Talk:Economics

From Lostpedia

I've only watched the first season, so this entry really only gleams some of the economic notions that I can see in Season One. I'm hoping that someone else can look at this with fresh eyes, though, and separate the speculation from substance. The main points I'm making note of are: (1) property right structures, (2) transactions, and (3) economic organization. As for (1), I am noting Lockean "homesteading" and property rights, but perhaps this is an unnecessary link. Yet, I point it out because presumably Sawyer behaves as though his confiscation of items is not plunder, but actual property, which from a Lockean perspective would make him correct (I think). Transactions do not take place, though. Why is that? Is it because of inefficiences created through bartering ("double coincidence of wants"), or high transaction costs? The Coase theorem suggests simple hoarding will not lead to a final allocation any different from distributing goods randomly - those people who value the good over others will offer trades that are mutually beneficial until the final equilibrium reflects the optimal arrangement in society. The problem appears to be that the economy has become a service economy, and only kisses and places on a raft are valuable to Sawyer. Finallly, I think the show is ambivalent as to whether Jack (socialism) or Sawyer (capitalism) are any better than the other. That Jack's attempt to extract resources coercively from Sawyer fails after torture is attempted is interesting, since a common complaint by libertarians of socialism is that it has historically led to brutality (communism, for instance). Sawyer owns everything, but no exchange occurs. Anyway, any thoughts on this line of thought?

Yes, is this site the most appropriate forum for this sort of article? It reads like a term paper. --Doc 11:55, 20 June 2006 (PDT)

I feel it is a good article, and does have relevance, but it needs breaking up into smaller paragraphs/points, and perhaps a little simplification. As it stands it's far too dense. kaini. 11:58, 20 June 2006 (PDT)

Made some major organizational and rewrite changes. It may still sound like a term paper. Please make suggestions as to what parts of this is inappropriate for wiki on LOST, and feel free to add or change things. I'll add more when I can.

Please sign your edits on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~) :D - wikisyntax will turn this into your username and a timestamp

this is a bit better for sure... i'll try and tidy it a bit more. another step in making a nice wiki article is to make sure it links from other articles in the wiki; this is a theme present in lost, so a nice place if you want to start wikifying it might be Common Themes. i'm sure you could link in some way from the Sawyer, Jack, and Locke pages too... anyway i'll try and 'lostpedify' this a bit more... kaini. 18:50, 21 June 2006 (PDT)

Contents 1 Thanks 2 comment noted, lisa. 3 red links 4 needs editing 5 Nomination 6 Power 7 A False Choice 8 Tribalism 9 Just my personal thought 10 Images 11 Quotes 12 Kudos 13 Information 14 "Pros" and "cons" 15 Fanon 16 Tragedy of the Commons

Thanks

Looks tons better. This is actually only by 2nd or 3rd wiki, so I'm still learning. I'll have to look closely through your changes so I can see you did, but this looks tons better. -sc

I'm not done yet... tiredness caught up with me last night. and you really should sign your additions to the talk page with four tildes (~~~~)... it renders as this -> kaini. 10:23, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

comment noted, lisa.

i agree that the article is still a bit dry, but economics is a factor on the island. the article still needs improving. 20:20, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

additionally some of the meat from the original article, which was a lot more academic in tone may have been lost. IANAEconomist, and contributions from those who are (such as, i suspect, the original author), are welcome. kaini. 20:28, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

I added some more specific problems with bartering. I'm bogging down the article with jargon, unfortunately. Scunning 14:28, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Am I right in writing all that I wrote about how rare exchange with Sawyer happens? I've only watched through season one, but that was my impression. Also, I added two new things about Sawyer and Jack's names. Sawyer's last name is Shepherd, which I think reinforces the socialism idea. Jack's last name is Ford, which may also reinforce the capitalism notion. Can this be made plainer, though? Scunning 15:15, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

you have those the wrong way round! jack shephard and james 'sawyer' ford!
kaini. 19:41, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Right - I meant that (and wrote it the way you note it), but miswrote it above. Scunning 17:12, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

