4th Grade Nation State

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Give me time to come up with a specific question I want to know about your specific system, and how to go about providing the results.

I'm not gonna rush it because it's an experiment plan, not a fucking videogame that you can just pop up on an XBOX and play it.

I mean, we already have a better experiment in the works I believe. "How does the influence of hedging affect the distributions of bids in Xero's system" which Gallo I think is performing.

Yep. Gallo is conducting one.

I really have been meaning to setup another experiment myself just to prove the exploitability of the system. But I'd need a bidding website and a lot of people willing to participate with no idea about what is going on.

[Xerographica]

You're arguing that Michelle is going to tell the kids what to spend their taxes on?

No, I'm arguing that none of the kids are going to attempt to exploit the system. And aren't going to use it to their benefit even though they easily could.

I guess you missed the part about Jacob mysteriously finding random pennies near his desk. This was before the students figured out that there wasn't actually a rule against them bringing pennies from home.

I guess you also missed the part where someone in this thread mentioned something about the students giving their taxes to their departments and their friend's departments...

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.

[Lost heros]

No, I'm arguing that none of the kids are going to attempt to exploit the system. And aren't going to use it to their benefit even though they easily could.

I guess you missed the part about Jacob mysteriously finding random pennies near his desk. This was before the students figured out that there wasn't actually a rule against them bringing pennies from home.

I guess you also missed the part where someone in this thread mentioned something about the students giving their taxes to their departments and their friend's departments...

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.

Bringing in money from home isn't exploiting the system. It's just putting more money in to it.

You do realize that was me right. I was pointing out that the kids COULD do that, but it's highly unlikely that they will because you know. They're fourth graders.

[Xerographica]

I guess you missed the part about Jacob mysteriously finding random pennies near his desk. This was before the students figured out that there wasn't actually a rule against them bringing pennies from home.

I guess you also missed the part where someone in this thread mentioned something about the students giving their taxes to their departments and their friend's departments...

Bringing in money from home isn't exploiting the system. It's just putting more money in to it.

You do realize that was me right. I was pointing out that the kids COULD do that, but it's highly unlikely that they will because you know. They're fourth graders.

Of course I realize that it was you. It says your name right on the quote.

Kids aren't adults, but I'm guessing that kids can figure out whether they are benefiting from how their money is being spent by other kids. If Jacob gives his taxes to Brianna, who is in charge of the gardening department, and she goes out and spends his money on candy for herself, then I'm guessing that Jacob won't be very happy about how she's spending his money. Then what does he do?

Of course I'm assuming that Jacob will be interested in figuring out and keeping track of how Brianna is spending his money. Is this a stupid assumption?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Bringing in money from home isn't exploiting the system. It's just putting more money in to it.

You do realize that was me right. I was pointing out that the kids COULD do that, but it's highly unlikely that they will because you know. They're fourth graders.

Of course I realize that it was you. It says your name right on the quote.

Kids aren't adults, but I'm guessing that kids can figure out whether they are benefiting from how their money is being spent by other kids. If Jacob gives his taxes to Brianna, who is in charge of the gardening department, and she goes out and spends his money on candy for herself, then I'm guessing that Jacob won't be very happy about how she's spending his money. Then what does he do?

Of course I'm assuming that Jacob will be interested in figuring out and keeping track of how Brianna is spending his money. Is this a stupid assumption?

I'd say it is because kids do not understand the full value of a dollar, or a penny yet.

When I was that age (4th grade) I didn't know how hard it actually was to earn a dollar. Now I do.

[Lost heros]

Bringing in money from home isn't exploiting the system. It's just putting more money in to it.

You do realize that was me right. I was pointing out that the kids COULD do that, but it's highly unlikely that they will because you know. They're fourth graders.

Of course I realize that it was you. It says your name right on the quote.

