixed amount of wealth", though. Socrates' Athens, even if the money supply [EDIT: didn't grow very quickly], was a much nicer place to live than the Athens of a century prior (or later).
I highly doubt the money supply was fixed. A better understanding of what is actually money might be gleaned by reading the first linked article above.
What I'd like to know is if the intent of posting this Socratic discussion on HN was to disparage profit or the other way round.
Are we still really arguing about whether profit is moral? Really?
Or is the theft and corporatism we see all around being once again confused with voluntary exchange between individuals?
Deflation sounds like in theory is a good thing for savers. In practice, its pernicious, harmful to everyone, and leads to a vicious cycle of economic contraction that can often take decades to get out of. See: Japan. This is a helpful primer: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/why-is-deflation...
Deflation might be caused in various ways; by a lack of economic activity or it might be caused by competition naturally lowering prices over time in a healthy market.
In Japan, the government so meddled in the economy that they caused the economic malaise; the same situation is currently occurring in the USA.
The difference should be obvious. Deflation is too loaded a term to be used without qualification or context.
In one sense, sure, the difference is obvious, but it seems to me that the negative consequences of deflation do not depend on how the deflation was caused. An excessive incentive to save will tend to curtail spending and investment no matter what, I'd think.
Savings represent capital, and naturally cause interest rates to decrease. Lower interest rates act as a signal that investors should go ahead and make investments. Saving represent deferred spending, not a persistence absence of spending.
However, in the government skewed markets of today where interest rates are forced artificially low these signals are not allowed to operate correctly and savers are penalized.
There is no "excessive incentive". People save when an incentive exists sure, but this represents future spending. At the moment there is little or no benefit to simple savings; why save when your money will be worth less over time? This is a result of not allowing interest rates to float with the market. Again, interest rates are manipulated by the government.
In the case where competition causes prices to decrease due to higher efficiency and quality, the money in your pocket becomes more valuable. What part of this is a negative consequence?
The difference is in fact that deflation is not always a negative result, which was my point in the first place.
Edit: In reply to deleted comment asking "why mention inflation?"
I think his point is that the context of the dialog is a world where every dollar you earn means someone else can't have one - so it leaves the question if it is good or bad to want those dollars knowing you will deprive others of them.
Not unless everyone decided to sell all their assets at the same time. If the money supply is fixed, and the market size is constant, prices should fluctuate very little even as large amounts of fixed capital are accumulated and total wealth is increased.
Wouldn't technological development also need to be static in this scenario, as well?
It sounds like you're describing a completely static economy. The money supply doesn't change; the market doesn't expand or shrink; the utility value of goods doesn't improve. Has such an economy ever existed?
My point is that, even in such a theoretical and apparently stagnant economy, wealth is still accumulated and economics is very far from a zero-sum game.
By 'fixed money supply' do you mean literally no new coins/notes are 'minted' (except by exchanging smaller denominations for existing bills), or just that they are minted at a stable rate with no chance for government interference?
Hipparchus a pretty well-known (pseudo?) Platonic dialogue, and this is not the first time I've seen it. The parent seems to suggest that the friend's distaste for greedy men is related to the situation of money supply at the time. For anyone familiar with the other Platonic dialogues and the history of 5th century Athens, it seems much more related to the timeless distaste of Socrates' young rich aristocratic friends for the nouveau riches traders and speculators of the time.
There is also this passage in Xenophon's Memorabilia of Socrates (apologies for the long post, no direct link possible):
Observing Aristarchus, on one occasion, looking gloomily, “You seem,” said he, “Aristarchus, to be taking something to heart; but you ought to impart the cause of your uneasiness to your friends; for perhaps we may by some means lighten it.” 2. “I am indeed, Socrates,” replied Aristarchus, “in great perplexity; for since the city has been disturbed, and many of our people have fled to the Piraeus, my surviving sisters, and nieces, and cousins have gathered about me in such numbers, that there are now in my house fourteen free-born persons. At the same time, we receive no profit from our lands, for the enemy are in possession of them; nor any rent from our houses, for but few inhabitants are left in the city; no one will buy our furniture, nor is it possible to borrow money from any quarter; a person, indeed, as it seems to me, would sooner find money by seeking it on the road, than get it by borrowing. It is a grievous thing to me, therefore, to leave my relations to perish; and it is impossible for me to support such a number under such circumstances.” 3. Socrates, on hearing this, replied, “And how is it that Ceramon, yonder, though maintaining a great number of people, is not only able to procure what is necessary for himself and them, but gains so much more, also, as to be positively rich, while you, having many to support, are afraid lest you should all perish for want of necessaries?” “Because, assuredly,” replied Aristarchus, “he maintains slaves, while I have to support free-born persons.” 4. “And which of the two,” inquired Socrates, “do you consider to be the better, the free-born persons that are with you, or the slaves that are with Ceramon?” “I consider the free persons with me as the better.” “Is it not then a disgrace that he should gain abundance by means of the inferior sort, and that you should be in difficulties while having with you those of the better class?” “Such certainly is the case; but it is not at all wonderful; for he supports artisans; but I, persons of liberal education.” 