Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  

To whom would you give the golden flute?

Recommended Posts

Alright, you have a golden flute. There are three people you can choose from based on who you want to give this golden flute to (it;s made form gold and can be played):

-A poor man

-A flute maker

-Or a flute player

State your assumptions too make your point more clear.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't give it to the flute maker, as he/she wouldn't have any use for it, apart from I suppose appreciating it as a masterpiece or something along those lines.

It's hard to choose between the poor man and the flute player!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flute maker on account of the fact he can appreciate it the most, because making something and appreciating its material and structure etc. is a higher level of understanding than somebody who simply plays the thing. As for why not the poor man, well he'd have to melt it down into gold and then sell it, so the specific fact of being a golden flute would be redundant. If you wanted to be a generous person, sell the golden flute to the flute maker and give the poor man the cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd give it to the poor man. With this flute the poor man would eventually learn how to play the flute. With this new skill he could refine it and become excellent at playing the flute. He could then make a living by becoming a musician. He would then really appreciate the flute and begin this new life with a new passion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, you have a golden flute. There are three people you can choose from based on who you want to give this golden flute to (it;s made form gold and can be played):

-A poor man

-A flute maker

-Or a flute player

State your assumptions too make your point more clear.

As this is an economic issue, the answer should be obvious: the poor man of course!

  1. The flute player’s music is independent of whether they are using a wooden, metal, or a golden flute. Therefore the utility of giving them the flute is close to nil i.e. they simply have an extra flute to play with. The fact that it is made out of gold is irrelevant from a music perspective. The utility of giving it to the flute player is merely equal to the value of gold.
  2. The flute maker has the ability to make flutes. The fact that you are giving him a flute is pointless when he can make his own. Thus by giving him a golden flute you are in effect giving him gold. If they know how to make a golden flute, this serves as a further reason not to give them an item they produce. The maximum utility to the flute maker would therefore be the gold.
  3. Giving the gold flute to the poor man gives him twice as much utility as giving it to the others. The gold flute serves both as a flute and as gold to this poor man. He thus has the choice to allocate the resource i.e. his allocation is flexible. Moreover, from a macro perspective, such wealth distribution is bound to be good in the long run and assuming there are only three people around, the gold is bound to be some day distributed between all three parties. There is no shortage of flutes or music due to the other two parties and there is increased aggregate wealth.

It's more economics than philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The poor man, since it is economically correct! :D The others can still do whatever their hearts desire is, playing a flute, making a flute, but the old man can' do what he wants: get rich. (On the pretense that nobody wants to be poor), so yes, the poor man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at first I thought I'd give it to the flute player, because I'd like to hear him play it. I thought why give it to the poor if he couldn't play it in the first place? but I only understood when other posters talked about him selling it and getting money for his living. well, it's a good point, I'd love to help the poor but I'd still stand on my answer: give it to the flute player because then it will be useful and I want to hear him playing it. just my personal thoughts anyway...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at first I thought I'd give it to the flute player, because I'd like to hear him play it. I thought why give it to the poor if he couldn't play it in the first place? but I only understood when other posters talked about him selling it and getting money for his living. well, it's a good point, I'd love to help the poor but I'd still stand on my answer: give it to the flute player because then it will be useful and I want to hear him playing it. just my personal thoughts anyway...

You can still hear the flute player play music regardless of whether they have a golden flute or not. I.e music form a golden flute doesn't sound any better than music comming from a wooden one. Such a decision is an inefficient allocation of the resource which leades to massive disutility!

I think the optimum solution involves starting a circular flow of income. What way is better than boosting the person with least income to start such a flow? The poor person could invest in the flute player to play music, the flute player buys flutes from the flute maker and reimburses the now-not-so-poor man on any profits.

The major assumption I've made is that flutes can be produced from materials other than gold which are readily available; I don't think thats too bad of an assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flute maker on account of the fact he can appreciate it the most, because making something and appreciating its material and structure etc. is a higher level of understanding than somebody who simply plays the thing. As for why not the poor man, well he'd have to melt it down into gold and then sell it, so the specific fact of being a golden flute would be redundant. If you wanted to be a generous person, sell the golden flute to the flute maker and give the poor man the cash.

Not really, there's cash for Gold now a days ;)

Alright, you have a golden flute. There are three people you can choose from based on who you want to give this golden flute to (it;s made form gold and can be played):

-A poor man

-A flute maker

-Or a flute player

State your assumptions too make your point more clear.

As this is an economic issue, the answer should be obvious: the poor man of course!

