The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Xerographica]

Here's the thing though:
Suppose I really love Oldboy. I want the money I give to Netflix to reflect my preferences, so I put everything in my budget on that film to show the magnitude of my approval.

I've just wasted all my money. Because there just aren't enough people who love incest-themed vengeance movies to fuel the genre.

Whereas if I had felt free to express my opinions without sacrifice via a star system, Netflix would see that in addition to my fanatical love for incest-themed vengeance movies, I also like nature documentaries and Stranger Things. And those are things that have broader appeal. So they would know they would have me as a potential audience if they pursued that kind of content. Giving them more information then under your system.

I'm going to give all my Netflix money to Thirteen Women, because I think Peg Entwistle is a great actress and I want them to give me more movies that feature her!

I have a feeling that I'm going to be waiting a while for that to happen...

I have a feeling that you really wouldn't give all your Netflix money to Thirteen Women. But I sure could be really wrong. And I really really really wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

Actually, it's really easy to prove me wrong. Donate $10 bucks to NationStates and then break your donation down among all your favorite movies. If you do put all your $10 dollars on Thirteen Women then I'll really stand corrected. And May Barry will have $10 more dollars to keep this place running.

[Galloism]

Stiiiiiiiil waiting Xero.

Xero, let's get back to this and not drift:

Maqo, everyone pays the farmer $100 for a fucking ear of corn because they're all retarded and pay what they truly value instead of acting as the invisible hand predicts, but they don't need much, so 90% of the corn crop spoils. The farmer makes amazing profit. However, everyone said corn is "valued highly".

Should the farmer grow MORE or LESS corn. Why?

Answer the fucking question Xero. It's a simple question. Are you afraid of answering the question Xero?

If people in Timbuktu are willing to pay $100 for corn, then I'm pretty sure that producers will send more corn to Timbuktu.

Given you JUST ADMITTED that your plan will cause more waste because producers will produce more corn than can be consumed, even knowing it's more than can be consumed, and every allocation means sacrificing alternative allocations, why should we use your system which would encourage more waste and cause sacrifice of other useful allocations because of wasteful allocations?

[Xerographica]

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

Gosh, you know, I'd forgotten the title of the thread, thanks for reminding me again.

Hi, uh, what's going on? So... you're reading... but... not contributing? For sure you're welcome to lurk. But hey... you're certainly also welcome to chime in more substantially. How many of your Netflix fees, if any, would you allocate to Oldboy?

[Xerographica]

Stiiiiiiiil waiting Xero.

Xero, let's get back to this and not drift:






Given you JUST ADMITTED that your plan will cause more waste because producers will produce more corn than can be consumed, even knowing it's more than can be consumed, and every allocation means sacrificing alternative allocations, why should we use your system which would encourage more waste and cause sacrifice of other useful allocations because of wasteful allocations?

Honestly I think you're going to have to draw me a diagram.

[Senkaku]

Hi, uh, what's going on? So... you're reading... but... not contributing?

I've been to a few of your threads and realized it's not even worth the effort to try to explain the real world to you, so yeah, I'll just be serving up some snark while other people do the legwork


also i think galloism had a question for ya

[Galloism]

Stiiiiiiiil waiting Xero.

Honestly I think you're going to have to draw me a diagram.

No. You've screamed about how great your reading skills are that you understand Adam Smith more than any economist who has ever lived and every single person in this thread.

YOU JUST ADMITTED YOUR INTERPRETATION CAUSES MORE WASTE IN THE EXACT POST I QUOTED.

Why should we adopt it?

[Xerographica]

Hi, uh, what's going on? So... you're reading... but... not contributing?

I've been to a few of your threads and realized it's not even worth the effort to try to explain the real world to you, so yeah, I'll just be serving up some snark while other people do the legwork

But... what if you're the only person in the world who is genuinely truly capable of helping me understand the real world?

[Senkaku]

I've been to a few of your threads and realized it's not even worth the effort to try to explain the real world to you, so yeah, I'll just be serving up some snark while other people do the legwork

But... what if you're the only person in the world who is genuinely truly capable of helping me understand the real world?

then too bad for you

[Izandai]

I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. I am unable to parse these sentences.

People who overestimate their competence tend to make less money. Making less money means paying less taxes. I'm advocating that taxpayers should be given the option to directly allocate their taxes.

And I'm saying that's a bad idea, for reasons stated above.

That's the same thing. The public sector consists of government services. Running that like a market, with forces of supply and demand running rampant and those with the most money having the most power to decide how government operates, is a terrible, terrible idea.

So PETA and the NRA should pool their donations and allow elected representatives to decide how to divide the money between the two organizations? Would that be a wonderful, wonderful idea?

No, because charities also don't work like market economies.

Netflix running it's selection process for what content to add to its service in such a way that those with more money have more control over what gets added also wouldn't really work under it's current business model.

Eh, to be clear, Netflix subscribers pay pretty much the same fee.

Exactly. Every Netflix user pays the same amount of money to use the service and has the same amount of power to influence what gets added.

Find me a case study of an economy operating the way you think economies should operate.