Kids aren't adults, but I'm guessing that kids can figure out whether they are benefiting from how their money is being spent by other kids. If Jacob gives his taxes to Brianna, who is in charge of the gardening department, and she goes out and spends his money on candy for herself, then I'm guessing that Jacob won't be very happy about how she's spending his money. Then what does he do?

Of course I'm assuming that Jacob will be interested in figuring out and keeping track of how Brianna is spending his money. Is this a stupid assumption?

Yes.

[Xerographica]

Getting back to the topic of being able to derive/find meaning in real world (messy/informal) experiments... this is relevant... Why the Industrial Revolution didn’t happen in China.

China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom, owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers. They are remarkable, too, in the excellence of their apparatus for impressing, as far as possible, the best wisdom they possess upon every mind in the community, and securing that those who have appropriated most of it shall occupy the posts of honour and power. Surely the people who did this have discovered the secret of human progressiveness, and must have kept themselves steadily at the head of the movement of the world. On the contrary, they have become stationary—have remained so for thousands of years; and if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners. They have succeeded beyond all hope in what English philanthropists are so industriously working at—in making a people all alike, all governing their thoughts and conduct by the same maxims and rules; and these are the fruits. The modern régime of public opinion is, in an unorganized form, what the Chinese educational and political systems are in an organized; and unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its professed Christianity, will tend to become another China. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty

Apart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted. - Mao Zedong

[Lost heros]

Getting back to the topic of being able to derive/find meaning in real world (messy/informal) experiments... this is relevant... Why the Industrial Revolution didn’t happen in China.

China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom, owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers. They are remarkable, too, in the excellence of their apparatus for impressing, as far as possible, the best wisdom they possess upon every mind in the community, and securing that those who have appropriated most of it shall occupy the posts of honour and power. Surely the people who did this have discovered the secret of human progressiveness, and must have kept themselves steadily at the head of the movement of the world. On the contrary, they have become stationary—have remained so for thousands of years; and if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners. They have succeeded beyond all hope in what English philanthropists are so industriously working at—in making a people all alike, all governing their thoughts and conduct by the same maxims and rules; and these are the fruits. The modern régime of public opinion is, in an unorganized form, what the Chinese educational and political systems are in an organized; and unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its professed Christianity, will tend to become another China. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty

Apart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted. - Mao Zedong

Surely you are going to explain how.

[Camicon]

Getting back to the topic of being able to derive/find meaning in real world (messy/informal) experiments... this is relevant... Why the Industrial Revolution didn’t happen in China.

China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom, owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers. They are remarkable, too, in the excellence of their apparatus for impressing, as far as possible, the best wisdom they possess upon every mind in the community, and securing that those who have appropriated most of it shall occupy the posts of honour and power. Surely the people who did this have discovered the secret of human progressiveness, and must have kept themselves steadily at the head of the movement of the world. On the contrary, they have become stationary—have remained so for thousands of years; and if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners. They have succeeded beyond all hope in what English philanthropists are so industriously working at—in making a people all alike, all governing their thoughts and conduct by the same maxims and rules; and these are the fruits. The modern régime of public opinion is, in an unorganized form, what the Chinese educational and political systems are in an organized; and unless individuality shall be able successfully to assert itself against this yoke, Europe, notwithstanding its noble antecedents and its professed Christianity, will tend to become another China. - J.S. Mill, On Liberty

Apart from their other characteristics, the outstanding thing about China's 600 million people is that they are "poor and blank". This may seem a bad thing, but in reality it is a good thing. Poverty gives rise to the desire for changes the desire for action and the desire for revolution. On a blank sheet of paper free from any mark, the freshest and most beautiful characters can be written; the freshest and most beautiful pictures can be painted. - Mao Zedong

Holy fuck, the shade in those quotes. J.S. Mill had some issues.

