The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Neanderthaland]

I wonder what would happen if we applied Xero's logic to the Jewelry industry?

After all, the fact that I'm willing to pay a -let's be honest- excessive amount of money on a wedding band must mean that there is a massive demand for diamond rings out there.

[The Two Jerseys]

I wonder what would happen if we applied Xero's logic to the Jewelry industry?

After all, the fact that I'm willing to pay a -let's be honest- excessive amount of money on a wedding band must mean that there is a massive demand for diamond rings out there.

Gotta stop producing diamond saw blades and drill bits, the value signals will it!

[Galloism]

I wonder what would happen if we applied Xero's logic to the Jewelry industry?

After all, the fact that I'm willing to pay a -let's be honest- excessive amount of money on a wedding band must mean that there is a massive demand for diamond rings out there.

Gotta stop producing diamond saw blades and drill bits, the value signals will it!

What's very interesting is that, by the notion that "the most money means the most want", we can actually very easily rank industries.

For instance, producing food brought in 362 billion dollars in the US in 2015 (ranked in 2009 dollars, this chart is comparison-based across years).

There's quite a few industries that, according to Xero, we literally value more than producing food.

For instance, mining. In fact, oil and gas extraction, not including all other types of minerals, and not including support activities - is almost as high as food, at 328b.

Construction? 1,183b. Over 3 times as valuable as food.

Manufacturing isn't a fair comparison, because manufacturing could mean anything.

Moving stuff around? 932b. Almost 3 times as much as food.

Information industries? That's like books, motion pictures, telecom, data processing, etc. 1,529b. Over four times as valuable as food.

Just broadcasting and telecom is 840b - over twice as valuable as food.

Finance and insurance? 1,897b. Over 5 times as valuable as food. In that, federal reserve banks & credit, securities and investments, and insurance carriers are EACH more valuable than food.

Real estate? 3,035b. Even other real estate - disregarding housing! - is 993b, almost 3 times as valuable as food.


This could go on forever, and i'll just give ya'll the link, but the point here is that we apparently would rather go without food than banking, according to Xero. And yet, I don't recall any riots over lack of banks. I do recall riots over lack of food. Perhaps there's some kind of disconnect between Xero's ideas and reality.

https://www.bea.gov/industry/xls/GDPbyI ... -2015.xlsx

[Xerographica]

You still didn't address the fact that we choose our representatives by popular vote.

Why would I address that?

Not only do I not care about it, and haven't defended it, and - ultimately - don't see it as relevant - but I've got no desire to address it.

My system would give taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes. So by attacking my system you're defending the current system (people have no choice but to allow their taxes to be spent by representatives). How are representatives chosen? By popular vote. What have you argued? That popularity really doesn't mean quality.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to argue that popularity doesn't equal quality, then you have to acknowledge that our representatives are poor quality. If, on the other hand, you want to argue that representatives are high quality, then you can't also argue that popularity doesn't equal quality.

The biggest Patreon content provider at this point is a junky popular content channel called "Chapo trap House" that makes more than 50k a month through Patreon.

For comparison, the nearest 'informative' channel is CGP Grey, which makes 17k per month.

(A 'pure' informative channel is unlikely to net that much - "Metatron", for example (historical and translation content) makes about $335 per month - so, less than 1% of the pure 'entertainment' content).

How would you categorize SMBC Comics? I think it's a pretty decent mix of entertainment and education.

Personally, I don't support anybody on Patreon. Do you? If so, who?

The point of taxation being compulsory is that the free-rider problem is a real problem. So if you agree that taxation should be compulsory, then you accept that the free-rider problem is a real problem. But if you accept that the free-rider problem is a real problem then you have to take this into account when you look at the numbers. You gotta recognize that the bulk of the true demand is largely hidden from view. Kinda like with icebergs.

If I did support some people on Patreon... then who would I support? I do like some SMBC Comics. I do like some of Scott Alexander's blog entries. I do like some of Eric S. Raymond's work... especially The Cathedral and the Bazaar. I'm sure that there are a few others I can't remember or don't even know of.

Here's the thing. I don't value any of these creators equally. Just like I don't value any of their creations equally. Patreon understands the first but for some reason it doesn't understand the second.

As far as free-riding goes... am I the rule or the exception? I'm pretty sure that I'm the rule. The question is whether it would be beneficial to actually see and know the true demand for content that is freely shared.

