4th Grade Nation State

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what has happened, we're talking about what your system enables and encourages. Just because one grade 4 student isn't ultra-rich and hasn't figured out how to game the system does not mean it wouldn't happen when applied to a larger or more educated population.

The fact that multiple posters here have figured out how to game the system is evidence enough that someone with the means to do so would figure it out as well. It's an inevitability.

How do you account for it?

And need we point out again that when Gallo actually tried it with a group of adults, they immediately realized that the system could be played?

Not to mention, if there are no worker protections in place, businesses can rig the system in their favor without going to such lengths like hedging the system.

This is especially concerning when it comes to towns built around one single factory business like when the era of cars appeared. The factory owner now holds more voting power than the entire people in the town if he or she decides to suppress wages so that even if the town itself unites against them, the town people cannot do anything combined to change the bidding to their favor.

And in Xero's system, even if there are no trust coalitions, the incentive to suppress wages is ridiculously high.

[Camicon]

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what has happened, we're talking about what your system enables and encourages. Just because one grade 4 student isn't ultra-rich and hasn't figured out how to game the system does not mean it wouldn't happen when applied to a larger or more educated population.

The fact that multiple posters here have figured out how to game the system is evidence enough that someone with the means to do so would figure it out as well. It's an inevitability.

How do you account for it?

And need we point out again that when Gallo actually tried it with a group of adults, they immediately realized that the system could be played?

Yes, this bears repeating. When Xeno's system was muddled over in a setting far more akin to the real-world than a grade 4 classroom, it took no time whatsoever for those individuals to figure out how to irreparably break it. And let's not pretend it was the only way to break it.

[The Two Jerseys]

And need we point out again that when Gallo actually tried it with a group of adults, they immediately realized that the system could be played?

Not to mention, if there are no worker protections in place, businesses can rig the system in their favor without going to such lengths like hedging the system.

This is especially concerning when it comes to towns built around one single factory business like when the era of cars appeared. The factory owner now holds more voting power than the entire people in the town if he or she decides to suppress wages so that even if the town itself unites against them, the town people cannot do anything combined to change the bidding to their favor.

And in Xero's system, even if there are no trust coalitions, the incentive to suppress wages is ridiculously high.

And if the company really wants to be a bunch of assholes, they can just spend their money on a law to seize money from anyone not on The List^TM and redistribute it to the people on The List^TM.

Game over for the Little Guy, because they can't even vote now.

[Xerographica]

Michelle's class has used coasianism 3 times. How many times has there been tyranny of the minority?

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what has happened, we're talking about what your system enables and encourages. Just because one grade 4 student isn't ultra-rich and hasn't figured out how to game the system does not mean it wouldn't happen when applied to a larger or more educated population.

The fact that multiple posters here have figured out how to game the system is evidence enough that someone with the means to do so would figure it out as well. It's an inevitability.

How do you account for it?

Their gaming the system (hedging) negates your claim of ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. How do you account for it?

[Lost heros]

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what has happened, we're talking about what your system enables and encourages. Just because one grade 4 student isn't ultra-rich and hasn't figured out how to game the system does not mean it wouldn't happen when applied to a larger or more educated population.

The fact that multiple posters here have figured out how to game the system is evidence enough that someone with the means to do so would figure it out as well. It's an inevitability.

How do you account for it?

Their gaming the system (hedging) negates your claim of ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. How do you account for it?

Hedging fucking facilitates ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. My lord.

[Xerographica]

Their gaming the system (hedging) negates your claim of ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. How do you account for it?

Hedging fucking facilitates ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. My lord.

Tyranny of the minority is where the minority gets its way. Hedging, at least in the "gaming" sense, is when you spend your money on both sides. If you spend money on both sides then it logically means that you're not trying to get your way.

[Camicon]

Irrelevant. We're not talking about what has happened, we're talking about what your system enables and encourages. Just because one grade 4 student isn't ultra-rich and hasn't figured out how to game the system does not mean it wouldn't happen when applied to a larger or more educated population.

The fact that multiple posters here have figured out how to game the system is evidence enough that someone with the means to do so would figure it out as well. It's an inevitability.

How do you account for it?

Their gaming the system (hedging) negates your claim of ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. How do you account for it?

Gaming the system is exactly how you end up in a tyranny of the minority. How the flying fuck do you not understand that?

Hedging fucking facilitates ultra-rich's tyranny of the minority. My lord.

