4th Grade Nation State

[The Two Jerseys]

Why should we spend our valuation? If there's no limit, Bill Gates is clearly going to win.

Unless he's being an asshole and is trying to use his large amount of money to intimidate you to bid more than your WTP and just is scamming you for money.

But...but Xero said that's impossible! Everyone will use the system exactly as he intends it!

[The Two Jerseys]

Why should we spend our valuation? If there's no limit, Bill Gates is clearly going to win.

Actually, bill gates smart move is to play both sides and always win, or at least cut his losses.

"I value my shoes at $100, so I'll bid $100 to keep them." (xero method)

"I, Bill Gates, value his shoes at $1,000,000, so I'm willing to bid half of that - $500,000. Now, to avoid overpaying him, I'm going to bid $100,000,000 on one side, and $99.500,000 on the other side."

This effectively makes a differential of $500,000, or half Bill gates value (the smart play if you go with the half your valuation strategy).

However, since he is a loser as well as a winner, he gets a portion of his winnings. Specifically, the winnings at 1.005 of the losing amount. So you get $100.50 for your shoes, and Bill Gates gets to keep the rest.

You can, by hedging, create bidding differentials that represent much more than you would have to pay if you win.

I meant if Bill Gates actually used the system as Xero intends.

[Salandriagado]

Sure, assuming I know, for a fact, that Bill Gates is going to spend one million dollars to buy my crappy shoes. But once you make the idiotic assumption that people are mind readers... then coasianism becomes entirely unnecessary. Drop this idiotic assumption and coasianism becomes necessary and the best strategy is to spend your valuation.

The best strategy to do what? Because I can't think of one good reason why someone's actual WTP would ever match their bid.

I can: if you don't care either way about the result, aren't allowed to split your bid, can't find someone to split with you, have zero information about which way the vote will go, and are risk-averse, then your WTP and your bid should both be zero.

[Galloism]

Actually, bill gates smart move is to play both sides and always win, or at least cut his losses.

"I value my shoes at $100, so I'll bid $100 to keep them." (xero method)

"I, Bill Gates, value his shoes at $1,000,000, so I'm willing to bid half of that - $500,000. Now, to avoid overpaying him, I'm going to bid $100,000,000 on one side, and $99.500,000 on the other side."

This effectively makes a differential of $500,000, or half Bill gates value (the smart play if you go with the half your valuation strategy).

However, since he is a loser as well as a winner, he gets a portion of his winnings. Specifically, the winnings at 1.005 of the losing amount. So you get $100.50 for your shoes, and Bill Gates gets to keep the rest.

You can, by hedging, create bidding differentials that represent much more than you would have to pay if you win.

I meant if Bill Gates actually used the system as Xero intends.

Oh.

Well, while Bill Gates is not actually a computer guy (fun fact), he's still clearly not an idiot, so he will not use the system the way Xero intends.

[Lost heros]

Why should we spend our valuation? If there's no limit, Bill Gates is clearly going to win.

Actually, bill gates smart move is to play both sides and always win, or at least cut his losses.

"I value my shoes at $100, so I'll bid $100 to keep them." (xero method)

"I, Bill Gates, value his shoes at $1,000,000, so I'm willing to bid half of that - $500,000. Now, to avoid overpaying him, I'm going to bid $100,000,000 on one side, and $99.500,000 on the other side."

This effectively makes a differential of $500,000, or half Bill gates value (the smart play if you go with the half your valuation strategy).

However, since he is a loser as well as a winner, he gets a portion of his winnings. Specifically, the winnings at 1.005 of the losing amount. So you get $100.50 for your shoes, and Bill Gates gets to keep the rest.

You can, by hedging, create bidding differentials that represent much more than you would have to pay if you win.

Thank you for teaching me how to gamble

[Galloism]

Actually, bill gates smart move is to play both sides and always win, or at least cut his losses.