I think this is one of the most interesting pages on the site. Much food for thought. Thanks, Scunning(?).Tigerlily 15:21, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

agreed... in the space of a week, this has become a really good article, with some meaty content. glad to be involved in this one... kaini. 19:39, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Thanks Tigerlily! I'm a PhD candidate in economics, and after talking to a friend in the philosophy department about John Locke's theory of hometeading, I couldn't stop thinking about the idea that maybe John Locke, the character, is not meant to embody Locke's empiricism, but maybe his presence as a character is supposed to make us think about some of his important contributions. That got me thinking about how Sawyer basically homesteads the wreckage, and for whatever reason, the entire island seems to go along with it - even when a previous owner should have rights (like shannon and boone with the old asthma medicine; they seem to accept his ownership, even if they think it's unfair). Anyway, I'm glad you find it valuable. Kaini gets a lot of credit, too, as until he started working on it, I think it was hard to make sense of. Scunning 16:23, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Actually I am a socialist at heart, but find it interesting within the context of the show, that Sawyer, though detested for his greed, is the only one who bothered to harvest these useful items. If not for his greed, the group would not have had them at all. (side note: he never really had Shannon's asthma meds) --Tigerlily 17:24, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

You're right; he never does have those breathers. But, Shannon and Boone nonetheless believe he does, and seem to on the one hand accept relucantly his homesteading rights, but need desperately them anyway and look for socialist solutions. Boone's approach was always that way, too, for he was the one who hid the water - a way of seeking an allocation that he hoped would benefit the community, but which necessarily required that they sacrifice their own individual rights. But, interestingly, the water is a kind of common resource problem. Since no one owned the water, it would necessarily be over consumed as a kind of "tragedy of the commons" would inevitably occur. Only through private ownership can a tragedy of the commons be avoided, so the next best thing is overt rationing by the state, in this case Jack and Boone. That is interesting, though, about Sawyer's greed ultimately serve the good of the community, for through it, resources were recovered that would've been lost. Maybe something about tragedy of the commons and the water rationing in the early Season One, and a mention of how Sawyer's foraging did ultimately serve the community should be added. In a way, the current entry focuses mainly on negative things in socialism (brutality, individual freedom overturned) and capitalism (monopoly, high transaction costs, bartering inefficiencies). But the rationing of the water addresses one failure in markets that requires government intervention - common resources will always be exploited without a way to exclude access from others, and had Boone and Jack not gone to lengths to hide the water, it would've been consumed too soon. Likewise, Sawyer's efforts ultimately served the community as you note. Scunning 17:12, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

red links

Scunning, please look at LostPedia:Manual of Style (proposed)... things such as Coase Theorem and coincidence of wants should be linked to wikipedia, not have articles on LostPedia, imo. you have to draw a line or else risk bloat. kaini. 19:50, 23 June 2006 (PDT)

Got it. I actually meant to link to Wikipedia, so I'll go back and change this later tonight. Thanks Kaini. I'm still learning the etiquette and protocol. Scunning 17:12, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

no problem! this article has, in my opinion, potential for real excellence now. i'm half-considering creating a wiki-style 'good article' template on the strength of this article and a few others. one thing i will say is beware of bloat. i'm a big fan of robert anton wilson, for example, and i have to exercise a degree of restraint when editing articles like mindfuck or 23 as a result; they are articles related to concepts which i care about. in fact this is stuff i'm trying to clarify in the Manual of Style (proposed); your input is welcome there! kaini. 19:28, 25 June 2006 (PDT)

I can't get away from bloat, unfortunatley, so if you want to completely butcher this into readable english, you have my perpetual permission. That is the point of wiki right - wisdom of crowds? I see this as a joint effort, not something I'm doing, so also feel free to change any and all of the economics, as well as add, always. I'm going to add something about the necessary rationing of the water to avoid a "tragedy of the commons" as well as the benefits from Sawyer's selfish pursuits. Scunning 09:05, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

