A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for December 2021

Cars & Capitalism

by 1 Comment

Truck RepairAs a young man, I was not a car person. I was not interested in getting my license and not interested in owning a car. I relied on walking, running, and biking to get around. When I started work at Florida A&M University, I tried biking to work. My bike was destroyed, and I barely escaped serious injury. I decided that I just needed more speed, so I got a small Yamaha. After several near-death experiences, I decided I needed steel all around me and got a Tacoma in 2001. I was still not interested in vehicles and just took it in for service as needed. It had a few problems over the years, but the shop I went to generally did a good job and the prices were not bad. In the fall, it developed a mysterious hum that proved expensive, this got me interested in cars. Or rather, my truck. Being a philosopher, I naturally think of my experiences with the repairs in the context of a theory, in this case, capitalism.

Practical folks are usually not interested in economic theories. They mostly operate within systems that theorists crudely mirror in theories to criticize or justify the behavior of these practical folk. Consider, for example, capitalism. The theoretical ideal is that equals meet within the free market to engage in a fair struggle for success. In the case of businesses (broadly construed) the ideal is that they engage in battle until the businesses with the best products and best prices stand atop the corpses of their competition (with the invisible hand making this all happen as it should). In the case of the consumer, the ideal is that they engage as equals in the free market with these businesses, thus ensuring that they will get the best products at the best prices for themselves. The workers, within the magical world of the theory, also engage as equals with the businesses and work out a fair wage, fair working conditions, and fair benefits. Outside of the theory, none of this holds true. So, let us look at cars and capitalism.

As I mentioned, my truck developed a mysterious hum. At the time, I knew very little about fixing vehicles, but I did know how to google the symptoms. Based on the sound and apparent location, it seemed most likely to be a bad fuel pump—while my truck does not have many miles, it is 20 years old so I figured the pump could be dying of old age. The shop initially said it was my transmission, then went to the fuel pump. It was replaced and the hum went away briefly. It went back to the shop and now they were sure it was the transmission. That was replaced with a remanufactured transmission. The hum remained, though they insisted that it checked out on all the tests. This inspired me to finally learn about cars.

I bought several books and read them, watched numerous credible YouTube videos on repairs and maintenance, and learned all the parts of my truck. During this, I found that two hoses in the truck were damaged—one had a visible hole and cracks, while the other was obviously cracked. Mind you, my truck had gone through three “multipoint” inspections recently and the paperwork claimed that the hoses and all been properly inspected and were in good shape. So, I replaced those hoses and did more checking, finding various other issues. For example, the battery had not been properly secured and had been sliding around. Fortunately, no damage was done, and I secured it properly. The shop had changed owners over the years and seemingly not for the better. This nicely illustrates how the idealized theoretical capitalism does not match the reality.

In the theory of capitalism, the goal is to maximize profits. This just mirrors the “desire for undue gain” that Plato talks about in his Republic and Hobbes’ reflection on gain in his Leviathan. Capitalism, in essence, enshrines greed as good. Practical folks do not care about this theory, but they do want to maximize their profit—hence repair shops have a clear and well-known incentive to do the least work for the most money. They are also incentivized to convince customers that expensive repairs are needed even when they are not. For example, carefully checking the hoses in my truck would take time and not yield much profit. And failed hoses could mean lucrative repair jobs later. As another example, the shop went right to claiming that the fuel pump and then the transmission were the issue. To be fair, issues can be hard to diagnose, but the profit motive pushes businesses to go with the expensive diagnosis rather than testing fixes that would be much cheaper.

It can be argued that is all on me; the shop and I met as equal individuals in a free market, and they got the better of me. However, most of us do not meet repair shops as equals for two obvious reasons. First, most of us lack adequate knowledge to properly diagnose our vehicles and determine the necessity of repairs. As I mentioned, I had never had any interest in cars and only owned one to decrease my chances of being killed while getting places. But this ignorance has cost me. Ignorance would obviously not be a systematic problem if businesses were honest; while they might make honest errors, you would never need to worry about being deceived. That said, ignorance could still be a problem if you picked an incompetent business out of ignorance. As such, if you want to enter the free market and be able to compete, you will need to learn many things—while you cannot become an expert at everything, you can develop enough knowledge to make a better assessment of when you are being misled.

It could be objected that it is just obvious that people generally do not meet as equals in such situations; you go to a repair shop because you lack the knowledge (or equipment) to do the work yourself. In reply, I obviously agree that this is why people go to shops; but it simply serves to confirm that people generally do not meet as equals in a free market: one person or group will usually be at a significant disadvantage that can be exploited to maximize profit.