"I value my shoes at $100, so I'll bid $100 to keep them." (xero method)

"I, Bill Gates, value his shoes at $1,000,000, so I'm willing to bid half of that - $500,000. Now, to avoid overpaying him, I'm going to bid $100,000,000 on one side, and $99.500,000 on the other side."

This effectively makes a differential of $500,000, or half Bill gates value (the smart play if you go with the half your valuation strategy).

However, since he is a loser as well as a winner, he gets a portion of his winnings. Specifically, the winnings at 1.005 of the losing amount. So you get $100.50 for your shoes, and Bill Gates gets to keep the rest.

You can, by hedging, create bidding differentials that represent much more than you would have to pay if you win.

Thank you for teaching me how to gamble

Roulette pays out strictly double, and there's always the chance to land on the zero or double zero.

This strategy will not work in roulette.

[Lost heros]

Thank you for teaching me how to gamble

Roulette pays out strictly double, and there's always the chance to land on the zero or double zero.

This strategy will not work in roulette.

Meh

[Xerographica]

Let's use a real world example. Here in Australia, there's a possibility in the near future that we'll have a plebiscite on marriage equality. This issue means a lot to me, and I'd like to see Australia have marriage equality; however, I have limited disposable income. Even though it is the political issue that I'm most passionate about, my WTP would be about $250, a ceiling imposed by my financial circumstances. The Catholic Church, who are opposed to marriage equality, are one of the richest organizations in the world. They could easily drop millions into the "No" count without even feeling it. Under your system, this would be interpreted as the Church having a stronger opinion than me, even though I've put a higher proportion of my personal wealth towards it. Marriage Equality fails because of unequal distribution of wealth.

You only have $250 dollars? Chances are good that you have more money but you need it for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

So let's say that we used coasianism and you bid your $250. The Catholic Church does have a ton of money so we shouldn't be surprised if they won. Therefore... what? Therefore you'd be compensated. We know that your compensation would be greater than $250 dollars. But how much greater than $250 would it be?

Let's say that your compensation is $500 dollars. The next year, when coasianism was again used to decide the same issue, what would your WTP be? Would it still be $250 dollars? If so, then you obviously used the $500 dollars for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

Anybody who argues against coasianism is arguing against your freedom to decide for yourself what your priorities are. The fact is, I can never be in your shoes. Never, ever, ever. This means that I'm entirely unwilling to decide for you what your priorities should, or shouldn't, be. This is why I have to support coasianism.

Reboot your experiment, but give one student 500 pennies, one student zero pennies, randomly distribute amounts to the other 28 students, and then pick an issue that the zero penny child and the 500 penny child are both passionate about. See how it goes then.

Why should I reboot my experiment? You want to prove something then find a teacher and pitch your proposal. Demonstrate how wonderful wealth equality is. The kids in your class would bid on their preferred option... and then all the money spent on the winning option would be divided among the students to ensure wealth equality.

[Salandriagado]

Let's use a real world example. Here in Australia, there's a possibility in the near future that we'll have a plebiscite on marriage equality. This issue means a lot to me, and I'd like to see Australia have marriage equality; however, I have limited disposable income. Even though it is the political issue that I'm most passionate about, my WTP would be about $250, a ceiling imposed by my financial circumstances. The Catholic Church, who are opposed to marriage equality, are one of the richest organizations in the world. They could easily drop millions into the "No" count without even feeling it. Under your system, this would be interpreted as the Church having a stronger opinion than me, even though I've put a higher proportion of my personal wealth towards it. Marriage Equality fails because of unequal distribution of wealth.

You only have $250 dollars? Chances are good that you have more money but you need it for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

So let's say that we used coasianism and you bid your $250. The Catholic Church does have a ton of money so we shouldn't be surprised if they won. Therefore... what? Therefore you'd be compensated. We know that your compensation would be greater than $250 dollars. But how much greater than $250 would it be?