needs editing

Added a few things. First, added some stuff on open resources and the problems with them. This was relevant because in the first season, water supplies nearly ran out, and Jack made the decision to ration the water. This was a centralized solution to a problem created by self-interested behavior in the community, and is more generally an example of the "tragedy of the commons." So I think it needs to be included. I also added an iffy, speculative piece on how Jack's decision to move the community to the caves was community maximizing, because the beach may have been a problem created by the need to be near other people in order to increase one's survival probabilities. I am not sure if I completely believe this, but have chosen to include it for now to see if someone else wants to do something with it, or not. The idea can be followed through the link I posted to "prisoner's dilemma" on wikipedia. Basically, though, the idea is that what is best for the individual ends up causing all indivudals to choose an action that actually makes them all worse off - something that we don't associate with the Invisible Hand. So it's worth putting it with the Socialism (Jack) heading, if it is the case that Jack moving them made them better off. But, maybe not. It may be welfare enhancing to have half the community at one plac, and half at the other. The costs of transporting the water is lower, since those at the caves won't need to store water. That means more water to go aroudn for those on the beaches, less trips to the caves, and enough mass of people on the beach to signal a plane if one flies over. I also added something about the Invisible Hand because of what Tigerlily wrote. I need to go in and clean this up, simplify parts, de-bloat it, but if anyone can help with this, I'd appreciate it. It's very topheavy right now. Scunning 09:49, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Questions: 1. The stuff about tragedy of the commons is important, because rationing food and water is an important problem in season one, and I'm told, season two. Can someone expand this to include parts from season two? I hear there is something about rationing of food in season two. But, regarding the economics, is it at all clear what tragedy of the commons is, and the connection to the solution (centralized intervention) and Jack's economic philosophy? 2. The Prisoner's Dilemma stuff. I now think this is pulled out of my butt, and not really on point. I think I need to take it out. If others agree, please remove it at your pleasure, as I think the more I think about it, the less convinced I am by my initial argument. 3. Can someone undertake the role of editing this down into the proper encyclopediac content? It moves from textbook to speculation/application to the show, and I cannot personally visualize how to properly convey this. Scunning 17:08, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

Question: Really minor question/suggestion. I would mention:

1. The allocation of resources after the supply drop.
2. The eventual refusal to allocate manpower for Bernard's SOS sign (although this was more a single-episode plot device to mesh with flashback plot.
3. Also: sorry about my edits at the end of the article... Looks like I mixed up governmental models with economic models (Theocracy, technocracy, etc.). Feel free to incorporate or remove as you see fit.

 ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk 12:27, 11 July 2006 (PDT)

I'm still waiting for season 2 to come out on DVD, so I don't know about the supply drop or the SOS sign. I look forward to reviewing it, though. The governmental models are, I think, out of place, though they are in themselves interesting. I'm inclined to have it removed, but I'd be interested in what others thinks.

Nomination

I nominated the article for featured article for the July 17-23 week. That will give us some time, Kaini, to get this more readable. I'll start working on some of it when things settle down for me later this week. Scunning 09:22, 27 June 2006 (PDT)

Power

Lots of people have commented on power, but their explanation of power relies less on actual economic theory, and more on casual empiricism. There is plenty of economic theories that put some meat on philosophical notions of power, though. For instance, game theoretic models point to how "power" can be determined by people's advantages outside of the business relationship. If I need you more than you need me, then you have more bargaining power. This is called the "threat position" so I have included this wherever I can so as to both retain people's discussions of power, but to keep it consistent with the entry. Monopoly structures are also a classic form of economic power, and that probably applies to the show since Sawyer has homesteaded so many goods so as to give him extensive "power."Scunning 05:46, 22 July 2006 (PDT)

A False Choice

Hey I disagree that capitalism and socialism are the two only choices for the economic systems on the Island. In fact, I believe that both would be impossible to establish on the Island. I've worked up a critique, and added my own solution: a hunter gather gift economy. Its not perfect, but I think that thesis has more explanatory power than either capitalism or socialism.

BlameCharlie 06:08, 19 August 2006 (PDT)

BlameCharlie - Interesting. The socialism is not technically the right word, I admit, since as you note, there is no state, and therefore the state does not own the means of production on the island. What I wanted to put down, but which I thought was less helpful to the average reader, was that the Shepherd represents a form of centralized management. Property is held in common, and distributed to their highest use by Shepherd (for the most part).

Secondly, it's not correct (if I understand you) to say that it would be illegal in a capitalist society for Sawyer to homestead the refuse for property. This is why I invoked homesteading to explain what he is doing - once the plane crashes, society starts over, and everything left on the plane does not belong to anyone anymore. People seem to tacitly admit this much when they acknowledge they do not have claims over these objects any longer. Sometimes objects are spoken of possessively in the past tense only. Sawyer is not stealing, in other words. He is homesteading - mixing his labor with the land to create property. But you say not only does he homestead, he also steals from the living. Can you give an example of this?

