scrape_r_rational/data/cache2/3db3t5.md

## [RT] Economics Doesn't Believe in Magic

* Author: u/jimtla *
* URL: https://push.cx/2015/economics-doesnt-believe-in-magic
* Score: 35

* Created: 2015-07-14T22:12:03

### Post:

[Link to content](https://push.cx/2015/economics-doesnt-believe-in-magic)

### Comments:

> **u/artifex0** [+12]  (5 hours later)
> 
> The problem with this argument is that greater access to resources hasn't led to a trend of more autocracy in reality- wealthier economies tend to be more free, in fact.
> 
> While Phil's theocracy is perfectly plausible, consider what happens when his ally Bob decides to take advantage of a period of military hegemony to use the talismans to increase his nation's wealth.  With agricultural and medical talismans, his population is going to start increasing exponentially- in a century or so, Bob's nation is going to be several times the size of Phil's, and it's going to be producing significantly more per capita in taxes.  Phil's nation is eventually going to become a band of potentially dangerous, but ultimately irrelevant barbarians if he keeps ordering manicure talismans instead of "bless crops" talismans.
> 
> The most successful nations focus as much on economic development as military development, and more advanced economies require better educated, more mobile, and better connected citizens, who tend to demand more rights- among which, the right to purchase talismans from the state would probably be one of the first granted at the end of feudalism, right alongside the right to own land.  Eventually, I could even see parents being given the right to choose and own their child's talismans to some degree- in that case, you'd have market forces acting on the talismans, with most families having their children choose talismans that would produce or sell for the most money.  The entire talisman economy would become more efficient, and the nation's economic power would increase.
> 
> Also, no matter how theocratic, autocracies are unstable.  Look at the Roman Empire- for a while, the Augustus was a god, but every few decades you'd still have some general take his legions and declare himself Emperor.  Sometimes, you'd have five or six competing emperors.  Phil may have god-like powers, but so does anyone who's better liked by his military and priesthood.  As an autocrat, he'd be lucky to survive fifty years, let alone centuries.
> 
> Finally, more advanced weapons in the hands of soldiers makes successful popular revolution more likely, not less so, since successful revolutions tend to involve the soldiers and weaponry of the nation, and powerful weapons can equalize irregular and professional troops.

>> **u/Chronophilia** [+8]  *sci-fi ≠ futurology* (11 hours later)
>> 
>> This seems unrealistic to me. If more money leads to more freedom and more freedom leads to more money, why would we ever have any autocracies at all? They'd be outcompeted by republics.
>> 
>> It's not unheard of for a single dynasty to hold onto power for a thousand years, so there must be some way to make it work.

>>> **u/gabbalis** [+6]  (15 hours later)
>>> 
>>> 1) Have first-mover advantage.
>>> 
>>> 2) Quash blossoming republics.

>>> **u/artifex0** [+3]  (16 hours later)
>>> 
>>> >They'd be outcompeted by republics.
>>> 
>>> They are in general, I'd argue.  I think that if you graphed the prevalence of republican attitudes in government over time, you'd end up with an extremely chaotic graph, with lots of sharp dips and spikes, but the overall trend would be upward.

>>>> **u/Chronophilia** [+5]  *sci-fi ≠ futurology* (19 hours later)
>>>> 
>>>> That might only be because we happen to be in a particularly peaceful and pro-democracy time at the moment. You'd struggle to make that argument in the Soviet Union, for example. But let me suggest a different way your scenario would work out:
>>>> 
>>>> Phil notes the signs of revolution brewing, and decides to redirect the popular frustrations with a war. And wouldn't you know, there's a nearby "ally" with a growing stockpile of resources and a dwindling army. Attacking another militarised nation is a fool's errand, you'll spend huge amounts on the war and even victory will gain you very little, but attacking an economic nation can often leave you richer than before (as any *Civilisation* player can tell you). Remember your Prisoner's Dilemma: while cooperate-cooperate is good and noble, the *best* outcome is still defect-cooperate.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks to the war, the people are now angry at Bob, not Phil. The military is on his side, because he can now afford to pay them properly. And the autocracy continues for a few more decades. Besides, Bob probably has a few manicure talismans of his own; if we're comparing grow-crops magic to kill-people magic then the small percentage of talismans that make luxuries won't have much impact on anything.
>>>> 
>>>> And ultimately, even in an enlightened capitalist democracy, people still won't exactly be free to choose whatever talisman they want - their choices will just be guided by the Invisible Hand of the Market instead of by letters from the king.