So far the OP contains the biggest example of contributors using their payment to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences. But that's kinda like how the non-profit sector as a whole works.

The non-profit sector is a huge market economy.

No it isn't.

Except... if you believe that taxation is necessary... then you believe that the free-rider problem is a real problem.

If you agree that the free-rider problem, then you should support everybody making a reasonable minimum donation to non-profits. Then you would be endorsing my system (pragmatarian market).

That logic does not follow. The free-rider problem means that everyone who can should pay taxes. Charities don't enter into it.

[Xerographica]

Honestly I think you're going to have to draw me a diagram.

No. You've screamed about how great your reading skills are that you understand Adam Smith more than any economist who has ever lived and every single person in this thread.

YOU JUST ADMITTED YOUR INTERPRETATION CAUSES MORE WASTE IN THE EXACT POST I QUOTED.

Why should we adopt it?

I can understand what said Smith said about the supply of corn... but I can't understand what you're saying about the supply of corn. Corn is pretty amazing because it's been artificially selected for so long that it can't survive in the wild. At least this is what I've heard.

[Galloism]

I've been to a few of your threads and realized it's not even worth the effort to try to explain the real world to you, so yeah, I'll just be serving up some snark while other people do the legwork

But... what if you're the only person in the world who is genuinely truly capable of helping me understand the real world?

Maybe you should debate honestly instead of trying to avoid your own statements and constantly drift into bible stories.

Then maybe Senkaku could be bothered.

[Xerographica]

But... what if you're the only person in the world who is genuinely truly capable of helping me understand the real world?

then too bad for you

Ah yes, I agree that it really would be too bad.

[Xerographica]

But... what if you're the only person in the world who is genuinely truly capable of helping me understand the real world?

Maybe you should debate honestly instead of trying to avoid your own statements and constantly drift into bible stories.

Then maybe Senkaku could be bothered.

How many Bible stories have I brought up in this thread? As far as I can tell... you're the only one who has brought up Bible stories. And it's not my fault that willingness to sacrifice is the number one theme in the Bible. It's also not my fault that Laban's trick is a really funny story.

[Galloism]

No. You've screamed about how great your reading skills are that you understand Adam Smith more than any economist who has ever lived and every single person in this thread.

YOU JUST ADMITTED YOUR INTERPRETATION CAUSES MORE WASTE IN THE EXACT POST I QUOTED.

Why should we adopt it?

I can understand what said Smith said about the supply of corn... but I can't understand what you're saying about the supply of corn. Corn is pretty amazing because it's been artificially selected for so long that it can't survive in the wild. At least this is what I've heard.

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is already going to waste, you said farmers would be incentivized to waste resources producing even more corn because of your system, meaning more than 90% waste.

Why should we do something as stupid and wasteful as that? You've informed me all allocations involve sacrificing other allocations.

[Washington Resistance Army]

No. You've screamed about how great your reading skills are that you understand Adam Smith more than any economist who has ever lived and every single person in this thread.

YOU JUST ADMITTED YOUR INTERPRETATION CAUSES MORE WASTE IN THE EXACT POST I QUOTED.

Why should we adopt it?

I can understand what said Smith said about the supply of corn... but I can't understand what you're saying about the supply of corn. Corn is pretty amazing because it's been artificially selected for so long that it can't survive in the wild. At least this is what I've heard.

He's saying your system is motherfucking stupid. This isn't rocket science, it doesn't make any sense and given how much you're dodging his point I think you know it's stupid too.

[Izandai]

Here's the thing though:
Suppose I really love Oldboy. I want the money I give to Netflix to reflect my preferences, so I put everything in my budget on that film to show the magnitude of my approval.

I've just wasted all my money. Because there just aren't enough people who love incest-themed vengeance movies to fuel the genre.

Whereas if I had felt free to express my opinions without sacrifice via a star system, Netflix would see that in addition to my fanatical love for incest-themed vengeance movies, I also like nature documentaries and Stranger Things. And those are things that have broader appeal. So they would know they would have me as a potential audience if they pursued that kind of content. Giving them more information then under your system.

Just because Oldboy wasn't very popular really doesn't mean that it isn't very valuable.

If it's not popular, than few people value it. So yes, if it's not popular, than it isn't very valuable.

With the current system, creators/producers can't see demand depth, so it's only logical for them to focus on demand breadth.

Yes they can. If not many people are willing to purchase a product, then the product cannot be sold profitably at a low price. So the price is raised. But if a small number of people are willing to pay a very high price for a product, then the product will be sold profitably at that high price, and thus that narrow niche will be filled.

[Xerographica]

I can understand what said Smith said about the supply of corn... but I can't understand what you're saying about the supply of corn. Corn is pretty amazing because it's been artificially selected for so long that it can't survive in the wild. At least this is what I've heard.

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is already going to waste, you said farmers would be incentivized to waste resources producing even more corn because of your system.

Why should we do something as stupid and wasteful as that? You've informed me all allocations involve sacrificing other allocations.

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is going to waste, it's called a corn surplus. Why are consumers going to be willing to pay so much money for corn when there's a surplus of it?

