Nottinghamshire recently made wolf-whistling illegal, more or less (see this thread).
Samantha strolls through the hotel lobby wearing a green dress. The dress is quite modest but Frank very much enjoys seeing Samantha strolling through the lobby wearing it. Exactly how much benefit does Frank derive from Samantha's behavior? Does it matter?
Let's imagine a sci-fi scenario. Samantha uses the implant in her brain to indicate her feedback preferences. If she prefers brutal honesty then she'll receive all incoming valuations. Frank uses his implant to send $5 dollars to Samantha with a note that says, "nice dress, thanks!". Jane, on the other hand, uses her implant to send -$10 dollars to Samantha with a note that says, "your dress is hideous!". Would their feedback truly be brutally honest though? Frank would have an incentive to downplay his benefit and Jane would have an incentive to exaggerate her cost.
Now let's imagine a no tech, no clothes scenario. Frank and Samantha are at a nude beach. She strolls by wearing absolutely nothing and his appreciation becomes... obvious. Perhaps he might struggle to hide his appreciation.
Uber's decision to go driverless will potentially put their million drivers, and plenty of other drivers, out of work. Let's go back into time and imagine that Uber had opened up the decision to public valuation (aka coasianism).
A. go driverless
B. no driverless
Everybody in the world would have had one day to use their cash to communicate which option they would prefer to be implemented for one year. If Frank preferred the "go driverless" option... then he could have spent his money on that option. If Samantha preferred the "no driverless" option... then she could have spent her money on that option. There wouldn't have been running totals because they might have wrongly encouraged or discouraged participation. The totals would have been calculated as soon as the day was over.
What would the totals have been?
Let's say that the "go driverless" option had received the most money. All the people who spent their money on the "no driverless" option would get a refund. Plus, they'd get all the money spent on the "go driverless" option. Some arbitrary numbers might help...
Let's say that the "no driverless" option had received the most money. Would Uber have been required to choose this option? No... but if Uber didn't do so then the "no driverless" people would have got their money back plus they would have received all the "go driverless" money.
An economist recently wrote an article about Uber. Here was his conclusion...
Does progress really have to be so painful? When is it beneficial and desirable to see society's cost and benefit? Would an accurate feedback loop have prevented the Civil War?
In my opinion, the more accurate the feedback loop, the more beneficial the behavior.