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

That's a meaningless phrase.

Based on real evidence, 'popular nonsense' will win.

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to argue that 'popular nonsense' will win... then you have to acknowledge that our representatives, who are elected by popular vote, are nonsense. Then you should have no problem giving those who do care about quality the option to directly allocate their taxes.

[Galloism]

Then you should have no problem giving those who do care about quality the option to directly allocate their taxes.

Based on the Dunning Krueger effect, who is most likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes - those most capable or the least capable of doing so?

[Grave_n_idle]

My system would give taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes. So by attacking my system you're defending the current system

Not at all. I'm just saying the current system IS the current system. SAying that you're talking nonsense doesn't mean I'm defending the existing system.

What have you argued? That popularity really doesn't mean quality.

I think I've more than proved it, not just argued it.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

It's not my cake. And I'm not eating it.

If you want to argue that popularity doesn't equal quality, then you have to acknowledge that our representatives are poor quality. If, on the other hand, you want to argue that representatives are high quality, then you can't also argue that popularity doesn't equal quality.

I'm not defending our representatives.

Personally, I'm a big fan of sortition.

How would you categorize SMBC Comics? I think it's a pretty decent mix of entertainment and education.

Entertainment, mainly - but since I've already pointed out what the biggest entertainment/information channel is (CGP Grey - more than twice the channel you mention)... I don't see what relevance it has.

The point of taxation being compulsory is that the free-rider problem is a real problem.

I don't think you actually know what that phrase means. You constantly misuse it.

Much like 'The Invisible Hand'.

As far as free-riding goes... am I the rule or the exception? I'm pretty sure that I'm the rule.

I don't think you are.

Again, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Not sure what your obsession with cake is.

If you want to argue that 'popular nonsense' will win... then you have to acknowledge that our representatives, who are elected by popular vote, are nonsense. Then you should have no problem giving those who do care about quality the option to directly allocate their taxes.

Your conclusion doesn't logically follow from your premise.

That's been a consistent problem in your posts.

[Xerographica]

Then you should have no problem giving those who do care about quality the option to directly allocate their taxes.

Based on the Dunning Krueger effect, who is most likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes - those most capable or the least capable of doing so?

The Dunning Krueger effect is where I overestimate my competence. But the market is where you decide for yourself, with your own money, just how competent I truly am.

I can certainly overestimate my competence as a painter. But if I take my paintings to the flea market... then it's going to be the shoppers who ultimately decide, with their own money, just how competent I truly am.

Are congresspeople overestimating their competence? It's easy enough to find out. We'll simply give taxpayers the option to directly allocate their taxes. Then we'll quickly discover just how competent congresspeople truly are.

For sure it's the case that congresspeople aren't equally competent. So maybe if people can choose whether or not they give their tax dollars to congresspeople... they are going to also want the option to give their tax dollars to specific congresspeople. And then we will all clearly see, and know, which congressperson is the most competent.

[Grave_n_idle]

I can certainly overestimate my competence as a painter. But if I take my paintings to the flea market... then it's going to be the shoppers who ultimately decide, with their own money, just how competent I truly am.

Ask an artist and they'll quickly tell you that shoppers don't buy art, they buy artists.

Competence has very little to do with selling art.

[Galloism]

Based on the Dunning Krueger effect, who is most likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes - those most capable or the least capable of doing so?

The Dunning Krueger effect is where I overestimate my competence.

Yes. So based on this, who is more likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes?

Those competent to do so, or those incompetent to do so?

[Xerographica]

Personally, I'm a big fan of sortition.

People are equally competent? I don't think so.

The point of taxation being compulsory is that the free-rider problem is a real problem.

I don't think you actually know what that phrase means. You constantly misuse it.

Go ahead, please school me.

[Xerographica]

The Dunning Krueger effect is where I overestimate my competence.

Yes. So based on this, who is more likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes?

Those competent to do so, or those incompetent to do so?

Are you truly arguing that taxpayers somehow have a monopoly on the Dunning Krueger effect?

[Galloism]

Yes. So based on this, who is more likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes?

Those competent to do so, or those incompetent to do so?

Are you truly arguing that taxpayers somehow have a monopoly on the Dunning Krueger effect?

No, I'm asking what will happen with your system as you've described it. You seem intent on talking about it, so let's talk about it.

So based on this, who is more likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes?

Those competent to do so, or those incompetent to do so?

