Civic Crowdfunding

[Xerographica]

What are your thoughts on civic crowdfunding? For those not familiar with the concept...it's basically the Kickstarter model applied to public projects.

Here are three public projects that have already been successfully funded...

1. Citizinvestor: Connecting blind children with tech
2. Neighbor.ly: Painting the town green
3. Spacehive: After the riots - Happiness in Tottenham

Personally I think it's a really great concept. If you're interested in reading my in-depth analysis then here's what I've written on the subject...

1. Civic Crowdfunding
2. An Economic Critique of Peer Progressivism
3. Civic Crowdfunding - Encouraging Participation

[SaintB]

I say lets do it.

[Wikkiwallana]

I've never seen an article with such a high reference to content ratio. Maybe let someone else write it next time?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I've never seen an article with such a high reference to content ratio. Maybe let someone else write it next time?

This. And I don't really see the economics in your economic analysis.

[Xerographica]

I've never seen an article with such a high reference to content ratio. Maybe let someone else write it next time?

Why can't someone else write it this time?

[Wikkiwallana]

I've never seen an article with such a high reference to content ratio. Maybe let someone else write it next time?

Why can't someone else write it this time?

Because you already posted a link to it as a reference and acted as if it would be useful when it's not?

[Xerographica]

This. And I don't really see the economics in your economic analysis.

Which economic concepts were you expecting to see?

[The Joseon Dynasty]

This. And I don't really see the economics in your economic analysis.

Which economic concepts were you expecting to see?

Allocative efficiency, Pareto efficiency, productive efficiency, etc. - considering that the bulk of your argument is to show that consumer-directed spending is more efficient than government-directed spending.

[Xerographica]

Why can't someone else write it this time?

Because you already posted a link to it as a reference and acted as if it would be useful when it's not?

Why would I share it if I did not think it was useful enough? If you want to make it more useful...then be my guest. I mean...that's pretty much the whole point of Wikipedia.

[Raeyh]

It's a good way for the government to get extra money.

[Xerographica]

Allocative efficiency, Pareto efficiency, productive efficiency, etc. - considering that the bulk of your argument is to show that consumer-directed spending is more efficient than government-directed spending.

This would be true if the point of that post was to "sell" pragmatarianism to Steven Johnson. My goal for that post was simply to highlight and explain the economic concepts that he was missing from his "peer progressivism".

Kickstarter and Wikipedia work because you can choose exactly how much of your own limited resources (money/time) you contribute to the "stubs" that you believe to be worth your sacrifice. Participatory budgeting does not work because you're using words, rather than sacrifice, to convey your priorities. Democracy vouchers do not work because they alter the distribution that was determined by the crowd (consumers).

I explained this in much more detail in my post. So if there's something specific that you disagree with then it might help if you just copy and pasted it into your reply.

Regarding allocative efficiency and pragmatarianism. Allocative efficiency is based on the opportunity cost concept. The time you spend improving one Wikipedia entry cannot also be spent improving another Wikipedia entry. The money you spend on one Kickstarter project cannot also be spent on another Kickstarter project. This forces you to prioritize how you spend your time/money. Allocative efficiency is the consequence of each and every single one of us prioritizing how we spend our time/money.

If we want public funds to be efficiently distributed...then we simply allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. Allowing each and every taxpayer to consider the opportunity costs of their spending decisions will guide us to the balance of public goods that will maximize the benefit to society as a whole.

[Miss Defied]

What are your thoughts on civic crowdfunding? For those not familiar with the concept...it's basically the Kickstarter model applied to public projects.

Here are three public projects that have already been successfully funded...

1. Citizinvestor: Connecting blind children with tech
2. Neighbor.ly: Painting the town green
3. Spacehive: After the riots - Happiness in Tottenham

Personally I think it's a really great concept. If you're interested in reading my in-depth analysis then here's what I've written on the subject...

1. Civic Crowdfunding
2. An Economic Critique of Peer Progressivism
3. Civic Crowdfunding - Encouraging Participation

I think it is great. I also think it will never replace government funding of huge infrastructure projects.

Why do your posts always link to your personal blog that runs ads? And thus you clearly gain financially from driving traffic to it? I think it's pretty shitty that you do that. If you realy care about expressing your thoughts, you can use the quote feature and just post your opinions, rather than just give links to your monetized blog.