Tyranny of the minority is where the minority gets its way. Hedging, at least in the "gaming" sense, is when you spend your money on both sides. If you spend money on both sides then it logically means that you're not trying to get your way.

Read through this:

With hedging by the wealthy, the wealthy can afford to bid HIGHER than their WTP, win the vote, and have LOW losses.
For example, let's say John, a multi-billionaire, Steve, and Jessica, who are average people, use your system to decide where to go to dinner. John wants to go to Chipotle, but Steve and Jessica want to go to Moe's. They all value their restaurant at $10. So Steve and Jessica bid $10 on Moe's. John bids $1,000,000,000 on Chipotle and $999,999,075 (The difference being just over double his adversaries WTP [double because 2 people are bidding against him]) on Moe's. Chipotle wins. Steve and Jessica get paid $10.0 each (1,000,000,000/999,999,095 * 10,) and John keeps the rest because he has more and thus more influence only has to pay $20 to win and can also ensure that the others will never get to his level.

Not only that, but because of hedging people will not bid their WTP. I know that the above scenario wasn't entirely realistic, but it shows something important. Because of hedging, John bets on the other side, where he is not willing to pay while on his side he bets A LOT more than what he is actually willing to pay, but the point remains the same. The TRUE WTP for the above decision was $10 (arguably $20) for Chipotle and $20 for Moe's, but that doesn't match up with the true bidded amount because John can win easily if he hedges absurdly high because he can and still pay out roughly around his true WTP.

Get it?

Now answer the question: how do you account for a tyranny of the minority in your system? How is it less harmful than a system that does not allow a tyranny of the minority?

[Xerographica]

With hedging by the wealthy, the wealthy can afford to bid HIGHER than their WTP, win the vote, and have LOW losses.
For example, let's say John, a multi-billionaire, Steve, and Jessica, who are average people, use your system to decide where to go to dinner. John wants to go to Chipotle, but Steve and Jessica want to go to Moe's. They all value their restaurant at $10. So Steve and Jessica bid $10 on Moe's. John bids $1,000,000,000 on Chipotle and $999,999,075 (The difference being just over double his adversaries WTP [double because 2 people are bidding against him]) on Moe's. Chipotle wins. Steve and Jessica get paid $10.0 each (1,000,000,000/999,999,095 * 10,) and John keeps the rest because he has more and thus more influence only has to pay $20 to win and can also ensure that the others will never get to his level.

Now answer the question: how do you account for a tyranny of the minority in your system? How is it less harmful than a system that does not allow a tyranny of the minority?

John paid Steve and Jessica $10 dollars each to eat at Chipotle. Sorry but I really don't see this as tyranny of the minority. John paid Steve and Jessica their asking price. I see it as a fair and reasonable trade. I see absolutely nothing tyrannical about this scenario.

[Lost heros]

Now answer the question: how do you account for a tyranny of the minority in your system? How is it less harmful than a system that does not allow a tyranny of the minority?

John paid Steve and Jessica $10 dollars each to eat at Chipotle. Sorry but I really don't see this as tyranny of the minority. John paid Steve and Jessica their asking price. I see it as a fair and reasonable trade. I see absolutely nothing tyrannical about this scenario.

Except that Steve and Jessica never have a say in anything because the $10 they were paid pales in comparison to the amount of money John can put up. Your system tries to prevent this by giving all the winners money to the losers and decreasing the gap between the two, but the majority of the money put up by the wealthy winning hedgers is given back to the wealthy.

The relative few have excessively more power than the vast majority. It is tyranny of the minority.

[Xerographica]

John paid Steve and Jessica $10 dollars each to eat at Chipotle. Sorry but I really don't see this as tyranny of the minority. John paid Steve and Jessica their asking price. I see it as a fair and reasonable trade. I see absolutely nothing tyrannical about this scenario.

Except that Steve and Jessica never have a say in anything because the $10 they were paid pales in comparison to the amount of money John can put up. Your system tries to prevent this by giving all the winners money to the losers and decreasing the gap between the two, but the majority of the money put up by the wealthy winning hedgers is given back to the wealthy.

The relative few have excessively more power than the vast majority. It is tyranny of the minority.

It's fundamentally absurd to believe that the wealthy will always be on the same side on every issue.

[Camicon]

Except that Steve and Jessica never have a say in anything because the $10 they were paid pales in comparison to the amount of money John can put up. Your system tries to prevent this by giving all the winners money to the losers and decreasing the gap between the two, but the majority of the money put up by the wealthy winning hedgers is given back to the wealthy.