Let's say that your compensation is $500 dollars. The next year, when coasianism was again used to decide the same issue, what would your WTP be? Would it still be $250 dollars? If so, then you obviously used the $500 dollars for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

Anybody who argues against coasianism is arguing against your freedom to decide for yourself what your priorities are. The fact is, I can never be in your shoes. Never, ever, ever. This means that I'm entirely unwilling to decide for you what your priorities should, or shouldn't, be. This is why I have to support coasianism.

Reboot your experiment, but give one student 500 pennies, one student zero pennies, randomly distribute amounts to the other 28 students, and then pick an issue that the zero penny child and the 500 penny child are both passionate about. See how it goes then.

Why should I reboot my experiment? You want to prove something then find a teacher and pitch your proposal. Demonstrate how wonderful wealth equality is. The kids in your class would bid on their preferred option... and then all the money spent on the winning option would be divided among the students to ensure wealth equality.

If you're going to allow spamming the same question time after time, anybody with non-zero starting funds can force through any motion they like, just by repeating ballots and chucking their full winnings from the previous round in every time until it succeeds.

[Lost heros]

But how much greater than $250 would it be?

Probably very little considering what Gallo just demonstrated. Face it. In your stupid system, not only do the rich control everything, they can do so without losing much money.

[The Two Jerseys]

Let's use a real world example. Here in Australia, there's a possibility in the near future that we'll have a plebiscite on marriage equality. This issue means a lot to me, and I'd like to see Australia have marriage equality; however, I have limited disposable income. Even though it is the political issue that I'm most passionate about, my WTP would be about $250, a ceiling imposed by my financial circumstances. The Catholic Church, who are opposed to marriage equality, are one of the richest organizations in the world. They could easily drop millions into the "No" count without even feeling it. Under your system, this would be interpreted as the Church having a stronger opinion than me, even though I've put a higher proportion of my personal wealth towards it. Marriage Equality fails because of unequal distribution of wealth.

You only have $250 dollars? Chances are good that you have more money but you need it for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

So let's say that we used coasianism and you bid your $250. The Catholic Church does have a ton of money so we shouldn't be surprised if they won. Therefore... what? Therefore you'd be compensated. We know that your compensation would be greater than $250 dollars. But how much greater than $250 would it be?

Let's say that your compensation is $500 dollars. The next year, when coasianism was again used to decide the same issue, what would your WTP be? Would it still be $250 dollars? If so, then you obviously used the $500 dollars for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

Anybody who argues against coasianism is arguing against your freedom to decide for yourself what your priorities are. The fact is, I can never be in your shoes. Never, ever, ever. This means that I'm entirely unwilling to decide for you what your priorities should, or shouldn't, be. This is why I have to support coasianism.

So now the smartest move for Dazchan is, in fact, to lose?

[Xerographica]

You only have $250 dollars? Chances are good that you have more money but you need it for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

So let's say that we used coasianism and you bid your $250. The Catholic Church does have a ton of money so we shouldn't be surprised if they won. Therefore... what? Therefore you'd be compensated. We know that your compensation would be greater than $250 dollars. But how much greater than $250 would it be?

Let's say that your compensation is $500 dollars. The next year, when coasianism was again used to decide the same issue, what would your WTP be? Would it still be $250 dollars? If so, then you obviously used the $500 dollars for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

Anybody who argues against coasianism is arguing against your freedom to decide for yourself what your priorities are. The fact is, I can never be in your shoes. Never, ever, ever. This means that I'm entirely unwilling to decide for you what your priorities should, or shouldn't, be. This is why I have to support coasianism.


Why should I reboot my experiment? You want to prove something then find a teacher and pitch your proposal. Demonstrate how wonderful wealth equality is. The kids in your class would bid on their preferred option... and then all the money spent on the winning option would be divided among the students to ensure wealth equality.

If you're going to allow spamming the same question time after time, anybody with non-zero starting funds can force through any motion they like, just by repeating ballots and chucking their full winnings from the previous round in every time until it succeeds.