It could also be objected that shops which exploit customers will end up harming themselves. As Benjamin Frankin was reportedly fond of saying, honesty is the best policy. As one of my professors pointed out long ago, this is a utilitarian approach to honesty—it is not that honesty is right, it is that it is the best policy from a practical standpoint. While shops do sometimes suffer from being exposed, dishonest behavior persists. This is because if a shop comes out ahead, then being dishonest is the best policy when one assumes that the goal is maximizing profit. As such, it is wise to be on guard—everyone has a clear incentive to maximize their profit at your expense. While some people think that this is just another bad apple problem in capitalism, this is capitalism: the goal is maximizing profits and there is more profit in exploiting ignorance than in scrupulous honesty. If you think otherwise, you presumably just agree immediately with whatever the folks at the shop tell you and simply pay up with a smile, believing they began and ended with God’s honest truth. But I assume you are sensible enough to be a cautious consumer—you know that their goal is to take as much of your money as they can and your goal is to get as much as you can for as little as possible.

Second, when you need a repair you most likely need them far more than they need you. As such, you are operating at a disadvantage. Often you need your vehicle to get to work, to make the money you will need to pay for the vehicle. While you can leave to find another shop, they most likely have a waiting list of customers. You probably need the repair done ASAP, while you are just another job in the queue to them. If your car is having serious issues, then taking it elsewhere might require a tow or put you at risk. As such, you will usually be operating at a disadvantage that can be exploited to maximize profit.

This could be defended by pointing out that capitalism excels at creating and meeting needs (and wants). It is working as intended that there is a shop available to repair your vehicle that you probably need to get to work. What more could you want? Reliable and convenient public transportation? An economic system in which you are not dependent on a for-profit repair system?

If you are a good capitalist, you will be aware of this disadvantage and try to mitigate it. Conveniently, solving your ignorance problem can also help with solving your need problem: the more capable you are at diagnosing your vehicle and repairing it yourself, the less you will need to enter the marketplace to compete as an “equal.”

The Ineliminable Problem Problem

by 1 Comment

As a philosopher, one of the greatest challenges I face is reducing the number of problems I must deal with in my classes. Addressing this task requires a diverse approach to the problems. In some cases, I must craft policies and rules to attempt to head off troubles. As you might suspect based on the iron law of bureaucracy (bureaucracy always increases) my syllabus has bloated over the decades. When I first started teaching, my syllabus was about two pages featuring a list of the readings, the grade scale and similar such relevant items. But it is now the length of an academic paper, jammed with policies and rules that I am required to include (such as a relatively new dress code) and policies I have crafted over the years in response to some new problem. Back when I was in graduate school, a professor joked about naming his rules after the students who made them a necessity—and in some cases, they did just that. While I do not name my new rules in this manner, each one has a story behind it that required the new rule.

I have found that every semester introduces a new problem that the existing rules and policies do not cover—and thus the syllabus must grow like a monster that feasts on trouble. I do not, of course, think that the policies and rules will ensure that the same problems will not arise again—they will. Rather, they exist mainly to give me something to paste into emails in response to some problem or issue. Also, since I am a lawfully aligned creature, I do like having a procedure flowchart to follow so I can deal with each problem consistently and fairly in each manifestation.

In other cases, it is a matter of recording yet another video or creating another page in Canvas explaining how some aspect of the course, such as grading, works. While technological advances have required that I add explanations of things that did not exist when I started teaching, the explainers are as likely to be about some ancient aspect of teaching, such as late policies, extra credit policies and such. Based on the five views these have gotten over the years, I know that people are generally not looking at them. As such, while they are intended to inform, they realistically have two practical functions. One is that they make me feel that I have done my job in informing the students so that I feel no guilt or discomfort when students profess not to know something that was thus explained in multiple media. The second is that they give me something I can link to in emails in response to the questions that were, of course, answered in the syllabus and in class. Mostly, it is just a matter of feelings and saving time.

While I do strive to create a class that is free of problems, this is an impossible task. As Plato and other philosophers have argued, this is an imperfect world rife with evils of various sorts. My hypothesis is that baked into the universe is Ineliminable Problem Problem. The gist of this problem is that no matter what one does, one can never eliminate all problems. I also like to put it this way: For every Problem P that I solve, a Student S will create at least one new Problem X. The IPP applies broadly to all aspects of reality; you can test it yourself.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

WOX: War on X(Mass) V: Dog Whistle

by Leave a Comment

If you are starting a WOX (War On X), this entails that there is no significant and sustained attack on X.  For example, there is no significant and sustained attack on Christmas, so the War on Christmas has been built on fabrications, hyperbole, and intentionally bad logic. But what if there is something like X, Y, that is under significant and sustained attack? The obvious answer is that you would not need to start a WOY (War on Y), you could provide reasonable evidence that Y is under sustained and significant attack. But what if openly claiming that Y is under attack would have negative consequences? For example, while there is no significant and sustained attack on white Americans by “the left”, there is a sustained and significant attack on white supremacy in the United States. But if you openly defended white supremacy and lamented that it is under fire, you would face consequences.

Because of this, some people claim that “you can’t say anything anymore.” While obviously hyperbole, this assertion is often used to complain that people can face consequences for remarks they would have been able to make with impunity in the past. In some cases, this complaint has merit and free expression is being wrongly infringed upon. In other cases, people are merely facing consequences for violating the current social norms.