"China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom..." Oh my, so kind of Mill to grant them that acknowledgement, I'm sure Chinese people will appreciate it. [/sarc]

"... owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers." Because dead white dudes from Europe are the be all end of of wisdom and philosophy, clearly. [/sarc]

"... if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners." Because they are clearly incapable of doing anything for themselves. [/sarc]

[Xerographica]

Getting back to the topic of being able to derive/find meaning in real world (messy/informal) experiments... this is relevant... Why the Industrial Revolution didn’t happen in China.

Holy fuck, the shade in those quotes. J.S. Mill had some issues.

"China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom..." Oh my, so kind of Mill to grant them that acknowledgement, I'm sure Chinese people will appreciate it. [/sarc]

"... owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers." Because dead white dudes from Europe are the be all end of of wisdom and philosophy, clearly. [/sarc]

"... if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners." Because they are clearly incapable of doing anything for themselves. [/sarc]

It's pretty amazing that you attacked the man largely credited for founding liberalism rather than attack the man responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people. All those people died because Mao Zedong didn't read/believe/understand Mill. It was only in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping started to open up China to foreigners, that millions were lifted out of poverty. My classroom experiment is based on the concept/idea that trade is mutually beneficial. Because, clearly quite a few people still haven't gotten the memo.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Holy fuck, the shade in those quotes. J.S. Mill had some issues.

"China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom..." Oh my, so kind of Mill to grant them that acknowledgement, I'm sure Chinese people will appreciate it. [/sarc]

"... owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers." Because dead white dudes from Europe are the be all end of of wisdom and philosophy, clearly. [/sarc]

"... if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners." Because they are clearly incapable of doing anything for themselves. [/sarc]

It's pretty amazing that you attacked the man largely credited for founding liberalism rather than attack the man responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people. All those people died because Mao Zedong didn't read/believe/understand Mill. It was only in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping started to open up China to foreigners, that millions were lifted out of poverty. My classroom experiment is based on the concept/idea that trade is mutually beneficial. Because, clearly quite a few people still haven't gotten the memo.

The problem here is that this is a strawman.

None of your critics has ever said that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

[Camicon]

Holy fuck, the shade in those quotes. J.S. Mill had some issues.

"China—a nation of much talent, and, in some respects, even wisdom..." Oh my, so kind of Mill to grant them that acknowledgement, I'm sure Chinese people will appreciate it. [/sarc]

"... owing to the rare good fortune of having been provided at an early period with a particularly good set of customs, the work, in some measure, of men to whom even the most enlightened European must accord, under certain limitations, the title of sages and philosophers." Because dead white dudes from Europe are the be all end of of wisdom and philosophy, clearly. [/sarc]

"... if they are ever to be farther improved, it must be by foreigners." Because they are clearly incapable of doing anything for themselves. [/sarc]

It's pretty amazing that you attacked the man largely credited for founding liberalism rather than attack the man responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people. All those people died because Mao Zedong didn't read/believe/understand Mill. It was only in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping started to open up China to foreigners, that millions were lifted out of poverty. My classroom experiment is based on the concept/idea that trade is mutually beneficial. Because, clearly quite a few people still haven't gotten the memo.

I attacked the quotes you put in this thread without any explanation. One is explicitly racist; the other is explaining how poor and uneducated people make for more better revolutions.

But nobody here is arguing that trade can't be mutually beneficial. We're arguing that your system sucks a big ol' pair of donkey balls because it is ridiculously easy for a few folks to manipulate it, cutting out the 99% of people that aren't stupidly wealthy, basically turning the state into an enforcement mechanism for whatever the rich want.

[Xerographica]

It's pretty amazing that you attacked the man largely credited for founding liberalism rather than attack the man responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of people. All those people died because Mao Zedong didn't read/believe/understand Mill. It was only in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping started to open up China to foreigners, that millions were lifted out of poverty. My classroom experiment is based on the concept/idea that trade is mutually beneficial. Because, clearly quite a few people still haven't gotten the memo.

The problem here is that this is a strawman.