The relative few have excessively more power than the vast majority. It is tyranny of the minority.

It's fundamentally absurd to believe that the wealthy will always be on the same side on every issue.

Answer the questions.

[Lost heros]

Except that Steve and Jessica never have a say in anything because the $10 they were paid pales in comparison to the amount of money John can put up. Your system tries to prevent this by giving all the winners money to the losers and decreasing the gap between the two, but the majority of the money put up by the wealthy winning hedgers is given back to the wealthy.

The relative few have excessively more power than the vast majority. It is tyranny of the minority.

It's fundamentally absurd to believe that the wealthy will always be on the same side on every issue.

Maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the same side of what should income tax rate be, minimum wage laws whether or not corporations are people etc etc.

[Xerographica]

It's fundamentally absurd to believe that the wealthy will always be on the same side on every issue.

Maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the same side of what should income tax rate be, minimum wage laws whether or not corporations are people etc etc.

California 2012 tax increase proposal donations...

Support: $67,100,000
Oppose: $53,400,000

Clearly the wealthy weren't on the same side of this issue.

[Camicon]

Maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the same side of what should income tax rate be, minimum wage laws whether or not corporations are people etc etc.

California 2012 tax increase proposal donations...

Support: $67,100,000
Oppose: $53,400,000

Clearly the wealthy weren't on the same side of this issue.

Answer the questions.

[Lost heros]

Maybe not. But I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the same side of what should income tax rate be, minimum wage laws whether or not corporations are people etc etc.

California 2012 tax increase proposal donations...

Support: $67,100,000
Oppose: $53,400,000

Clearly the wealthy weren't on the same side of this issue.

"Some of these donors gave their money to a committee that was simultaneously supporting or opposing more than one of the ballot propositions on the November 6, 2012, ballot. "

Reading is hard.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Xero, I hope you understand that by saying it is absurd for the wealthy to be on the same side on every issue and dismissing the objections of different income strata and how they affect your system you are, in fact, admitting that you really don't care about the poor people's votes and you'd be fine if your system devolves into an aristocracy/oligarchy if it means your system works as intended.

[Xerographica]

Yesterday the class used coasianism for the fourth time. They used it to choose which student should be in charge of their Gardening Department...

My valuation was $1.50 for Brianna. It was the very last valuation that Michelle wrote on the board. She called me during her lunch break and said that, when the kids saw my valuation, they all gasped/screamed... "Oh no!!!" At first they were disappointed that their preferred candidate didn't win but then Adrian jumped up, spun around and exclaimed, "We get compensation! We're going to get money!!" The rest of the class cheered up at the prospect of being compensated.

However, because there were so many options, the compensation was somewhat less than their valuations.

It was also the first time that the largest group didn't win. In this case, the smallest group won. Was it tyranny of the minority? In the previous trades that I participated in... I was in the largest group. This time I was in the smallest group. Of course, obviously before each trade I really don't know how large or small my group is going to be.

So is this an example of tyranny of the minority? Like I've previously argued, I really don't think it's tyrannical. It's just a straightforward group trade. Three of us got our preferred option and the rest of the class got our money. The groups were different this time and chances are extremely good that they'll be different next time.

We can't help but think in terms of "fixed" teams/sides... Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians. Coasianism and pragmatarianism will destroy the concept of fixed teams. The idea of Us vs Them will be thrown under the bus. Instead of fixed teams... there will be fluid teams.

On either Monday or Tuesday, Michelle auctioned off 5 quotes in a row. I think the average winning bid was around 50 cents. As I've previously mentioned, the winners will be able to decide which departments they give their money to. It makes sense that kids who come from families with more money are going to end up winning more quotes and paying more taxes. This will provide them with more influence in the public sector. But in theory, since they will be spending their taxes on public goods (collective goods), the entire class will be able to benefit from a greater abundance of public goods.

One of the intellectual parents of my ideal government is the economist James Buchanan. Recently I stumbled on this interview he gave in 2001...

Part 1

10: benefit principle
18: game theory
27: econometric nonsense
28: experimental economics
29: Knut Wicksell
59: minimum vs productive state

Part 2

30: Friedrich Nietzsche, inside house looking outside through different windows
39: value of prizes
54: Mormons
56?: no children, motivation for promoting liberty

[Camicon]

*snip
Was it tyranny of the minority?

Yes.