[Xerographica]

I think it is great. I also think it will never replace government funding of huge infrastructure projects.

So it has the potential to replace government funding of moderately sized infrastructure projects?

Why do your posts always link to your personal blog that runs ads?

Because that's where I post relevant content.

And thus you clearly gain financially from driving traffic to it? I think it's pretty shitty that you do that.

How much money per month would you guess that I gain from having that ad on my blog? Surely the amount has to make a difference right? Would you really think it was shitty of me if I only made $.10 per month from ads?

Honestly I have no idea how much money I've made from that ad. But I'd really love to know how much money you think I make from it.

If you realy care about expressing your thoughts, you can use the quote feature and just post your opinions, rather than just give links to your monetized blog.

You doubt that I really care about expressing my thoughts? I only post my thoughts on my blog because I desire to financially gain from them? You doubt my sincerity? I wonder if that's why the Great Pumpkin never visits my pumpkin patch.

[Wikkiwallana]

Because you already posted a link to it as a reference and acted as if it would be useful when it's not?

Why would I share it if I did not think it was useful enough?

Not what I said. I said you used it despite it lacking utility; nothing at all about your thoughts on the matter.

If you want to make it more useful...then be my guest. I mean...that's pretty much the whole point of Wikipedia.

No, I'm not interested in assisting your vanity article, I'm just trying to get you to not inflict such a thing on us again until it is better made.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

Allocative efficiency, Pareto efficiency, productive efficiency, etc. - considering that the bulk of your argument is to show that consumer-directed spending is more efficient than government-directed spending.

This would be true if the point of that post was to "sell" pragmatarianism to Steven Johnson. My goal for that post was simply to highlight and explain the economic concepts that he was missing from his "peer progressivism".

Kickstarter and Wikipedia work because you can choose exactly how much of your own limited resources (money/time) you contribute to the "stubs" that you believe to be worth your sacrifice. Participatory budgeting does not work because you're using words, rather than sacrifice, to convey your priorities. Democracy vouchers do not work because they alter the distribution that was determined by the crowd (consumers).

I explained this in much more detail in my post. So if there's something specific that you disagree with then it might help if you just copy and pasted it into your reply.

Regarding allocative efficiency and pragmatarianism. Allocative efficiency is based on the opportunity cost concept. The time you spend improving one Wikipedia entry cannot also be spent improving another Wikipedia entry. The money you spend on one Kickstarter project cannot also be spent on another Kickstarter project. This forces you to prioritize how you spend your time/money. Allocative efficiency is the consequence of each and every single one of us prioritizing how we spend our time/money.

If we want public funds to be efficiently distributed...then we simply allow taxpayers to directly allocate their taxes. Allowing each and every taxpayer to consider the opportunity costs of their spending decisions will guide us to the balance of public goods that will maximize the benefit to society as a whole.

Sorry. You need to make your writing clearer, though. I found it a remarkable slog.

Although I do like the content of this post. Allows me to contextualise the argument within my rigid economic brain. So, as I understand it, the argument is that taxation will be transformed into a form of consumption, essentially, where all consumers will have the choice to maximise their "consumption decisions". Although, in this case, the "consumption decisions" will be aggregated as public spending, rather than individual spending, but the allocative efficiency of individual consumption will remain.

I suppose the logic is there, I know that your post was splattered with references, but do you have any economic analyses?

[Xerographica]

Not what I said. I said you used it despite it lacking utility; nothing at all about your thoughts on the matter.

How would it have "utility"? Things can't have "utility". Utility is what you derive from things. And we all have unique utility functions...which is why values are subjective.

No, I'm not interested in assisting your vanity article, I'm just trying to get you to not inflict such a thing on us again until it is better made.

How is it my vanity article? How will it be better made if nobody knows of its existence?

[Xerographica]

Sorry. You need to make your writing clearer, though. I found it a remarkable slog.

I suck at writing.

Although I do like the content of this post. Allows me to contextualise the argument within my rigid economic brain. So, as I understand it, the argument is that taxation will be transformed into a form of consumption, essentially, where all consumers will have the choice to maximise their "consumption decisions". Although, in this case, the "consumption decisions" will be aggregated as public spending, rather than individual spending, but the allocative efficiency of individual consumption will remain.

Taxpayers would have the opportunity to try and maximize the utility that they derive from their tax spending decisions. Directly allocating their taxes would be optional though...so they could still just give their taxes to congress.