Tribalism

I would like to suggest expanding upon the subject of tribalism, as I believe that this was the method that Ana Lucia used when she acted as leader of the Tailies. I also think a section to this article should be added that explains Ana Lucia's philosophy. --Nahald 8:20, 08 October 2006 (PDT)

Just my personal thought

This page is wonderful, seriously... I am so proud of all of you! This is a very cogent, educational, organized page now, and I think it exemplifies some of the best to offer here at Lostpedia. Thanks to those who took the initiative. My one question is... this is now edging also into the field of government and political science. Should I redirect that topic to this page? --PandoraX 07:34, 9 December 2006 (PST)

Hehe its very good, looks like something I'd find in my Sociology text book :D --lewisg 07:37, 9 December 2006 (PST)

Images

Does anyone reckon that the quotes part needs images? --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  07:35, 9 December 2006 (PST)

I don't think every quote needs a pic, but if you can find one pic which illustrates one of those quotes well, go ahead and add it as a thumbnail to the top right. --PandoraX 07:51, 9 December 2006 (PST)

• OK, I'll try find one. --   Lost Soul   talk  contribs  07:56, 9 December 2006 (PST)

Quotes

I really like how each character has their quote. I attempted to add a Locke quote, but if someone could find a more approporiate one, that would be great.--LOCI!

Maybe when Locke asks whoever wants to come on an "adventure" to the hatch in The Cost Of Living? When Hurley says something about Jack not letting everybody go, and Locke responds by saying something like, im not Jack. --lewisg 08:06, 9 December 2006 (PST)

You know what Lewis, I was thinking the exact same thing! Still not perfect, but I think it illustrates his views on governing a little more. If someone else can find a better one, please replace again. --PandoraX 20:39, 9 December 2006 (PST)

Kudos

Wow. When I started working on this entry around 8 months ago, I never dreamed the community of viewers would transform it into this. This entry is really spectacular as a result of what everyone has contributed. The weakest parts of it, I now see, are the original sections I wrote! Seriously, this is phenomenal. Scunning 18:16, 15 February 2007 (PST)

Information

I'm thinking about adding a section on "information" on this page, but I don't know where. As I mentioned on another Talk page, information seems to be the currency of the Island. In a world without money, where food and water seem to be plentiful and guns do not provide a sustainable advantage, information is the only thing of value. Jack and Locke have caught onto this idea more than the other Losties. Notice how Jack and Locke don't let their friends in on any of their discoveries...such as when they are keeping Ben prisoner in the Hatch. The Others, of course, are masters of the art. In addition to information from discoveries on the Island, there is also the knowledge of each character's past. Juliet uses this to good advantage against Sayid and Sawyer in the episode "One of Us." They have guns, she has information, and she wins. Looking forward to suggestions and comments. Oanjao 09:18, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

• I am not sure if this would go under Economics, but I think it could definitely stand on its own as a separate article. Would it go under the Secrets category? Oh, and worth mentioning is Ana Lucia's brilliant comment that "Jack and Locke are busy worrying about Locke and Jack" when she goes off with Charlie and Sayid to follow Ben's map to the balloon. --Amberjet11 09:20, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

• That was a major theme in JJ's other hit show, Alias, but as yet the Losties haven't traded information for anything yet, so it hasn't really played an economic role- unless you spotted something I missed? -BearDog 17:34, 12 April 2007 (PDT)

* I think information should be considered something purchased and/or something used to purchase something else. In other words, it's one of the things bartered for on the show. Thus, in my opinion, it should go under the bartering sections broadly, and not thought of something distinct. In order for a successful trade to occur, it still will require that someone have information and want something which someone else has, and that someone else to want the information, and that the valuations of the two commodities be such that an exchange makes them both better off. In other words, information is still governed by the problem of "double coincidence of wants." Scunning 13:16, 26 May 2007 (PDT)

"Pros" and "cons"

Some of these seem pretty dubious. In particular, I don't agree with a lot that's said under Jack's section:

I don't see how "When someone complains about Jack's choices, his usual justification is that people do not have the right to complain about his leadership when they appear to expect him to serve in that capacity. " qualifies as a "pro": surely it would be a "con" that someone would abuse the responsibility that's been given him in order to try to escape all criticism. The islanders did give Jack a position of leadership, but that doesn't mean that they expected, or desired, that he make all decisions unilaterally for them.

