Ultra-violet rays from sunlight damage the human eye. Modern sunglasses — which, today, typically shield wearers’ eyes from exposure to UV rays — is yet another unsung but important way that our immediate environments are made safer and cleaner by capitalism.
Share
{ 30 comments }
My prescription glasses do the same AND they go from clear to tinted upon exposure to sunlight.
Do other economic systems not have sunglasses?!
There are only two main economic systems, the rest are a mix of the two.
Where sunglasses are produced cheaply, profitably, and without subsidy, you can credit the free aspects of the economy, whatever the mix.
And if you find sunglasses in a command economy, they are likely imported or smuggled from somewhere with a freer economy.
When was sun glasses invented and under what economic system?
Here’s the Wikipedia entry on sunglasses.
But the where and how of the development of sunglasses, like other things, is not relevant to the topic, which is that in free markets, profits provide incentives to people to produce value to exchange with other people.
Government does not operate under the profit motive and thus does not respond well to consumer pressure.
Invention isn’t very relevant if it doesn’t impact people’s lives. I invented a cheap form of nuclear fusion power generation, and a very inexpensive way to escape earth’s orbit. No I didn’t, but I may as well have, if all it was was an invention.
Well, sort of no:
http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/sunglasses.htm
“Sore eyes” was a worse problem for the Lewis and Clark expedition than grizzly bears and Comanches. And they were all still young, in their 20′s.
soap, toothpaste, detergent, rubber gloves, etc
soap, toothpaste, detergent, rubber gloves, etc
samgrove
1. Just so we are clear, you do agree that other economic systems in history did have sun glasses?
2. “There are only two main economic systems, the rest are a mix of the two.” – samgrove
Isn’t the mix of the two main economic systems by definition not the same as either main economic systems? After all, are you not a mix of your parents’ DNA?
vikingvista
3. Are you claiming that no other economic systems beside capitalism have in the past produced products that impact people’s lives?
samgrove and vikingvista,
Are you claiming that human will never come up with a better economic system other than capitalism? Can you prove that?
I can’t prove anything of the kind. I can offer information and my interpretation, but comprehension is up to you.
Comprehending the functioning of an economic system requires an understanding of the incentives present in the system and how humans respond to them.
You’ll notice that I have avoiding saying anything about “capitalism”, but instead refer to free markets.
In free markets, the possibility of profit and loss provides one set of incentives, and in command economies, a different set of incentives are created.
I assume that humans are motivated by:
1 the survival urge
2 status seeking
3 the reproductive urge
I also assume that these motivations are the same in any socioeconomic system.
Briefly, humans desire to profit from their endeavors, so the issue is what behaviors humans manifest in response to incentives that are extant in a system.
“Are you claiming that no other economic systems beside capitalism have in the past produced products that impact people’s lives?”Having read my own post, it would appear not. But since you brought it up, I would assert just the opposite. The products of totalitarian regimes, from Hitler’s Germany, to Stalin’s Russia, to Mao’s China, to Pol Pot’s Cambodia have produced almost unimaginable and lasting impacts on people’s lives.If however you are looking for a system that produces what people want, then certainly nothing in history has ever compared with free enterprise.
“Are you claiming that human will never come up with a better economic system other than capitalism? Can you prove that?”That is a great question. But too big of one. Because of the concepts that must be identified (including what is meant by “better economic system”), the axiomatic concepts that must be articulated (and of course personally grasped), and the deductive steps that must be laid out, it cannot be well answered in a blog comment. And, not to be presumptuous about you personally, a succinct formulation is certainly not worth giving to posters eager to deliberately wallow in the ambiguity of the language, and refuse to think for themselves. The number of tangents would be absurdly tedious, not to mention futile.If you are sincerely interested in understanding the arguments (whether or not you ultimately accept them), the usual libertarian philosophy readers, including the schools of Rand and Rothbard, will at least provide you a jargon and conceptual base from which to do so.People who ask your question, those who think it is open to future invention or discovery to find better systems, can be satisfied with the narrower question: “Is it possible to identify a best system?” The answer to that is, at some level, and with some noncontroversial assumptions about the future, “Yes.” Man does have a nature, and some of the limited types of human interactions are more compatible with that nature than others. The relevant human nature is unlikely to change any more over the next 10000 years than over the previous.But at some other level, beyond some broad principles, the answer is “No.” Just think of all the smaller subsystems that are used–company structures, educational methods, bureaucracies, social networks, supply chains, investment strategies, etc. Some of those things change with technology, circumstances, goals, and the individuals involved. Certainly there is, and likely always will be, room for adaptation and innovation in social structures. Provided it is permitted.