None of your critics has ever said that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Pragmatarianism/coasianism = trade. If you argue that pragmatarianism/coasianism aren't mutually beneficial... then you're arguing that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

[The Two Jerseys]

The problem here is that this is a strawman.

None of your critics has ever said that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Pragmatarianism/coasianism = trade. If you argue that pragmatarianism/coasianism aren't mutually beneficial... then you're arguing that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Not all forms of trade are mutually beneficial.

Yours is one of those.

[Galloism]

The problem here is that this is a strawman.

None of your critics has ever said that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Pragmatarianism/coasianism = trade.

Maybe - if roulette is trade.

If you argue that pragmatarianism/coasianism aren't mutually beneficial... then you're arguing that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Crashing into a mountain isn't beneficial, therefore planes aren't beneficial.

That's what you just said.

[Xerographica]

Pragmatarianism/coasianism = trade. If you argue that pragmatarianism/coasianism aren't mutually beneficial... then you're arguing that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Not all forms of trade are mutually beneficial.

Yours is one of those.

Why aren't coasianism/pragmatarianism mutually beneficial forms of trade? Because some people have more money than other people? Therefore... trade is only mutually beneficial when people have the same amount of money?

[Lost heros]

The problem here is that this is a strawman.

None of your critics has ever said that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Pragmatarianism/coasianism = trade. If you argue that pragmatarianism/coasianism aren't mutually beneficial... then you're arguing that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

I'm sorry but how is gambling instead of voting and selective tax allocation the exchange of goods and services.

[The Two Jerseys]

Not all forms of trade are mutually beneficial.

Yours is one of those.

Why aren't coasianism/pragmatarianism mutually beneficial forms of trade? Because some people have more money than other people? Therefore... trade is only mutually beneficial when people have the same amount of money?

Why isn't selling heroin a mutually beneficial form of trade?

Does this really need to be explained to you?

[Galloism]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)



However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem here is that this is a strawman.

None of your critics has ever said that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

Pragmatarianism/coasianism = trade. If you argue that pragmatarianism/coasianism aren't mutually beneficial... then you're arguing that trade isn't mutually beneficial.

No, trade is beneficial. For instance, I just went and spent 14 dollars on snacks and drinks for the day to keep hydrated and nourished. I am using fiat currency to trade for something I value -- in this case, food. Because I value food, I will pay 14 dollars for 2 sodas, a box of Oreo cookies, and a big Gatorade drink. The store I went to knows that I will pay 14 dollars because it is convenient for me to travel down the corner for those items instead of driving 15 minutes down to Wal-Mart for cheaper prices.

Could I have gotten other kinds of cookies and drinks? Sure I could have, but those are what I wanted. If I really wanted to not starve and was on "I could eat anything and I wouldn't care how horrible it tastes as long as it is nutritive" mode, I'd spend about 5 dollars on a cheap meal -- a bowl of ramen and a cheap, sugary drink with more sugar flavor than flavored drink flavor.

Now, in case you want to argue my willingness to pay 14 dollars no, I'm not exactly willing to pay 14 dollars for all of it. But again, they are higher quality foodstuffs than some cheap litre of Brisk and a cheap honey bun/ramen bowl, and I can afford them at the same rate I would a cheap drink and a cheap piece of bread based on my income, so I buy them.

If something was to happen to my income I'd have to budgetize in order to buy the cheaper foodstuffs because I wouldn't be able to afford what I can afford right now. Really basic principle of Microeconomics, people are willing to pay as much as they feel is the maximum return of benefits of their dollars. I feel a Gatorade, two sodas, and a box of Oreos meet my demand for stuff, and is the maximum return of benefits for my dollars on foodstuffs at that store for me, so I tend to purchase those foodstuffs at the price given because it is at a convenient distance from my house and it has good quality foodstuffs relative to anywhere else nearby that I really like.