The point you made was addressed in the post you replied to. Just because Dazchan receives $500 dollars of compensation... really doesn't mean that the next year she'd spend $750 dollars on the same issue. What you're failing to see/appreciate/understand/grasp/grok/realize is that she has other priorities in life.

Admittedly, it does sound a bit like saying that you have several BFFs. The point is that most people don't only care about one single thing in life. We have to eat, we have to pay rent, we have to pay tuition, we have to buy clothes, we have to pay for transportation... it's a long list.

If I oppose coasianism... it's the same thing as preventing Dazchan from receiving $500 dollars. Who am I to prevent her from receiving money? Who am I to prevent her from spending money? Who am I to prevent her from deciding what she does, or doesn't, spend her money on?

"Hey Dazchan, you can't spend that $250 on marriage equality. Instead, you have to spend it on your tuition and rent. Those things are bigger priorities."

Who am I? Her mom? Her dad? Her husband? Her wife? Her partner? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'd have to be a fucking idiot to try to regulate her life and decisions.

[Salandriagado]

If you're going to allow spamming the same question time after time, anybody with non-zero starting funds can force through any motion they like, just by repeating ballots and chucking their full winnings from the previous round in every time until it succeeds.

The point you made was addressed in the post you replied to. Just because Dazchan receives $500 dollars of compensation... really doesn't mean that the next year she'd spend $750 dollars on the same issue. What you're failing to see/appreciate/understand/grasp/grok/realize is that she has other priorities in life.

Admittedly, it does sound a bit like saying that you have several BFFs. The point is that most people don't only care about one single thing in life. We have to eat, we have to pay rent, we have to pay tuition, we have to buy clothes, we have to pay for transportation... it's a long list.

If I oppose coasianism... it's the same thing as preventing Dazchan from receiving $500 dollars. Who am I to prevent her from receiving money? Who am I to prevent her from spending money? Who am I to prevent her from deciding what she does, or doesn't, spend her money on?

"Hey Dazchan, you can't spend that $250 on marriage equality. Instead, you have to spend it on your tuition and rent. Those things are bigger priorities."

Who am I? Her mom? Her dad? Her husband? Her wife? Her partner? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'd have to be a fucking idiot to try to regulate her life and decisions.

No, I'm telling you that someone can horribly abuse your system to pass literally any law they want to pass from $1 (or whatever your minimum bid is) of starting cash, assuming there's a finite amount of money available to outbid them (if there's infinitely much money available to outbid them and people are willing to pay it, they can get infinite amounts of money for it). The reason people will do this is because they can get whatever laws they want passed essentially for free. This is not a matter of "having other priorities": this is something I'd do, just because I can. The initial investment is literally $1, in return for a payoff that is getting literally any law you want passed. To be specific: you don't need to prioritise things, because you can do whatever you like for $1 (by just passing a law that lets you do it).

[The Two Jerseys]

Well, since Xero loves quotes so much...

Oh baby don't it feel like heaven right now
Don't it feel like something from a dream
Yeah I've never known nothing quite like this
Don't it feel like tonight might never be again
We know better than to try and pretend
Baby no one could have ever told me 'bout this

The waiting is the hardest part
Every day you see one more card
You take it on faith, you take it to the heart
The waiting is the hardest part

Well yeah I might have chased a couple of women around
All it ever got me was down
Then there were those that made me feel good
But never as good as I feel right now
Baby you're the only one that's ever known how
To make me want to live like I want to live now

The waiting is the hardest part
Every day you see one more card
You take it on faith, you take it to the heart
The waiting is the hardest part

Don't let it kill you baby, don't let it get to you
Don't let 'em kill you baby, don't let 'em get to you
I'll be your breathing heart, I'll be your crying fool
Don't let this go to far, don't let it get to you

-Tom Petty, "The Waiting"

Now I know that it's like asking a Jew to eat shellfish, a Muslim to eat pork, and a Hindu to eat beef, but do you think you could actually answer the fucking question?