In the previous trades that I participated in... I was in the largest group. This time I was in the smallest group. Of course, obviously before each trade I really don't know how large or small my group is going to be.

So is this an example of tyranny of the minority?

Again, yes.

Like I've previously argued, I really don't think it's tyrannical.
*snip*

Well you're really wrong, and it's been explained at length why you are wrong.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Xero, you really are bad at definitions, don't you?

Tyranny by minority is not called such because it has to be tyrannical.

[Galloism]

Xero, I hope you understand that by saying it is absurd for the wealthy to be on the same side on every issue and dismissing the objections of different income strata and how they affect your system you are, in fact, admitting that you really don't care about the poor people's votes and you'd be fine if your system devolves into an aristocracy/oligarchy if it means your system works as intended.

What do you mean 'if'? That would mean it is working as intended.

Xero is flat out on record saying the wealthy are more rational than the poor or middle class and deserve more power for the good of society.

[The Two Jerseys]

Wait, Xero himself bid $1.50 on the winner?

[Salandriagado]

Wait, Xero himself bid $1.50 on the winner?

Yes. He's been doing so throughout, distorting the results for no obvious reason.

[Lost heros]

Yesterday the class used coasianism for the fourth time. They used it to choose which student should be in charge of their Gardening Department...

(Image)

My valuation was $1.50 for Brianna. It was the very last valuation that Michelle wrote on the board. She called me during her lunch break and said that, when the kids saw my valuation, they all gasped/screamed... "Oh no!!!" At first they were disappointed that their preferred candidate didn't win but then Adrian jumped up, spun around and exclaimed, "We get compensation! We're going to get money!!" The rest of the class cheered up at the prospect of being compensated.

At this point I would like to remind everyone that this is the head of the IRS, who the class "determined" was the most mathematically capable, jumping up, spinning around, at the prospect of getting paid less than 75% of his valuation because some guy but 5x more than the second highest bid.

Edit: I would also like to remind everyone that if Xero hedged his bets, the kids would be paid even less.

However, because there were so many options, the compensation was somewhat less than their valuations.

It was also the first time that the largest group didn't win. In this case, the smallest group won. Was it tyranny of the minority? In the previous trades that I participated in... I was in the largest group. This time I was in the smallest group. Of course, obviously before each trade I really don't know how large or small my group is going to be.

Yes.

So is this an example of tyranny of the minority? Like I've previously argued, I really don't think it's tyrannical. It's just a straightforward group trade. Three of us got our preferred option and the rest of the class got our money. The groups were different this time and chances are extremely good that they'll be different next time.

A significantly small group of people were able to completely control the outcome of an election because they could spend waaaaaaaaaay more than everyone else.

We can't help but think in terms of "fixed" teams/sides... Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians. Coasianism and pragmatarianism will destroy the concept of fixed teams. The idea of Us vs Them will be thrown under the bus. Instead of fixed teams... there will be fluid teams.

Sure there will be. They might not be called democrats, republicans, but there are still going to be a group of people with common interests campaigning for issues together.

On either Monday or Tuesday, Michelle auctioned off 5 quotes in a row. I think the average winning bid was around 50 cents. As I've previously mentioned, the winners will be able to decide which departments they give their money to. It makes sense that kids who come from families with more money are going to end up winning more quotes and paying more taxes. This will provide them with more influence in the public sector. But in theory, since they will be spending their taxes on public goods (collective goods), the entire class will be able to benefit from a greater abundance of public goods.

Or, y'know, they'll give the money to the departments they're in charge of and their friends are in charge of and will spend that money on their salaries.

[The Two Jerseys]

Wait, Xero himself bid $1.50 on the winner?

Yes. He's been doing so throughout, distorting the results for no obvious reason.

Yeah, this entire experiment is such a sham that it isn't even funny anymore...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Xero, I hope you understand that by saying it is absurd for the wealthy to be on the same side on every issue and dismissing the objections of different income strata and how they affect your system you are, in fact, admitting that you really don't care about the poor people's votes and you'd be fine if your system devolves into an aristocracy/oligarchy if it means your system works as intended.

What do you mean 'if'? That would mean it is working as intended.

Xero is flat out on record saying the wealthy are more rational than the poor or middle class and deserve more power for the good of society.

Oh, well, now there's a new issue.

Instead of whether or not this will prove people's true valuations I have to ask myself if what he really wants is a system where oligarchs can rule at their will.

As one would say, now this seems to have ulterior motives.