Your idea of pragmatarianism/coasianism implies that the maximum return of benefits for my dollars is giving it away to people to get social policies passed along. However, I am not a perfect player of your system, and I can decide anytime I want that voting for bad policy which I know it won't pass with my dollars and receiving the money of the losers is the maximum benefit for my dollars rather than passing social policy. Because money's power in this system, so by losing a lot of social policy rounds I am making money and bidding my time in order to exploit the system either via hedging, or via speculation.

[Lost heros]

Not all forms of trade are mutually beneficial.

Yours is one of those.

Why aren't coasianism/pragmatarianism mutually beneficial forms of trade? Because some people have more money than other people? Therefore... trade is only mutually beneficial when people have the same amount of money?

Well, I'd say trade is only mutually beneficial if each party gets the same value out of it. If I want a rooster, and you want a hen and we trade, we probably got the similar if not the same value from the trade. The same goes with using money as a medium for trade. If I want a rooster and you want a cow but I only have hens even though you have roosters, you can sell me your rooster, use that money to buy a cow, in which the value of your rooster was put towards the cow even though roosters and cows aren't the same value probably.

In your system, which really isn't trade, a rich person can decide with a low WTP and give someone else a relatively small amount of money which is not worth the trade.

[Lost heros]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)

(Image)

However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

Are the results visible to the class? Because I wouldn't be surprised that the next bidding will see a lot more hedging.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why aren't coasianism/pragmatarianism mutually beneficial forms of trade? Because some people have more money than other people? Therefore... trade is only mutually beneficial when people have the same amount of money?

Why isn't selling heroin a mutually beneficial form of trade?

Does this really need to be explained to you?

Okay, this is a bit conflated over here, so I will expand for people who are going to come and say "because it is not healthy!"

The fact that it is heroin and not, say, marihuana or alcohol has really nothing to do with how beneficial a form of trade is.

Trading is only beneficial when you get the maximum return of your money in a product. Otherwise it is not beneficial.

Now, a good argument that heroin is not a mutually beneficial form of trade would be that because heroin creates an addiction to it, it creates an inelastic demand for the product because druggies have to have heroin, and therefore create a market/trading deficiency or even a partial market failure because the industry fails to allocate resources properly because they depend on fucking druggies for their demand, and therefore they have an issue of market development. Which is something that is discussed at length in microeconomics about inelastic demand and market failures.

One could say inelastic demand IS a type of market/trading failure if, and only if, the trading is not remotely equal, or either the supply or demand are inelastic, which puts either the supplier or the costumer at the mercy of the market. Heroin has an inelastic demand so you have a problem of supply-side price command, in a sense, because the supplier can alter the price whichever way they want for maximum profit.

[Galloism]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)

(Image)

However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

Are the results visible to the class? Because I wouldn't be surprised that the next bidding will see a lot more hedging.

Results, yes. Reasonings, no.

I was just trying to collate the information into a single image for nationstates so I added in the reasonings column based on the reasonings submitted by the students (to make it easier on you guys).

[The Two Jerseys]

Ok, so here's the result from the very first attempt by the morning psychology class - sort of unexpected for me, but most of the students went by Xero's "rules" so to speak, and bid for what they really wanted, with a couple of outliers. I had to crop this down a bit to fit within Nationstates screen size (you'll note the total and reasoning columns are a little mashed - sorry about that. Otherwise it wouldn't fit and still be readable.)

(Image)

However, in line with expectations, the professor's hedging strategy made him the big winner.


Relevant information: at the time class was held, it was 77 degrees with a wind variable at 3 knots (IE, a light breeze), and clear skies.



Edit: Also, it wasn't my idea, but there's a third class that will be voting on the same decisions. I'll provide a basic summary of those decisions with vote totals. Professor wants to measure the psychological effects when voting is used compared with gambling, to see if one of or the other results in more psychological satisfaction/distress.

LOL, 75% of the people who bid on "stay inside" did so for profit.

And Gallo, you should ask Mr. Allergy if $0.84 is enough compensation for him feeling like shit now...