undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrixed9mo ago0 comments

That would be a trait of character that most inhabitants of a country acquire by education, mimetism or mere abituation, that distinguish them from inhabitants of most other countries; Like a taste for some kind of food or music, a respect (or lack thereof) for some social rules like the patience or reluctance to wait in line, etc. I don't believe this kind of trait can influence economics or politics in any significant measure.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

permo-w9mo ago· 2 in thread

such a bizarre thing to think. politics and even more so economics are literally made up of the way people act

I know it's a bit rude to say this, but I don't believe deep down you actually think this. more likely you've just got a funny idea about what's offensive or prejudiced that's blocking you from looking at this rationally

rixedOP9mo ago

Err, no. Politics is the art of manipulating people so they act differently than what they would be inclined to. Modern politics is made possible by psychology and sociology (that and the more traditional use of violence of course), and a lot of work goes into it.

Regarding economics, I don't know where to start. Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere; certainly national policies influence it, but the idea that it is chiefly influenced by the individual characters of the inhabitants sounds like a fantasy to me; maybe a fantasy useful to justify some privileges (you know, like protestantism favoring business etc) but apart from those sociological theories it does sound very idealistic to me.

Maybe you could give your own definition of national character and show how it relates to the economy? That would help me figure out if I've been overlooking something obvious, or if you are indeed content with the idealistic fantasies i alluded to above. It would also be a more honest contribution to the discussion than just dismissing what I've said as bizarre and irrational.

permo-w9mo ago

the reason I'm finding this hard to engage with in an ideal manner is because what you're saying feels so far from reality that I struggle to proportion my response properly. the implication of what you're suggesting is that people's actions, personalities and personal choices do not make up their economic choices, and/or economic choices do not make up a large proportion of the economy.

- the level of private consumption in a country is in massive part dictated by how much people choose to consume vs save. this is quite obviously a choice based on personality and norm

- the price level of goods is in large part dictated by what business owners believe people will pay, and how much people are willing to pay. again, both in large part dictated by personality and culture and norm

- wage rates are in large part dictated by what people demand for those jobs, and what business owners are willing to pay. both of these things are in large part dictated by average of people's personality traits in that country

more specifically, let's look at a classic economic case study, Argentina vs Japan: https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/b6q69y/the_econo... this is a perfect case of two countries trying not to have their economics dictated by national character, and failing anyway.

essentially what you're trying to claim is that culture and personality does not affect how people act economically. weird and provably wrong principles someone made up one day like "Economy is global and its laws are the same everywhere" is a key example of why economics is not a science, and economists are generally not trusted

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse