This post relates to question that I've been pondering recently. I'm not sure I can yet articulate the question clearly but it's something like. "Can using a measure of economic value created be an reasonable proxy for the measure of positive impact on the world? When is this the case and when is it not?"
I've long felt - and probably still do...? - that spending one's time and money to improve the lives of the least fortunate among us is one the most virtuous ways to spend a life. These efforts often product little measurable economic value, though. Non-profits don't, well, generate profit. They frequently exist to address a market failure, a place where traditional capitalistic forces are failed to attract resources. Surely, there is great impact to be had through great non-profits.
But what about those who spend their time and attention building profitable businesses, especially ones that generate large profits? Sadly, there is often even a stigma around those who gain wealth through these means. Yet, have they not produced something so value to the world that many, many people having willingly parted with their money in order to obtain the goods or service they produce? In a world where everyone is voting with their dollars, have they not received the most votes?
I will concede that there are flaws in the human psyche which sometimes cause humans to spend their money on things that aren't good for them, for example, in cases of addiction, or even in attempts gone to far to Keep up with the Joneses. But these represent a small portion of the total economic activity in the world, so we can put that aside for the moment.
Is there only virtue in addressing market failure? Or is that actually more of a special case that needs to be evaluated based on different criteria, when in fact virtue can be approximated by the creation of economic value? I'm actually not sure. And I think that considering the means of generating economic value must matter to some degree. Did the individual act with integrity? Did they minimize negative externalities?
Your stories describe virtue in the driving economic value, and I tend to think that is correct. I would interested in exploring this idea further to get a better sense for what other conditions make this more or less true. For example, whether or not is it combined with personal growth.
This post reminded me of the value of storytelling as a method of explaining a concept or making an argument. Most frequently I am guilty of making a point by describing the theory or the reasoning. But perhaps a simple story of mowing lawns or selling flowers might often do the job a bit more effectively.
This post relates to question that I've been pondering recently. I'm not sure I can yet articulate the question clearly but it's something like. "Can using a measure of economic value created be an reasonable proxy for the measure of positive impact on the world? When is this the case and when is it not?"
I've long felt - and probably still do...? - that spending one's time and money to improve the lives of the least fortunate among us is one the most virtuous ways to spend a life. These efforts often product little measurable economic value, though. Non-profits don't, well, generate profit. They frequently exist to address a market failure, a place where traditional capitalistic forces are failed to attract resources. Surely, there is great impact to be had through great non-profits.
But what about those who spend their time and attention building profitable businesses, especially ones that generate large profits? Sadly, there is often even a stigma around those who gain wealth through these means. Yet, have they not produced something so value to the world that many, many people having willingly parted with their money in order to obtain the goods or service they produce? In a world where everyone is voting with their dollars, have they not received the most votes?
I will concede that there are flaws in the human psyche which sometimes cause humans to spend their money on things that aren't good for them, for example, in cases of addiction, or even in attempts gone to far to Keep up with the Joneses. But these represent a small portion of the total economic activity in the world, so we can put that aside for the moment.
Is there only virtue in addressing market failure? Or is that actually more of a special case that needs to be evaluated based on different criteria, when in fact virtue can be approximated by the creation of economic value? I'm actually not sure. And I think that considering the means of generating economic value must matter to some degree. Did the individual act with integrity? Did they minimize negative externalities?
Your stories describe virtue in the driving economic value, and I tend to think that is correct. I would interested in exploring this idea further to get a better sense for what other conditions make this more or less true. For example, whether or not is it combined with personal growth.
This post reminded me of the value of storytelling as a method of explaining a concept or making an argument. Most frequently I am guilty of making a point by describing the theory or the reasoning. But perhaps a simple story of mowing lawns or selling flowers might often do the job a bit more effectively.