I suppose the logic is there, I know that your post was splattered with references, but do you have any economic analyses?

What kind of economic analysis did you have in mind? Here's the best summary of the "problem"...

It is, of course, not desirable that anything should be done by funds derived from compulsory taxation, which is already sufficiently well done by individual liberality. - J.S. Mill

How many people does it take to determine whether something is being sufficiently well done by individual liberty? There's absolutely no economic basis for allowing people to "vote" to indicate whether something is being sufficiently done. Neither is there any economic basis for having representatives to decide for millions and millions of people. Therefore, in order to come up with the most accurate answer...we should just rely on the demonstrated preferences of taxpayers.

For example, if education is being sufficiently well done by individual liberty...then taxpayers would not derive any utility from giving their hard-earned taxes to public education. If taxpayers did give taxes to public education...then the amount of money that public education received would reflect how insufficiently education was being supplied by the private sector.

Therefore...the debate between Republicans and Democrats would become a moot point.

[Moving Forward Inc]

Large-scale political and social masturbation, good at making sheeple think relevant change is being made when really it's nothing worth giving a shit about.

[Pope Joan]

Oh, I thought this was where the GOP paid for ringers to "protest" elections in Miami, 2000.

Funding the crowd.

Something similar to this idea is "giving circles". Working together, many little donors can look and act like one BIG donor.

http://www.givingcircles.org/

[Wikkiwallana]

Not what I said. I said you used it despite it lacking utility; nothing at all about your thoughts on the matter.

How would it have "utility"? Things can't have "utility". Utility is what you derive from things. And we all have unique utility functions...which is why values are subjective.

By being informative and objective.

No, I'm not interested in assisting your vanity article, I'm just trying to get you to not inflict such a thing on us again until it is better made.

How is it my vanity article? How will it be better made if nobody knows of its existence?

You created it, for a concept you care deeply about, without any apparent outside help or discussion, and rather than trying to start a talk page about it on Wikipedia and getting other editors to contribute, or spending some time fleshing it out on your own, you let it sit a few days and then posted it on NSG as a "resource". You didn't go to an economics forum and ask for contributions, you didn't link to it on your blog and ask readers to help you with it, you didn't even ask for help here, but instead pasted the link as an explanation of a question you were asking. It doesn't explain anything, beyond the barest introductory sentence and some quotes by apparently random people, none of which are even cited. It's totally useless, and yet you didn't even suggest that others might help with it until I called you on how useless it was. Your OP was nearly as bad, since it contained little information on it's own, just a bunch of links that you couldn't even be bothered to quote pertinent sections from.

[Xerographica]

Large-scale political and social masturbation, good at making sheeple think relevant change is being made when really it's nothing worth giving a shit about.

Would giving taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes count as relevant change?

[Xerographica]

You created it, for a concept you care deeply about, without any apparent outside help or discussion, and rather than trying to start a talk page about it on Wikipedia and getting other editors to contribute, or spending some time fleshing it out on your own, you let it sit a few days and then posted it on NSG as a "resource". You didn't go to an economics forum and ask for contributions, you didn't link to it on your blog and ask readers to help you with it, you didn't even ask for help here, but instead pasted the link as an explanation of a question you were asking. It doesn't explain anything, beyond the barest introductory sentence and some quotes by apparently random people, none of which are even cited. It's totally useless, and yet you didn't even suggest that others might help with it until I called you on how useless it was. Your OP was nearly as bad, since it contained little information on it's own, just a bunch of links that you couldn't even be bothered to quote pertinent sections from.

In my original post I included seven links. One to Wikipedia, three to civic crowdfunding websites...and three to my blog entries which contain quite a bit of information on the topic. Rather than discuss all the information that can be found on all those other pages...you want to complain that I'm doing a disservice to people because the Wikipedia entry does not have enough information.

And then you want to complain that I did not inform people that they could improve the Wikipedia page that I linked to. Errr...yeah...I think that most people already understand that anybody can edit Wikipedia. Which is why it's so funny that you would prefer to complain about a Wikipedia page rather than doing something about it.

Based on the fact that, thus far, nobody here has asked for clarification on the civic crowdfunding concept...I think it's well proven that I've shared enough information in my original post to help the average person grasp the concept.

Are you struggling with the civic crowdfunding concept? Perhaps? If so...let me know which part you're having a difficult time understanding.