5. “Artisans, then,” asked Socrates, “are persons that know how to make something useful?” “Unquestionably,” replied Aristarchus. “Is barley-meal, then, useful?” “Very.” “Is bread?” “Not less so.” “And are men’s and women’s garments, coats, cloaks, and mantles, useful?” “They are all extremely useful.” “And do those who are residing with you, then, not know how to make any of these things?” “They know how to make them all, as I believe.” 6. “And are you not aware that from the manufacture of one of these articles, that of barleymeal, Nausicydes supports not only himself and his household, but a great number of swine and oxen besides, and gains, Indeed, so much more than he wants, that he often even assists the government with his money? Are you not aware that Cyrebus, by making bread, maintains his whole household, and lives luxuriously; that Demea, of Collytus, supports himself by making cloaks, Menon by making woollen cloaks, and that most of the Megarians live by making mantles?” “Certainly they do,” said Aristarchus; “for they purchase barbarian slaves and keep them, in order to force them to do what they please; but I have with me free-born persons and relatives.” 7. “Then,” added Socrates, “because they are free and related to you, do you think that they ought to do nothing else but eat and sleep? Among other free persons, do you see that those who live thus spend their time more pleasantly, and do you consider them happier, than those who practice the arts which they know, and which are useful to support life? Do you find that idleness and carelessness are serviceable to mankind, either for learning what it becomes them to know, or for remembering what they have learned, or for maintaining the health and strength of their bodies, or for acquiring and preserving what is useful for the support of life, and that industry and diligence are of no service at all? 8. And as to the arts which you say they know, whether did they learn them as being useless to maintain life, and with the intention of never practicing any of them, or, on the contrary, with a view to occupy themselves about them, and to reap profit from them? In which condition will men be more temperate, living in idleness, or attending to useful employments? In which condition will they be more honest, if they work, or if they sit in idleness meditating how to procure necessaries? 9. Under present circumstances, as I should suppose, you neither feel attached to your relatives, nor they to you, for you find them burdensome to you, and they see that you are annoyed with their company. From such feelings there is danger that dislike may grow stronger and stronger, and that previous friendly inclinations may be diminished. But if you take them under your direction, so that they may be employed, you will love them, when you see that they are serviceable to you, and they will grow attached to you, when they find that you feel satisfaction in their society; and remembering past services with greater pleasure, you will increase the friendly feeling resulting from them, and consequently grow more attached and better disposed towards each other. 10. If, indeed, they were going to employ themselves in anything dishonorable, death would be preferable to it; but the accomplishments which they know, are, as it appears, such as are most honorable and becoming to women; and all people execute what they know with the greatest ease and expedition, and with the utmost credit and pleasure. Do not hesitate, therefore,” concluded Socrates, “to recommend to them this line of conduct, which will benefit both you and them; and they, as it is probable, will cheerfully comply with your wishes.” 11. “By the gods,” exclaimed Aristarchus, “you seem to me to give such excellent advice, Socrates, that though hitherto I did not like to borrow money, knowing that, when I had spent what I got, I should have no means of repaying it, I now think that I can endure to do so, in order to gain the necessary means for commencing work.”
12. The necessary means were accordingly provided; wool was bought; and the women took their dinners as they continued at work, and supped when they had finished their tasks; they became cheerful instead of gloomy in countenance, and, instead of regarding each other with dislike, met the looks of one another with pleasure; they loved Aristarchus as their protector, and he loved them as being of use to him. At last he came to Socrates, and told him with delight of the state of things in his house: adding that “the women complained of him as being the only person in the house that ate the bread of idleness.” 13. “And do you not tell them,” said Socrates, “the fable of the dog? For they say that when beasts had the faculty of speech, the sheep said to her master, ‘You act strangely, in granting nothing to us who supply you with wool, and lambs, and cheese, except what we get from the ground; while to the dog, who brings you no such profits, you give a share of the food which you take yourself.’ 14. The dog, hearing these remarks, said, ‘ Yes, by Jove, for I am he that protects even yourselves, so that you are neither stolen by men, nor carried off by wolves; while, if I were not to guard you, you would be unable even to feed, for fear lest you should be destroyed.’ In consequence it is said that the sheep agreed that the dog should have superior honor. You, accordingly, tell your relations that you are, in the place of the dog, their guardian and protector, and that, by your means, they work and live in security and pleasure, without suffering injury from any one.”
One can see from his friend's meandering talk that he was trying to describe how excessive love of gain can corrupt, and later how evil men would deceive others so as to make gains by things which the violated party will later realize (or perhaps not realize) are worthless. Think snake oil merchants.
However, Socrates, in his usual style, takes advantage of imprecise language to twist meanings around until he's altered the topic of discussion (as his friend suspected, but couldn't articulate) into something where he can be demonstrated to have the right answer (all men love gain) with a notable absence of discussion about his friend's concern about excessive love of gain and dishonest gain.
There's a reason why they killed him: nobody likes a smart ass.