The Economics article also criticizes Jack for allowing Sayid to torture Sawyer, forgetting the fact that Sawyer was effectively murdering Shannon by not simply admitting that he didn't have the inhaler. It was Sawyer's decision to coyly imply that he had the inhaler to begin with, and by perpetuating this misconception, he cruelly endangered Shannon's life by forcing Sayid and Jack to spend time on him when they should have either been looking for where the inhaler really was, or helping Shannon (as Sun was able to do solely because Sawyer didn't try to lie to her too). In our zeal to point to a compelling metaphor for the problems of socialism, we shouldn't make the error of casting moral judgment on a character for doing something that is of debatable immortality: yes, most people would say that torture wasn't warranted there, but considering that it was a matter of life-and-death for Shannon, Jack's decision was at least understandable. Even more understandable was his decision not to apologize to Sawyer (which the article seems to strongly criticize), when Sawyer was clearly bringing it upon himself (in the context of the episode, he seems to be deliberately trying to manipulate Sayid into torturing him so that he can get a kiss from Kate, though it may be more complex than that), and callously risking the life of another Losty in the process.

"The socialist approach necessarily requires that Jack violate the individual agency and responsibility of the Losties "for the good of the community" when he decides it is necessary. An example is when he tricked Kate, and switched the dynamite from her bag to his in "Exodus, Part 2"."" - This is just nonsense. First, nothing Jack did in that situation was "for the good of the community"--he was doing it solely for Kate's sake, because he cared for her. If he was trying to make the decision that would be the best for the community, he wouldn't have risked his own life, because the best thing for the community, particularly in the long run, is to have a doctor around to care for them. Kate, in contrast, had few to no skills that were necessary for everyone else's survival. The fact that he was willing to sacrifice himself for Kate nonetheless shows, if anything, that Jack's decision-making often isn't based on a "what can I do to benefit the community most?" model; it's flavored too much by his emotional attachments and his complex psychological issues for that to be true in practice.

Also, again, labeling the above as a "con", when Jack risking his life to protect Kate is something that many people would consider heroic (even though I pointed out above the alternate argument, which is that he was doing the wrong thing precisely because he wasn't considering the interests of the community at large), seems pretty biased. It comes across as just plain silly to say that Jack was "violating the individual agency and responsibility of the Losties" by not letting Kate blow herself up! I'm sure there are better examples of Jack doing stuff like this, it just doesn't work as a criticism in this case. -Silence 00:59, 14 July 2007 (PDT)

Fanon

In what sense is analysis, in the sense you're using it, not fanon? "Analysis" like Economics is non-canonical (I don't think the word "socialism" has ever even been used in the show), fan-created, and is based on, but not a part of, actual canon. Something doesn't need to be far-fetched or outlandish to be fanon, after all. -Silence 21:32, 28 July 2007 (PDT)

Tragedy of the Commons

I am willing to consider keeping the paragraph on tragedy of the commons that I just deleted, but I think it's wrong-headed as it stands. Tragedy of the commons is merely a situation wherein open access to shared resources results in individuals consuming up to the point where private (present) marginal costs equal marginal benefits. Because the future is uncertain, individuals end up playing a one-shot game with the resources at hand. The ecologist noted is the one who coined the term "tragedy of the commons," and maybe even is the one to formally analyze its implications, but tragedy of the commons has been extensively documented and discussed by economists, game theorists, and political scientists. Open-access resources tend towards tragedy of the commons outcomes, and the American bison is one such example (mentioned in the article) so I don't know if I agree with the criticism at all. Even if some alleged open-access resources were in fact privately managed to ameliorate tragedy of the commons is not an argument against the concept itself. It's only an argument against using such episodes as examples to support the concept. But the existence of the concept is theoretical, and can be analyzed using game theory. So I think that the paragraph should be removed, because it is incorrect. The water issue is a tragedy of the commons problem - no one owned the water, therefore the scarcity rent is dissipated. Since it is, no one appropriates it, and it is lost.