The United States has undergone various normative changes over the years. These changes include alterations in laws, etiquette, aesthetics, and moral values. The area of aesthetics is non-controversial: everyone gets that fashion, hair styles, music, and such change over time. Since I started teaching in 1993, I have witnessed these changes in my students: styles and music that were in vogue back in the 1990s are now hopelessly out of date (until they become retro cool). Another obvious area of change is American racism. While racism is still a serious problem, American norms have changed so that open racism is no longer acceptable. There are also many other things that are now unacceptable to say openly, so what can you do if what you want to say is something that would lead to consequences you are unwilling to face? Fortunately, there is a way to say such things without saying them. As would be expected, racism provides an excellent example and Lee Atwater ably explains how to do this:

 

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968, you can’t say “nigger” – that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now, you’re talking about cutting taxes. And all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me – because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

 

What Atwater is describing is the use of what is known as a dog whistle. One version of the dog whistle is to use coded language whose true (and usually controversial or problematic) meaning is understood by your intended audience but not understood by the general population. This is analogous to how slang terms and technical terms work; you need to know the special meanings of the terms to understand what is being said. Another version of the dog whistle is a form of innuendo. A word or phrase is used to suggest or imply something (usually negative). If you do not know the special meanings or the intended implication, you are excluded, often intentionally so.

The coded or suggestive words or phrases will also (usually) have neutral or even positive meanings to the general population. This feature allows you to say what you want to say to your intended audience without the general population knowing what you really mean. For example, “thug” and “urban” have neutral meanings to many but are also coded words used for racist dog whistles. “Bossy” is an example of a sexist dog whistle. While using one can raise moral concerns, the dog whistle has many advantages.

The advantages of the dog whistle include:

 

  • Your fellows know what you mean, and they approve.
  • Your foes know what you mean, and they are triggered.
  • Critics can seem silly or crazy to “normies.”
  • Plausible deniability that “normies” will accept.
  • Can onramp “normies.”

As noted above, coded and suggestive words work like slang—those in the know will understand what you mean. These people tend to split into two groups. There are your fellows who will presumably approve of your dog whistle. There are also your foes who are likely to be triggered—they know what you mean, and it will probably outrage them, especially when you whistle loudly in public. Fortunately, if these foes try to criticize you or explain what you really mean, they are likely to seem silly or crazy to “normies” (people who do not know the codes). Over the years, I have tried to explain dog whistles to intelligent, educated “normies” and I usually fail—they tend to think that I am either just getting it wrong or that I have a nefarious motivation. As such, the dog whistle can provide a double victory: you send a clear message to your fellows while also “owning” the “libs” as they are frustrated by trying to explain your dog whistle to people who are oblivious. Even if your foes make some headway, a dog whistle provides plausible deniability. You can insist that you were using the words in the “normal” way and even that you had no idea that they are coded or suggestive. For example, a politician might warn voters not to “monkey this up” by electing their (black) opponent. When it is pointed out that this is a well-known racist dog whistle, the politician can plead ignorance and say they did not intend to use it that way. While their fellows and their foes get exactly what was meant, most normies will either be baffled or accept the explanation.  Finally, dog whistles can help on-ramp normies.

While normies would be appalled by, for example, openly bigoted language, they can be lured onto the path by dog whistles. This is usually done by appealing to legitimate or sensible fears hopes and concerns. For example, it is reasonable to be concerned that K-12 athletes are being treated fairly. But “fairness” can be used as a dog whistle that might lure people down the path of being anti-trans without them realizing how they ended up there.  But dog whistles do have a disadvantage.

Laying aside the usual moral concerns, the sole disadvantage of the dog whistle is that “normies” can catch on and start to hear them. Once enough normies recognize a dog whistle, it is no longer useful since the point of a dog whistle is that you can present two different meanings to your two audiences (your fellows and the “normies”).  This problem can be addressed by switching to a similar dog whistle that the normies have yet to decode or by creating a new dog whistle word or phrase. The far right does this routinely and never seems to be at a loss for new dog whistles; such is the power of language. While it is unlikely that the normies will decode your whistle while you are in mid-sentence, a clever whistler checks their whistles and keeps up with what codes have been cracked.

As an example of how to use this method, imagine that you wanted to claim that there is a War on Girls and Women.  I do not, obviously, mean the sustained and systematic problems with sexism and misogyny. This is, after all, supposed to be a WOX and not address the real problems women and girls face. You can note that over the past decade trans athletes have been able to compete in accord with now well-established rules. While some people do come out as openly anti-trans, many normies see this as bigotry. So, if you want to say something anti-trans while not spooking the normies, you can use the dog whistle of fairness: you have nothing against trans people; you are just asking questions about fairness. Surely it would be “unfair” if a young girl had to compete in sports with a burly boy…or, rather, a trans person.  There must, then, be a War on Girls and Women! No, not systematic sexism. Again, this is a WOX.  This concludes my series on the WOX and is the WOX to end all WOXs.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: