by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:17 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Vedilia » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:28 pm
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:52 pm
Vedilia wrote:If you want bias to be eliminated you could go random.
If you want people to be compensated for their zeal, you could go for the efficient one or the linvoid, but that introduces a bias towards the rich which I rather dislike.
Incentives do matter, yes.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:53 pm
Xerographica wrote:Personally, I prefer the efficient allocation because I perceive a decent correlation between wealth and beneficial behavior. The more beneficially you use society's limited resources... the more money you'll earn... and the more money you'll earn... the greater the amount of society's limited resources that you can beneficially use. More benefit means more power/influence/control. Beneficial behavior is incentivized/rewarded.
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:54 pm
Threeman wrote:Full communism, of course.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Vedilia » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:54 pm
Xerographica wrote:Vedilia wrote:If you want bias to be eliminated you could go random.
If you want people to be compensated for their zeal, you could go for the efficient one or the linvoid, but that introduces a bias towards the rich which I rather dislike.
Incentives do matter, yes.
The point of the linvoid allocation is to try and minimize a bias towards the rich. With linvoid allocation... whether or not you get a home/car/kidney would be determined by the percentage of your wealth that you would be willing to trade for it.
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 8:58 pm
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Xerographica wrote:Personally, I prefer the efficient allocation because I perceive a decent correlation between wealth and beneficial behavior. The more beneficially you use society's limited resources... the more money you'll earn... and the more money you'll earn... the greater the amount of society's limited resources that you can beneficially use. More benefit means more power/influence/control. Beneficial behavior is incentivized/rewarded.
Ah yes, like that paragon of societal virtue, the tobacco industry.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:00 pm
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:01 pm
Xerographica wrote:Obviously lots of people buy lots of cigarettes.
by Atomic Utopia » Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:09 pm
Xerographica wrote:Vedilia wrote:If you want bias to be eliminated you could go random.
If you want people to be compensated for their zeal, you could go for the efficient one or the linvoid, but that introduces a bias towards the rich which I rather dislike.
Incentives do matter, yes.
The point of the linvoid allocation is to try and minimize a bias towards the rich. With linvoid allocation... whether or not you get a home/car/kidney would be determined by the percentage of your wealth that you would be willing to trade for it.
by Galloism » Sun Jul 17, 2016 9:46 pm
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:21 pm
Galloism wrote:I do like how you took your previous strawman thread, copied it almost verbatim, removed my name, and then proceeded to attack a system you invented I never endorsed.
Top shelf strawmanning there.
No. The system described is completely unworkable in real life. Our system currently works well enough for the task. It's not perfect, but it's workable.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:27 pm
Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:I do like how you took your previous strawman thread, copied it almost verbatim, removed my name, and then proceeded to attack a system you invented I never endorsed.
Top shelf strawmanning there.
No. The system described is completely unworkable in real life. Our system currently works well enough for the task. It's not perfect, but it's workable.
Allocations either should, or should not, account for disparities in people's ability to pay. Which is it?
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:29 pm
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Xerographica wrote:Obviously lots of people buy lots of cigarettes.
Yep. And in so doing, the tobacco industry inflicts disproportionate costs in terms of healthcare expenses and lost productivity. Which rather disproves the idea that there's any sort of strong correlation between the profitability/wealth generated by an action in a market and that action's benefit to society in and of itself.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Galloism » Sun Jul 17, 2016 10:32 pm
Xerographica wrote:But have you ever spent any money on the R&D of healthy cigarettes?
by Xerographica » Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:22 pm
Galloism wrote:Xerographica wrote:Allocations either should, or should not, account for disparities in people's ability to pay. Which is it?
It should not as it's unworkable in practice. This does not erase the fact that disparity in the relative value of a dollar is a problem, and a person who spends ten times as much on X may or may not indicate he values it ten times as much. That's a false assumption.
Depending on the nature of the problem however, money should sometimes be removed from the allocation process altogether because more efficient systems may exist for that problem. One of the causes for that may be the disparate value of a dollar between individuals and to avoid shitting on the poor, as you so frequently advocate.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bogdanov Vishniac » Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:46 pm
Xerographica wrote:The size of the tobacco industry does not reflect its worth to society?
Xerographica wrote:Most, if not all, disparities between benefit and power boil down to the free-rider problem.
by Kubra » Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:51 pm
by Xerographica » Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:09 am
Bogdanov Vishniac wrote:Uh no. Cigarettes and most tobacco products in general are pretty demonstrably non-beneficial to both the individual and society. We have study after study dating back decades to show that. And yet the cigarette industry continues to thrive, in part because it does a very good job of trying to mitigate the perception of the harm it actually does through aggressive lobbying and marketing around the world.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Nocturnalis » Mon Jul 18, 2016 12:39 am
by Aapje » Mon Jul 18, 2016 2:49 am
by Forsher » Mon Jul 18, 2016 4:56 am
Xerographica wrote:As some of you probably already know... I'm a very big fan of resources being "efficiently" allocated. In my thread on crowdfunding decisions, a certain member pointed out, for the gazillionth time, that the efficient allocation of resources does not take into account the fact that people do not all have the same amount of money. While composing my reply to this member it dawned on me that I've never run across a term for a method of allocation that does take wealth/income inequality into account. So I took the liberty of naming such an allocation method after him. It turned out that he, and the powers that be, did not appreciate my attribution.
fair allocation = based on randomness or first come first serve
efficient allocation = based on people's willingness to pay (WTP)
linvoid allocation = based on people's willingness and ability to pay
Let's consider an example. The occupants of a house move away. Who should get the newly available house? With the fair allocation method a family could be randomly chosen from a list... or the house could be given to the family that's been waiting the longest. With the efficient allocation method the house could simply be sold to the highest bidder. With the linvoid allocation method the house could be sold to the bidder who was willing to spend the greatest percentage of their wealth. If I was willing to spend 50% of my wealth on the house... but you were willing to spend 51% of your wealth on the house... then you would get the house despite the fact that 50% of my wealth was $5,000,000 dollars but 51% of your wealth was $51 dollars.
Which allocation method do you prefer? Personally, I prefer the efficient allocation because I perceive a decent correlation between wealth and beneficial behavior. The more beneficially you use society's limited resources... the more money you'll earn... and the more money you'll earn... the greater the amount of society's limited resources that you can beneficially use. More benefit means more power/influence/control. Beneficial behavior is incentivized/rewarded. Most economists agree that incentives matter.
The correlation between wealth and beneficial behavior isn't perfect though because so far none of you have paid me any money for my super beneficial posts. Darn free-rider problem.
Aapje wrote:The problem with this question is:
- that it doesn't distinguish between types of goods (necessities vs basic goods vs luxuries).
- that it only looks at the supply side and even then, at only priced goods (many countries provide some goods for lowered cost or 'free' = tax payer funded)
- it seems to argue that you have to choose between 100% free market or 100% equality in property, which are both extremist positions that very few people want (and both can't work in reality).
- your chosen example is not neutral and biases people
It's perfectly logical to (for example) want linvoid allocation for something like healthcare and efficient allocation for caviar, because the first is something that everyone should have and the second is just a luxury.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Andavarast, Bienenhalde, Burnt Calculators, Corporate Collective Salvation, Deblar, Duvniask, Grinning Dragon, Pale Dawn, The Jamesian Republic, Tungstan, Vassenor, Zetaopalatopia, Zurkerx
Advertisement