[Galloism]

Personally, I'm a big fan of sortition.

I have considered the pros and cons of sortition (or perhaps a hybrid system - a sortition based house and elected senate). It would certainly help the corruption problems, but then we introduce an inexperience problem in its place.

If you ever made a thread on it, I'd be interested.

It's definitely more logical than Xero's idea which has apparently worked for no entity ever (given he has yet to provide even a single example despite me asking for years now). Then again, so is Donald Trump.

[Xerographica]

Are you truly arguing that taxpayers somehow have a monopoly on the Dunning Krueger effect?

No, I'm asking what will happen with your system as you've described it. You seem intent on talking about it, so let's talk about it.

So based on this, who is more likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes?

Those competent to do so, or those incompetent to do so?

Right now congress has the "power of the purse". If taxpayers had the option to directly allocate their taxes... what percentage of the purse would be controlled by taxpayers? Let's pick a random number to work with... 50%. What percentage of this percent will be controlled by incompetent taxpayers? My guess is that it will be a pretty small percent... maybe 3%. But these incompetent taxpayers are going to be incompetently spending their own money in the public sector. At least they won't be incompetently spending other people's money.

But what, exactly, does it mean for 3% of the purse to be incompetently spent? However the incompetent taxpayers spent their tax dollars... the competent taxpayers would adjust their own spending accordingly. If the incompetent taxpayers don't spend enough money on public healthcare, the competent taxpayers can simply make up the difference. If the incompetent taxpayers spend too much money on the drug war, then competent taxpayers will simply spend their own tax dollars elsewhere.

In all cases the taxpayers are simply going to endeavor to fill the biggest gaps in the budget.

[Neanderthaland]

No, I'm asking what will happen with your system as you've described it. You seem intent on talking about it, so let's talk about it.

So based on this, who is more likely to think they know best how to allocate "their" taxes?

Those competent to do so, or those incompetent to do so?

Right now congress has the "power of the purse". If taxpayers had the option to directly allocate their taxes... what percentage of the purse would be controlled by taxpayers? Let's pick a random number to work with... 50%. What percentage of this percent will be controlled by incompetent taxpayers? My guess is that it will be a pretty small percent... maybe 3%. But these incompetent taxpayers are going to be incompetently spending their own money in the public sector. At least they won't be incompetently spending other people's money.

But what, exactly, does it mean for 3% of the purse to be incompetently spent? However the incompetent taxpayers spent their tax dollars... the competent taxpayers would adjust their own spending accordingly. If the incompetent taxpayers don't spend enough money on public healthcare, the competent taxpayers can simply make up the difference. If the incompetent taxpayers spend too much money on the drug war, then competent taxpayers will simply spend their own tax dollars elsewhere.

In all cases the taxpayers are simply going to endeavor to fill the biggest gaps in the budget.

He didn't answer the question.

I'm shocked.

[Galloism]

If taxpayers had the option to directly allocate their taxes... what percentage of the purse would be controlled by taxpayers? Let's pick a random number to work with... 50%. What percentage of this percent will be controlled by incompetent taxpayers? My guess is that it will be a pretty small percent... maybe 3%.

Stop you right here. Why 3%?

What would the Dunning Kruger effect predict regarding whether those competent or incompetent would be more likely to try spending "their taxes" themselves?

Let's try it using the predictions of the Dunning Kruger effect instead.

Presuming 50% did this (unlikely in of itself), its very likely that the vast vast majority - 49% or more - will be spending incompetently. What would that do to the federal budget? What would it do to our society?

[Xerographica]

If taxpayers had the option to directly allocate their taxes... what percentage of the purse would be controlled by taxpayers? Let's pick a random number to work with... 50%. What percentage of this percent will be controlled by incompetent taxpayers? My guess is that it will be a pretty small percent... maybe 3%.

Stop you right here. Why 3%?

What would the Dunning Kruger effect predict regarding whether those competent or incompetent would be more likely to try spending "their taxes" themselves?

Let's try it using the predictions of the Dunning Kruger effect instead.

Presuming 50% did this (unlikely in of itself), its very likely that the vast vast majority - 49% or more - will be spending incompetently. What would that do to the federal budget? What would it do to our society?

Consumers voluntarily give their money to producers. The more "dollar votes" that a producer receives, the more taxes that he has to pay.