Let's pretend really hard that you believe that there's a massive surplus of my threads. So are you going to be willing to pay a lot of money for my threads?

[Izandai]

I'm going to give all my Netflix money to Thirteen Women, because I think Peg Entwistle is a great actress and I want them to give me more movies that feature her!

I have a feeling that I'm going to be waiting a while for that to happen...

I have a feeling that you really wouldn't give all your Netflix money to Thirteen Women. But I sure could be really wrong. And I really really really wouldn't mind being proved wrong.

Actually, it's really easy to prove me wrong. Donate $10 bucks to NationStates and then break your donation down among all your favorite movies. If you do put all your $10 dollars on Thirteen Women then I'll really stand corrected. And May Barry will have $10 more dollars to keep this place running.

Or you could just take them at their word instead of having them make a pointless, meaningless donation to the site because... I have no idea why you want them to do that, or what this site has to do with movies.

[Galloism]

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is already going to waste, you said farmers would be incentivized to waste resources producing even more corn because of your system.

Why should we do something as stupid and wasteful as that? You've informed me all allocations involve sacrificing other allocations.

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is going to waste, it's called a corn surplus. Why are consumers going to be willing to pay so much money for corn when there's a surplus of it?

Because they're fucking stupid and paying what they truly value it at instead of the least they can get away with. We've been over this.

So given YOU admitted it will cause more waste, YOU did, why should we do that?

Let's pretend really hard that you believe that there's a massive surplus of my threads. So are you going to be willing to pay a lot of money for my threads?

I'm not going to pay for any thread from anyone. I'm a rational actor.

[Izandai]

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is already going to waste, you said farmers would be incentivized to waste resources producing even more corn because of your system.

Why should we do something as stupid and wasteful as that? You've informed me all allocations involve sacrificing other allocations.

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is going to waste, it's called a corn surplus. Why are consumers going to be willing to pay so much money for corn when there's a surplus of it?

Because they value the corn highly. You yourself have said that people should pay an amount of money for stuff equal to the value of that stuff, regardless of how much of it they want or how abundant it is.

[Xerographica]

I can understand what said Smith said about the supply of corn... but I can't understand what you're saying about the supply of corn. Corn is pretty amazing because it's been artificially selected for so long that it can't survive in the wild. At least this is what I've heard.

He's saying your system is motherfucking stupid. This isn't rocket science, it doesn't make any sense and given how much you're dodging his point I think you know it's stupid too.

His point really doesn't make any sense. First he says that there's too much corn. And then he says that people are going to be willing to pay a lot of money for corn. One of those things really isn't true.

[Galloism]

He's saying your system is motherfucking stupid. This isn't rocket science, it doesn't make any sense and given how much you're dodging his point I think you know it's stupid too.

His point really doesn't make any sense. First he says that there's too much corn. And then he says that people are going to be willing to pay a lot of money for corn. One of those things really isn't true.

No it isn't, because people will pay the least amount they can as rational actors, instead of how much they truly value it.

If they paid what they truly valued it, we'd spend all of our money on food, water, clothing, and shelter, and have nothing left for luxuries.

Which means $100 for ear or two of corn.

So given the waste YOU admitted - YOU -, why should we adopt this idea?

[Izandai]

He's saying your system is motherfucking stupid. This isn't rocket science, it doesn't make any sense and given how much you're dodging his point I think you know it's stupid too.

His point really doesn't make any sense. First he says that there's too much corn. And then he says that people are going to be willing to pay a lot of money for corn. One of those things really isn't true.

They both are in your system.

[Xerographica]

Just because Oldboy wasn't very popular really doesn't mean that it isn't very valuable.

If it's not popular, than few people value it. So yes, if it's not popular, than it isn't very valuable.

But for those few people who do value it... you really don't know how much they value it. You don't know the depth of their demand. You really don't know the intensity of their preference. Your ignorance would be eliminated if Netflix subscribers could use their fees to communicate/reveal the intensity of their preference for Oldboy.

Yes they can. If not many people are willing to purchase a product, then the product cannot be sold profitably at a low price. So the price is raised. But if a small number of people are willing to pay a very high price for a product, then the product will be sold profitably at that high price, and thus that narrow niche will be filled.

It's a lot easier to create a perfect copy of Oldboy than it is to create a perfect copy of a Lamborghini. So there are luxury cars but no luxury movies. This would certainly change if Netflix allowed subscribers to allocate their fees.

[Xerographica]

In a scenario where 90% of the corn is going to waste, it's called a corn surplus. Why are consumers going to be willing to pay so much money for corn when there's a surplus of it?

Because they value the corn highly. You yourself have said that people should pay an amount of money for stuff equal to the value of that stuff, regardless of how much of it they want or how abundant it is.

Oh you're really going to have to quote me on this!!! Because I sure call shenanigans.

I said that value is a function of availability/importance. Poison oak is available enough... but I don't value it because I don't think it's at all important to me. Lemons, on the other hand, are certainly important to me... but I don't value them because my tree is full of them.