Thank you for explaining your comprehension of the functioning of an economic system.
1. Is that all that you’ve comprehended about the functioning of an economic system? Here is a just few items to consider:
1.a. Where do you place altruism on your simple list of human motivations? Can you think any others?
1.b. Do the motivation for individuals always align with the society? If not, than what?
Well, let’s get back to my original point.
2. The title of Don’s blog entry is “Cleaned by Capitalism XIV” and my original question to Don is “Do other economic systems not have sunglasses?!”
Are you sure that you’ve comprehended Don’s point and my reply to Don?
Altruism is not a fundamental human motivation though various behaviors may be seen as such due to the urge for genetic survival, thus the motivation to protect and care for offspring. This is covered under the urge to reproduce.Oh, I do think that I comprehend Don’s point, though I see no evidence that you comprehend my point.The point is that sunglasses are ubiquitous in systems that have economic freedom compared to systems that have little economic freedom. Sunglasses are a benefit to many because the profit and loss system has enabled the production of sunglasses at relatively low cost so that many can afford to buy them.The point is not that sunglasses are available in other systems, but that free systems produce them at a cost affordable to just about anyone.Capitalism describes a system where individuals are free to profit from their endeavors, trade with others who are enjoy a similar freedom.If you would like a comparison of a command system, then I recommend to you a book entitled “Meltdown, Inside the Soviet Economy”.It is clear from history that command economies, while able to produce missiles, guns, armies, and even symphonies, are not able to provide its citizens with a reasonable standard of living.There is a reason for that. The reason lies in the incentives that guide human behavior as they endeavor to satisfy their needs and desires.I think it’s clear to anyone not constrained by the collectivist dialog.
1.b. Do the motivation for individuals always align with the society?
Who or what is “society”?
______
I suggest you be careful with your assumptions. I’ve been visiting this site for quite some time now, and I am familiar with Don’s point of view.
You have been preceded by George, and your dialog is familiar.
1. Why do you think altruism is not a fundamental human motivation?
2. So according to your view of human motivation, the fire fighters that lost their lives during 9/11 is because they were looking after their genetic survival? How did their death lead them to reproduce?
3. Your early reply did not mention non fundamental human motivations. Are you now amending your comprehension by adding non-fundamental human motivation?
4. What are the rules you are using to categorize some human motivation as fundamental while others not?
5. How do you go about comprehending any socioeconomic system mention in (a) below without understanding society in (b)?
a. “I assume that humans are motivated by …. are the same in any socioeconomic system.” – samgrove
b. “Who or what is society?” – samgrove
6. “The point is not that sunglasses are available in other systems, but that free systems produce them at a cost affordable to just about anyone.” – samgrove
Just so we are on the same page, by your statement above your answer is definitive “YES” to my original question?
“Having read my own post, it would appear not. ” – vikingvista
Just to be clear, by the above statement, you do agree that other economic systems, besides capitalism, have produced products that impact people’s lives. More specifically, as related to my original question, other economic systems do have sun glasses?
Try reading my whole post before you reply.
I am glad I asked for clarification! So that there is no confusion, you agree the following is accurate:
You, vikingvista, do claim NO other economic systems, besides capitalism, have in the past produced products that impact people’s lives.
Can you prove this?
Just a friendly reminder, since you are making a universal claim, you do need to be exhaustive in your proof so as not to allow for a single exception.
Yes, the term “better” is a bit too vague. Let’s tighten it a bit.
Are you claiming that humans will never come up with a economic system that will supercede capitalism? Can you prove that?
May I suggest you consider a economic system that is a mix of capitalism and command economy?
1. Perhaps you need to define altruism and cite an example of what you mean.
2. There are fates worse than death, as attested to by the presence of suicide. The firefighters were taking a risk, there is a reason people become firefighters, the adrenalin not the least factor. they did not rush to certain death, I presume they all hoped to survive, but the successful stood to be lauded as heroes and likely they could not bear the thought of being seen by their fellows as cowards.
People take life threatening risks all the time. I do not attribute such behavior to selfless sacrifice, but, as in the case of firefighters, as tribute to their personally held values.
Humans are not ever “selfless”.
3 No. All human behaviors can be linked to fundamental motivations.
4 I will amend to add one other fundamental motivation: as intellectual beings, we seek to avoid boredom.
5 The question was for you to answer in the context of your question so that we can be certain that we are either using the same reference or at least understand our difference.
Society is a term that refers to the whole of individual interactions/relationships. Thus individuals, in the context of a system of voluntary/cooperative behavior, cannot pursue their own well being contrary to social order.
