

Socrates and a friend talk about the morality of profit - allenp
http://www.ac-nice.fr/philo/textes/Plato-Works/32-Hipparchus.htm

======
kstenerud
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.

~~~
swombat
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.

~~~
kstenerud
Yes, I can see your point there.

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.

------
trevelyan
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.”

~~~
lisper
Direct links are always possible:

<http://pastebin.com/vhetSm20>

~~~
anthonyb
Also, paragraphs. Jesus.

------
bioh42_2
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.

~~~
zeteo
"in Socrate's time the money supply was fixed"

Factually incorrect. Golden Age Athens used silver coinage and extensively
mined silver, as one of its chief sources of income:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurium#History_of_mining>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drachma#Ancient_drachma>

~~~
bioh42_2
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.

~~~
Gormo
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?

~~~
bioh42_2
_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.

~~~
Gormo
> 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.

Isn't this precisely what we do have now?

~~~
bioh42_2
_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.