>>>>> **u/None** [+2]  (a day later)
>>>>> 
>>>>> >That might only be because we happen to be in a particularly peaceful and pro-democracy time at the moment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Peaceful?  Sure.  Pro-democracy?  No: the general degree to which people participate in the decisions that shape their lives has been on a downward trend for a while now.

>>>>>> **u/ContessaPlots** [+2]  (20 days later)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> >No: the general degree to which people participate in the decisions that shape their lives has been on a downward trend for a while now.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Source? Since when?

>>> **u/Izeinwinter** [+2]  (a day later)
>>> 
>>> Agent problems are very hard to solve. The failure mode of republics is that the individuals appointed/elected/ect to serve the interests of the masses instead use the power unavoidably granted to them to carry out those duties to subvert the state.

>> **u/sir_pirriplin** [+8]  (19 hours later)
>> 
>> > greater access to resources hasn't led to a trend of more autocracy in reality
>> 
>> It has in several cases. Most commonly in places with easy access to natural resources that can be extracted and sold without too much technology.
>> 
>> Look at Middle Eastern autocracies that have lots of oil, or African autocracies that have diamonds or rare metals.

>> **u/None** [+6]  (a day later)
>> 
>> > The problem with this argument is that greater access to resources hasn't led to a trend of more autocracy in reality- wealthier economies tend to be more free, in fact.
>> 
>> You're packing quite a lot of nontrivial conceptual machinery into "more free" here.

> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+4]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (29 minutes later)
> 
> Hey, neat! a dedicated response to something I posted :) It's pretty similar to the responses posted by him in the original thread, but still worth reading. I did intend to discourage excessive munchkinry through societal mores, like religion, and foreign polities (read: a crapsack world wouldn't be fun to play in, so I'd make a plausible-sounding explanation for "DM Fiat") but it's an interesting view of what could have happened, were I not setting up the world specifically for people to play in.

> **u/None** [+6]  (an hour later)
> 
> > This makes talismans into commodities, subject to all the usual rules of economics. This applies to all kinds of settings where magical is at all reliable (though sometimes it looks like labor rather than magical items).
> 
> > The common individual will never own a talisman, and the nobility will own millions. Individuals will be given very specific direction, on pain of death, as to what talisman they will be requesting and giving to the nobility. The age of granting is not 16, it is the youngest someone can reliably repeat their noble’s order for a talisman. It’s even younger in a failing state when the nobles get desperate. 
> 
> Am I the only one missing the link of logic between these two paragraphs?

>> **u/None** [+16]  (3 hours later)
>> 
>> Because me having a gun and you having $100, without a police force on your side, is indistinguishable from me having both a gun and $100 in most cases. Edge cases include the loss of various numbers of bullets on my part. Extreme edge cases include you gaining a gun, minus various numbers of bullets, which you may also have gained in the process.
>> 
>> Say one person has a talisman that defends them and a talisman that can be used for offence, preferably non-lethal offence. They watch you carefully as you claim your talisman. If you try any funny business, there's a flash of octarine and you wake up in the local dungeon for some forcible re-education.
>> 
>> That's assuming your talisman was valuable enough. Otherwise, you might not wake up at all.