From my perspective, coasianism is for deciding whether prostitution, for example, should be illegal. If coasianism determines that it should be illegal... then you need a market (pragmatarianism) to allow taxpayers to decide whether funding the enforcement of this law is more valuable than the alternative uses of their tax dollars.

And exactly what method are people going to use to allocate tax dollars? Voting? Spending?

[Xerographica]

Well, since Xero loves quotes so much...

Oh baby don't it feel like heaven right now
Don't it feel like something from a dream
Yeah I've never known nothing quite like this
Don't it feel like tonight might never be again
We know better than to try and pretend
Baby no one could have ever told me 'bout this

The waiting is the hardest part
Every day you see one more card
You take it on faith, you take it to the heart
The waiting is the hardest part

Well yeah I might have chased a couple of women around
All it ever got me was down
Then there were those that made me feel good
But never as good as I feel right now
Baby you're the only one that's ever known how
To make me want to live like I want to live now

The waiting is the hardest part
Every day you see one more card
You take it on faith, you take it to the heart
The waiting is the hardest part

Don't let it kill you baby, don't let it get to you
Don't let 'em kill you baby, don't let 'em get to you
I'll be your breathing heart, I'll be your crying fool
Don't let this go to far, don't let it get to you

-Tom Petty, "The Waiting"

Now I know that it's like asking a Jew to eat shellfish, a Muslim to eat pork, and a Hindu to eat beef, but do you think you could actually answer the fucking question?

And exactly what method are people going to use to allocate tax dollars? Voting? Spending?

Pragmatarianism is where people can choose where their taxes go. If you thought it was important for prostitutes/johns to be arrested, thrown in jail, tried and sentenced... then you'd spend your tax dollars accordingly.

[Salandriagado]

Well, since Xero loves quotes so much...

Now I know that it's like asking a Jew to eat shellfish, a Muslim to eat pork, and a Hindu to eat beef, but do you think you could actually answer the fucking question?

Pragmatarianism is where people can choose where their taxes go. If you thought it was important for prostitutes/johns to be arrested, thrown in jail, tried and sentenced... then you'd spend your tax dollars accordingly.

And what exactly do you do when some department is ludicrously overfunded and has massive piles of cash they can't spend?

[The Two Jerseys]

Well, since Xero loves quotes so much...

Now I know that it's like asking a Jew to eat shellfish, a Muslim to eat pork, and a Hindu to eat beef, but do you think you could actually answer the fucking question?

Pragmatarianism is where people can choose where their taxes go. If you thought it was important for prostitutes/johns to be arrested, thrown in jail, tried and sentenced... then you'd spend your tax dollars accordingly.

Way to ignore the question entirely...

[Salandriagado]

Pragmatarianism is where people can choose where their taxes go. If you thought it was important for prostitutes/johns to be arrested, thrown in jail, tried and sentenced... then you'd spend your tax dollars accordingly.

Way to ignore the question entirely...

He has sort of answered it: he means a system in which each individual individually allocates their own individual taxes. It's a monumentally shit idea, but it is one that he's finally stated properly.

[The Two Jerseys]

Way to ignore the question entirely...

He has sort of answered it: he means a system in which each individual individually allocates their own individual taxes. It's a monumentally shit idea, but it is one that he's finally stated properly.

But he doesn't say how they allocate those taxes, whether it's by voting or by spending.

[Salandriagado]

He has sort of answered it: he means a system in which each individual individually allocates their own individual taxes. It's a monumentally shit idea, but it is one that he's finally stated properly.

But he doesn't say how they allocate those taxes, whether it's by voting or by spending.

Neither: there is only one person making the decision: any decision making process with exactly one voter is identical.

[The Two Jerseys]

But he doesn't say how they allocate those taxes, whether it's by voting or by spending.

Neither: there is only one person making the decision: any decision making process with exactly one voter is identical.