Voters voluntarily give their votes to politicians. If a politician receives enough votes, then he can spend taxpayers' money.

Why, exactly, do you think that the Dunning Kruger effect is more prevalent among taxpayers than it is among politicians?

[Galloism]

Stop you right here. Why 3%?

What would the Dunning Kruger effect predict regarding whether those competent or incompetent would be more likely to try spending "their taxes" themselves?

Let's try it using the predictions of the Dunning Kruger effect instead.

Presuming 50% did this (unlikely in of itself), its very likely that the vast vast majority - 49% or more - will be spending incompetently. What would that do to the federal budget? What would it do to our society?

Consumers voluntarily give their money to producers. The more "dollar votes" that a producer receives, the more taxes that he has to pay.

Not even remotely true. We've been over this. Stop repeating the same completely debunked falsehoods over and over again. It's tiresome.

Voters voluntarily give their votes to politicians. If a politician receives enough votes, then he can spend taxpayers' money.

Why, exactly, do you think that the Dunning Kruger effect is more prevalent among taxpayers than it is among politicians?

Funny thing about the Dunning Kruger effect:

A follow-up study, reported in the same paper, suggests that grossly incompetent students improved their ability to estimate their rank after minimal tutoring in the skills they had previously lacked, regardless of the improvement gained in skills.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

All politicians receive tutoring from the army of bureaucrats, researchers, and other such people who do have the knowledge and experience to speak with authority as to the efficacy and efficiency of given expenditures. As such, they are more likely than the general populace to suffer a lower Dunning Kruger effect than the guy off the street who has not received such tutoring.

You're right that politicians are not immune from dunning Kruger. They just suffer illusory competence at lower rates, thanks to the effects of Dunning Kruger. Besides that, they have access to greater information and resources than the average joe. I'd be mighty generous to even think that 1% of Americans can allocate "their" tax dollars efficiently given the lack of relevant experience and information asymmetry.

That's why if you take the average American (or person), and put them behind the controls of an aircraft they've never flown, with no air traffic control support, they will almost all crash.

However, if you do the same with a properly trained commercial pilot, familiar with the physics, technical standards, and procedures of flight - even in an airplane they've never flown - they will almost all land safely (if a little rough).

Take the former group and give them a commercial pilot talking them through the whole thing? The majority will make it (with some damage).

This is not inconsistent to recognize.

[Grave_n_idle]

Personally, I'm a big fan of sortition.

People are equally competent? I don't think so.

I don't think you actually know what that phrase means. You constantly misuse it.

Go ahead, please school me.

Sortition doesn't require people to be equally competent. What it does do, however, is minimise the incentive to be corrupt - and that's a bigger problem.

As for 'schooling' you - you've yet to use the phrase 'free-rider' in a way that actually makes sense. (Much like your misuse of 'the invisible hand'). You claimed earlier in the thread that THIS is what you are good at. And yet you constantly misuse even the most basic terms. I'm not competent enough to school you.

[Xerographica]

People are equally competent? I don't think so.


Go ahead, please school me.

Sortition doesn't require people to be equally competent. What it does do, however, is minimise the incentive to be corrupt - and that's a bigger problem.

As for 'schooling' you - you've yet to use the phrase 'free-rider' in a way that actually makes sense. (Much like your misuse of 'the invisible hand'). You claimed earlier in the thread that THIS is what you are good at. And yet you constantly misuse even the most basic terms. I'm not competent enough to school you.

Imagine if every single US citizen was a hard-core vegetarian. How much meat should be supplied? Now imagine if every single US citizen was a hard-core pacifist. How much defense should be supplied?

It's pretty straightforward economics that the supply should meet the demand. With meat this generally isn't so much of an issue. If you want meat then you gotta pay for it. So the supply roughly corresponds with the demand.

With defense it's a different story. Unlike with meat, you can benefit from defense without having to pay for it. So why pay for it if you don't have to? But if too many people have the same idea, then it's reasonable to guess that the supply of defense will be less than the demand for defense.

The consequence of the free-rider problem is that the supply will be less than the demand. But this is only a problem if, and only if, we have the premise that supply should equal demand.

So we should let people choose where their taxes go. If people want more defense then they can use their own tax dollars to communicate this.

If it turns out that you want the same amount of defense as society does... then you're not going to have an issue. You're only going to have an issue if society wants more or less defense than you do. The greater the difference between you and society, the bigger your issue. However, there's a term for people who are significantly different from the rest of society... "deviants". So when it comes to defense, the more of a deviant you are, the bigger the issue you'll have with the supply of defense.