  1. The flute player’s music is independent of whether they are using a wooden, metal, or a golden flute. Therefore the utility of giving them the flute is close to nil i.e. they simply have an extra flute to play with. The fact that it is made out of gold is irrelevant from a music perspective. The utility of giving it to the flute player is merely equal to the value of gold.
  2. The flute maker has the ability to make flutes. The fact that you are giving him a flute is pointless when he can make his own. Thus by giving him a golden flute you are in effect giving him gold. If they know how to make a golden flute, this serves as a further reason not to give them an item they produce. The maximum utility to the flute maker would therefore be the gold.
  3. Giving the gold flute to the poor man gives him twice as much utility as giving it to the others. The gold flute serves both as a flute and as gold to this poor man. He thus has the choice to allocate the resource i.e. his allocation is flexible. Moreover, from a macro perspective, such wealth distribution is bound to be good in the long run and assuming there are only three people around, the gold is bound to be some day distributed between all three parties. There is no shortage of flutes or music due to the other two parties and there is increased aggregate wealth.

It's more economics than philosophy.

You are assuming that neither the flute maker nor the flute player are not poor. This assumptions flaws your economic analysis. pwned.

Buy jokes aside, look at what information we don't have before trying to make out an answer:

we don't know if the flute maker is good at his job.

We don't know what type of a flute the flute player plays, he might use some sort of african contraption of a flute that has nothing to do with the European sideways version of it.

we don't know the weight of the gold. We don't knwo the size of the flute or it's functionality.

So My answer it, Bob. Because Bob's a nice guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, you have a golden flute. There are three people you can choose from based on who you want to give this golden flute to (it;s made form gold and can be played):

-A poor man

-A flute maker

-Or a flute player

State your assumptions too make your point more clear.

As this is an economic issue, the answer should be obvious: the poor man of course!

  1. The flute player’s music is independent of whether they are using a wooden, metal, or a golden flute. Therefore the utility of giving them the flute is close to nil i.e. they simply have an extra flute to play with. The fact that it is made out of gold is irrelevant from a music perspective. The utility of giving it to the flute player is merely equal to the value of gold.
  2. The flute maker has the ability to make flutes. The fact that you are giving him a flute is pointless when he can make his own. Thus by giving him a golden flute you are in effect giving him gold. If they know how to make a golden flute, this serves as a further reason not to give them an item they produce. The maximum utility to the flute maker would therefore be the gold.
  3. Giving the gold flute to the poor man gives him twice as much utility as giving it to the others. The gold flute serves both as a flute and as gold to this poor man. He thus has the choice to allocate the resource i.e. his allocation is flexible. Moreover, from a macro perspective, such wealth distribution is bound to be good in the long run and assuming there are only three people around, the gold is bound to be some day distributed between all three parties. There is no shortage of flutes or music due to the other two parties and there is increased aggregate wealth.

It's more economics than philosophy.

You are assuming that neither the flute maker nor the flute player are not poor. This assumptions flaws your economic analysis. pwned.

Buy jokes aside, look at what information we don't have before trying to make out an answer:

we don't know if the flute maker is good at his job.

We don't know what type of a flute the flute player plays, he might use some sort of african contraption of a flute that has nothing to do with the European sideways version of it.

we don't know the weight of the gold. We don't knwo the size of the flute or it's functionality.

So My answer it, Bob. Because Bob's a nice guy.

Incorrect, I am assuming the poor man has no general skill; if he did have a trade (a) the probablity of him being poor is low (have a look at the world around you) and (b) he would be titled by his trade e.g blacksmith (blacksmiths can be poor but if you describe a person as 'poor' rather than a 'blacksmith' the severity of their poverty is implied to be critical).

This is why your logic is flawed. If both the flute maker and the flute player were poor then you can't label the poor man 'poor' because poor is a relative term. Since there are only 3 people in the scenario the poor man MUST be less wealthy than the other two otherwise the label 'poor' would be factually incorrect. I don't see how your statement serves as a rebuttal.

The whole point of this is to make assumptions and explore the optimum answer for every variable. So if you want to make the flute maker's skill a variable go ahead and make it one!

Giving the flute to Bob would be the equivalent of giving the flute to God, an invisible and unpredictable element which was never defined. Waste much?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well what if the poor man is paralysed and doesn't have a family? he won't be able to go anywhere to sell it, noone will do it for him and the flute is very likely to be stolen from him. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much enjoyed Keel's analysis. I believe it to be flawless in the sense that it misses no factors. Now I know who I will pm when I have economic problems. Hope Keel doesn't mind.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flute player.

As the the flute can actually be put to use.

The poor man may, make money, but honestly there are so many good musicians who are still poor on the road...

I'd take the poor man with me and give him the education he needs. At least he will have passion, someone who will

appreciate it and make the most out of it.

I'd probably compliment the flute player, so he gets flattered, makes better flutes, gets famous and rich.

but yeah, the flute, whether gold, mud, or platinum goes to the flute player :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.