So how does auctioning quotes factor into things?

[Salandriagado]

Neither: there is only one person making the decision: any decision making process with exactly one voter is identical.

So how does auctioning quotes factor into things?

It doesn't in the slightest, that's a completely different terrible idea.

[The Two Jerseys]

So how does auctioning quotes factor into things?

It doesn't in the slightest, that's a completely different terrible idea.

This isn't an experiment. It's fucking Calvinball!

[Katganistan]

Your friend should be fired.

Nothing wrong with propaganda and using children to blindly follow your directives to try to score points from intelligent, mature people who've actually, you know, studied history and economics.

[Dazchan]

Let's use a real world example. Here in Australia, there's a possibility in the near future that we'll have a plebiscite on marriage equality. This issue means a lot to me, and I'd like to see Australia have marriage equality; however, I have limited disposable income. Even though it is the political issue that I'm most passionate about, my WTP would be about $250, a ceiling imposed by my financial circumstances. The Catholic Church, who are opposed to marriage equality, are one of the richest organizations in the world. They could easily drop millions into the "No" count without even feeling it. Under your system, this would be interpreted as the Church having a stronger opinion than me, even though I've put a higher proportion of my personal wealth towards it. Marriage Equality fails because of unequal distribution of wealth.

You only have $250 dollars? Chances are good that you have more money but you need it for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

$250 is the upper limit of what I can spend, based on my current financial circumstances. I mean, it's right there in the fucking post you quoted.

So let's say that we used coasianism and you bid your $250. The Catholic Church does have a ton of money so we shouldn't be surprised if they won. Therefore... what? Therefore you'd be compensated. We know that your compensation would be greater than $250 dollars. But how much greater than $250 would it be?

"You don't get civil rights and equality under the law, but here's a couple of bucks for your trouble"? Fuck that.

Let's say that your compensation is $500 dollars. The next year, when coasianism was again used to decide the same issue, what would your WTP be? Would it still be $250 dollars? If so, then you obviously used the $500 dollars for more important things (food, rent, clothes, tuition).

Oh, so now laws are only valid for twelve months and then my civil rights get auctioned off again? How utterly horrifying.

I doubt the ceiling imposed on my WTP by my financial circumstances would ever allow me to match the Catholic Church, no matter how many times the experiment is repeated.

Anybody who argues against coasianism is arguing against your freedom to decide for yourself what your priorities are. The fact is, I can never be in your shoes. Never, ever, ever. This means that I'm entirely unwilling to decide for you what your priorities should, or shouldn't, be. This is why I have to support coasianism.

And I will never experience the wealth needed to vote for something that is a priority for myself, faced with the opposition of a very wealthy organisation.

Reboot your experiment, but give one student 500 pennies, one student zero pennies, randomly distribute amounts to the other 28 students, and then pick an issue that the zero penny child and the 500 penny child are both passionate about. See how it goes then.

Why should I reboot my experiment?

To make it more realistic.

You want to prove something then find a teacher and pitch your proposal.

Teachers here have ethics and wouldn't allow their classes to be used and abused in this manner. I know, because I am a teacher. Indeed, I doubt any teacher, anywhere, would allow this. You seem to have found a very unprofessional teacher, or you're making it up. I neither know nor care.

I also wouldn't need to inflict your shitty ideology on a class to prove that it's unfeasible, because I demonstrated it in my prior post.

Demonstrate how wonderful wealth equality is.

If you honestly think I said that, then you need to reread my post.

The kids in your class would bid on their preferred option... and then all the money spent on the winning option would be divided among the students to ensure wealth equality.

If you honestly believe that, then what are you afraid of? Reboot your experiment with a more realistic wealth distribution, then see how it goes.

Who am I? Her mom? Her dad? Her husband? Her wife? Her partner? Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. I'd have to be a fucking idiot to try to regulate her life and decisions.

Apparently you're somebody who doesn't know me well enough to realise that I'm a male.