When it comes to wanting the freedom to choose where our taxes go... nobody's a bigger deviant than I am! Nobody spends anywhere close to the same amount of time as I do arguing in favor of this freedom to choose. And of course my goal is for everybody to be as deviant as I am on the topic. But obviously if that happened I would no longer be a deviant... I'd be the norm. I'd be the rule rather than the exception.

Clearly I suck at persuasion. But what are the alternatives to persuasion? Do I take away your freedom to choose? No... obviously not... because my very point is that it's beneficial when people have the freedom to choose.

Whether we're talking about defense or meat or systems... deviants are always going to want to shift society in their direction. Let them rely solely on persuasion. Don't give them the opportunity to cheat. Deviants shouldn't be able to get around having to persuade you that their preferred path is the best path. Deviants shouldn't be able to skip the part where they endeavor to share information that will convince you. Deviants should have to work! Put deviants to work!

[Xerographica]

You're right that politicians are not immune from dunning Kruger. They just suffer illusory competence at lower rates, thanks to the effects of Dunning Kruger. Besides that, they have access to greater information and resources than the average joe. I'd be mighty generous to even think that 1% of Americans can allocate "their" tax dollars efficiently given the lack of relevant experience and information asymmetry.

Many who worked for Lampert describe him as brilliant. They add, though, that he can overestimate his own abilities. - Mina Kimes, At Sears, Eddie Lampert's Warring Divisions Model Adds to the Troubles

In that same article...

An outspoken advocate of free-market economics and fan of the novelist Ayn Rand, he created the model because he expected the invisible hand of the market to drive better results. If the company’s leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance.

Here's the e-mail that I just sent him...

Greetings,

I just read the Bloomberg article and felt compelled to clarify the Invisible Hand. It's not primarily about self-interest... it's primarily about communication...

"It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society." — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Consumers use their cash to communicate what their interests are... and then self-interested producers make informed decisions. The benefit of this feedback loop depends on the accuracy of the communication.

I guess you probably get a gazillion e-mails a day. So I'd certainly be surprised if you even read this.

But if you are reading this, then imagine that next to the subject line on every e-mail there was a dollar amount that revealed how much the sender was willing to pay (WTP) you to read their e-mail. The more money that they were WTP, the more valuable they perceived their information to be.

People would prioritize how they spent their limited money in order to help you prioritize how you spent your limited time.

Let's say that I am WTP you $100 dollars to read this e-mail. For sure my WTP would provide additional information about the value of my e-mail. But what are the chances that $100 dollars accurately reflects the TRUE value of this e-mail? The true value of things can only be determined by markets.

So rather than your employees communicating by e-mail... imagine an internal system just like Reddit... but with voting replaced with spending. Employees would use their own money to bring the most valuable information to each other's attention. Posts could be filtered by date in order to see the most valuable information that's been shared in the past day, week, month, year or all time.

The point of the Invisible Hand is to make sure that truly valuable things aren't overlooked. Unfortunately, the point of the Invisible Hand has been overlooked because it hasn't been applied to information. It's a catch-22.

If you get a chance you should read my blog entry...

[Link removed for fear of being accused of promoting my blog]

The world would be an infinitely better place if nobody overlooked the point of the Invisible Hand. If you apply the point of the Invisible Hand to Sears, then for sure Sears will win. The least blind group will win.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

[Galloism]

You're right that politicians are not immune from dunning Kruger. They just suffer illusory competence at lower rates, thanks to the effects of Dunning Kruger. Besides that, they have access to greater information and resources than the average joe. I'd be mighty generous to even think that 1% of Americans can allocate "their" tax dollars efficiently given the lack of relevant experience and information asymmetry.

Many who worked for Lampert describe him as brilliant. They add, though, that he can overestimate his own abilities. - Mina Kimes, At Sears, Eddie Lampert's Warring Divisions Model Adds to the Troubles

In that same article...

An outspoken advocate of free-market economics and fan of the novelist Ayn Rand, he created the model because he expected the invisible hand of the market to drive better results. If the company’s leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance.

Here's the e-mail that I just sent him...

Greetings,

I just read the Bloomberg article and felt compelled to clarify the Invisible Hand. It's not primarily about self-interest... it's primarily about communication...