However, in a system corrupted by political power, individuals often seek to enhance their own well being at the expense of others, because the purpose of political power is to do just that.
6 Your question makes no point because Don did not claim that sunglasses do not exist in other systems.
READ my post, and stop trying to live up to your name.
If only Cafe Hayek had age restrictions.
“Are you claiming that humans will never come up with a economic system that will supercede capitalism?”
Huh? You get that from…?
I claimed nothing of the sort. ONCE AGAIN, since YOU brought it up, I will instead claim the opposite. I think that it is not unimaginable that some form of bloody totalitarian personality cult regime or regimes could one day come to dominate the entire planet.
Make your next post worth responding to, Troll.
Well, you may not agree, but your answer is really muddled for a simple yes/no question. Let’s try again, please choose one of the following two statements so that your view is perfectly clear.
1. You claim that other economic systems, beside capitalism, have in the past produced products that impact people’s lives.
2. You claim that NO other economic systems, beside capitalism, have in the past produced products that impact people’s lives.
1 & 2 are mutually exclusive. So please pick your view. Why are you afraid to make your view known? Why do you feel you need to hide your view behind a lot of muddled verbage.
I assure you, whatever your view may be is not shameful! Well, your view may be inadequate but definitely not shameful.
Wow, I am glad we can agree here! I too strongly believe it is wrong to claim
“humans will never come up with a economic system that will supercede capitalism”
On the other hand, I find your hypothetical totalitarian outcome very unlikely. Furthermore, my view is neither a command economy nor a capitalist economy will dominate earth. I think societies are likely to use a hybrid mix of these two and maybe some other systems as well!
I think different economic systems, including capitalism, have different strengths and weaknesses. If you talk to some academics, especially nowadays, I am sure you’ll learn a lot!
Lastly, as you probably know, very young children often resort to name calling when they ran out of sound arguments in a debate!
1. Your are asserting the 9/11 firefighters are mere status hordes and adrenalin junkies and they are willing to pay with their lives? Do you feel this way about people in the arm forces, in the police and etc. Do you feel entitled to all the sacrifies from those around you, including your parents?
Perhaps your views are a reflection of you more than the firefighters?
Many in academia and in society do not share your view on altruism. Can you prove these people wrong or are you merely stating your opinion?
2. I see you’ve amended your comprehension of human motivation. Do you feel your comprehension of a functioning economic system is now complete?
3. Given your own definition of society, do the motivation for individuals always align with the society? If not, than what? Also, is this not an aspect of an functioning economic system?
4. “6 Your question makes no point because Don did not claim that sunglasses do not exist in other systems.” – samgrove
Do you not understand the difference between a claim and a question? I merely asked Don my question to get his answer.
Previously we established your answer to my original question is a definitive “yes”. Base on your quote above, do you also feel Don’s answer is “yes”?
Do you feel qualified to speak for Don?
Do you feel this way about people in the arm forces, in the police and etc.
Most certainly.
Given your own definition of society, do the motivation for individuals always align with the society?
Society is not a thing, a who, or a what, it is a term of convenience. Society has no conscience or moral agency. “Society” can be a lynch mob.
The question assumes otherwise.
I do understand the difference between a claim and a question. You ask a question of Don to see if he is making a claim. He can speak for himself if he chooses.
Do you kow the difference between a reply and a question?
Many in academia and in society do not share your view on altruism.
So what? Am I to be impressed by an argument from authority?
Do you feel entitled to all the sacrifies from those around you, including your parents?
I am a parent. I sought the responsibility. I do not view it as a sacrifice. Am I supposed to?
1. You didn’t anwser the question: do you feel entitled to the scarifies of your parents? Since you feel “humans are not ever selfless”, your parents clearly are just looking after themselves. It is only logical that you should feel entitled! Are you ashamed of your feeling? Is that why you couldn’t answer this simple question?
2. Again, please use your definition of society to answer this question: what if an individual’s motivation doesn’t align with the society? I’ll give you an example. What happens when an individual operates a business that seriously pollutes the environment? How does a socioeconomic system handle this misalignment?
In this example, do you know if socioeconomic systems have ways to address this? Any idea how? By the way, you do know it is perfectly OK to amend your comprehension?
3. On the issue of altruism, it definitely is not important if you are impressed by the views of academics that study this stuff! However, is it important to at least distinguish between your fringe opinion from educated views?
4. Perhaps I didn’t give you enough chance to demonstrate your deep knowledge of socioeconomic systems? Please demonstrate more!