>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+5]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (an hour later)
>> 
>> As I understand, his argument is that it would be natural for power to accumulate (one person getting multiple talismans) and, with that power, accumulate easier and faster, causing a feedback loop until someone ascends to functional godhood.

>>> **u/None** [+1]  (5 hours later)
>>> 
>>> It's very speculative. Not really an argument in that sense.

>>>> **u/None** [+3]  (a day later)
>>>> 
>>>> Not really. It's the natural strategy. If we start with everyone having a talisman, then the way for a group to gain power is to consolidate that power - give their talismans to one person or a small group, and let that person or group extort individuals and weaker groups for their talismans, making them stronger and allowing the armed group to grow larger/the members of the armed group to acquire more talismans. Once that begins, others will need to consolidate their power as well, whether through talismans or by setting up administrative structures, immediately ceding over their talismans, and continuing on life, now with a militaristic state demanding taxes.

> **u/EliezerYudkowsky** [+4]  *Godric Gryffindor* (a day later)
> 
> Yyep.  Sounds obviously correct to me.  They ought to teach from this example in undergrad econ courses.

> **u/jgf1123** [+2]  (3 hours later)
> 
> Hmmm... How about wishing for a talisman that returns to me every day/week/whatever, punching a hole through everything in its path.  If someone steals it or forces me to relinquish it, it returns to me soon enough, and they better not be holding it when it returns unless they wish to lose a hand.  I'd probably be hired (or coerced at the end of blade to enter into service of a noble) to be an assassin: a partner holds the talisman very carefully and aligns the talisman, the target, and myself.

>> **u/GaBeRockKing** [+2]  *Horizon Breach: http://archiveofourown.org/works/6785857* (3 hours later)
>> 
>> it would come with some pretty serious downsides (look at the original post for an explanation.) Talismans don't have a whole lot of power on an individual level, and that talisman needs to locate you, fly to your location, and have enough strength to power through solid objects. It could, for example, be used to store kinetic energy, and more versatile talismans tend to be more restrictive.

>> **u/Nevereatcars** [+2]  *The Greatest Is Behind* (2 days later)
>> 
>> They'd hang you from those gallows that the article described as being for that exact purpose.
>> 
>> > You can still see the scorch marks on the wall of the cathedral! It’s a few feet to the left of the gallows where they hang the wicked children who fail in their talisman ceremony and have to be ritually sacrificed lest the entire town be tainted by their curse.

> **u/Calsem** [+2]  (17 hours later)
> 
> The argument is correct in that the nobles would desire total control over the amulets.  However, it makes a mistake in assuming the nobles could gain total control.  
> 
> Once the masses had amulets they would be hard-pressed to give them up.  Any demand to give over the amulets or to only wish for what the nobles wanted would be met with rebellion.
> 
> Sure, the nobles would be able to buy many amulets, but they wouldn't be able to buy them all.  And they couldn't force everyone to give up amulets - magic is a force equalizer that can make anyone dangerous.  It doesn't matter how many protection amulets you have, all it takes is one unique spell to kill you.   
> 
> One more thing: kingdom's don't exist in a vacuum.  They are surrounded by other, potentially hostile, kingdoms.  If a kingdom makes a unpopular policy it's a great excuse for another kingdom to invade and look like a savior to the people.

> **u/None** [+2]  (21 hours later)
> 
> This is why I squick at any setting that's seriously item-dependent or that has permanent power drain as a thing. It sucks all the fun right out. At least if some superior force is trying to exploit you for your labor (instead of your doohickey or magic juice) you're still a pawn in the game instead of off the board.

> **u/reria** [+1]  (a day later)
> 
> Is it just me or is this text mostly plagiarized from reddit comments on the original thread?

> **u/gabbalis** [+0]  (15 hours later)
> 
> Somehow I read that first line as:
> 
> >On a writing forum an author asked for users to think of what **Socrates** would do with the magic system he designed.
> 
> I was very confused. Though now I kinda want to read a story with that premise.

---