"It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society." — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Consumers use their cash to communicate what their interests are... and then self-interested producers make informed decisions. The benefit of this feedback loop depends on the accuracy of the communication.

I guess you probably get a gazillion e-mails a day. So I'd certainly be surprised if you even read this.

But if you are reading this, then imagine that next to the subject line on every e-mail there was a dollar amount that revealed how much the sender was willing to pay (WTP) you to read their e-mail. The more money that they were WTP, the more valuable they perceived their information to be.

People would prioritize how they spent their limited money in order to help you prioritize how you spent your limited time.

Let's say that I am WTP you $100 dollars to read this e-mail. For sure my WTP would provide additional information about the value of my e-mail. But what are the chances that $100 dollars accurately reflects the TRUE value of this e-mail? The true value of things can only be determined by markets.

So rather than your employees communicating by e-mail... imagine an internal system just like Reddit... but with voting replaced with spending. Employees would use their own money to bring the most valuable information to each other's attention. Posts could be filtered by date in order to see the most valuable information that's been shared in the past day, week, month, year or all time.

The point of the Invisible Hand is to make sure that truly valuable things aren't overlooked. Unfortunately, the point of the Invisible Hand has been overlooked because it hasn't been applied to information. It's a catch-22.

If you get a chance you should read my blog entry...

[Link removed for fear of being accused of promoting my blog]

The world would be an infinitely better place if nobody overlooked the point of the Invisible Hand. If you apply the point of the Invisible Hand to Sears, then for sure Sears will win. The least blind group will win.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

I've never met the man, but I'm sure he can use a good laugh as much as anyone else, I guess.

[Xerographica]

In that same article...


Here's the e-mail that I just sent him...

Greetings,

I just read the Bloomberg article and felt compelled to clarify the Invisible Hand. It's not primarily about self-interest... it's primarily about communication...

"It is thus that the private interests and passions of individuals naturally dispose them to turn their stocks towards the employments which in ordinary cases are most advantageous to the society. But if from this natural preference they should turn too much of it towards those employments, the fall of profit in them and the rise of it in all others immediately dispose them to alter this faulty distribution. Without any intervention of law, therefore, the private interests and passions of men naturally lead them to divide and distribute the stock of every society among all the different employments carried on in it as nearly as possible in the proportion which is most agreeable to the interest of the whole society." — Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

Consumers use their cash to communicate what their interests are... and then self-interested producers make informed decisions. The benefit of this feedback loop depends on the accuracy of the communication.

I guess you probably get a gazillion e-mails a day. So I'd certainly be surprised if you even read this.

But if you are reading this, then imagine that next to the subject line on every e-mail there was a dollar amount that revealed how much the sender was willing to pay (WTP) you to read their e-mail. The more money that they were WTP, the more valuable they perceived their information to be.

People would prioritize how they spent their limited money in order to help you prioritize how you spent your limited time.

Let's say that I am WTP you $100 dollars to read this e-mail. For sure my WTP would provide additional information about the value of my e-mail. But what are the chances that $100 dollars accurately reflects the TRUE value of this e-mail? The true value of things can only be determined by markets.

So rather than your employees communicating by e-mail... imagine an internal system just like Reddit... but with voting replaced with spending. Employees would use their own money to bring the most valuable information to each other's attention. Posts could be filtered by date in order to see the most valuable information that's been shared in the past day, week, month, year or all time.

The point of the Invisible Hand is to make sure that truly valuable things aren't overlooked. Unfortunately, the point of the Invisible Hand has been overlooked because it hasn't been applied to information. It's a catch-22.

If you get a chance you should read my blog entry...

[Link removed for fear of being accused of promoting my blog]

The world would be an infinitely better place if nobody overlooked the point of the Invisible Hand. If you apply the point of the Invisible Hand to Sears, then for sure Sears will win. The least blind group will win.

Please let me know if you have any questions!

I've never met the man, but I'm sure he can use a good laugh as much as anyone else, I guess.

A. The amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should accurately reflect how strongly society cares about it.

1. True
2. False

[Galloism]

I've never met the man, but I'm sure he can use a good laugh as much as anyone else, I guess.

A. The amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should accurately reflect how strongly society cares about it.

1. True
2. False

Uh.

It depends I guess.


I'm not sure what that has to do with you making funny emails to send to people.

[Neanderthaland]

I've never met the man, but I'm sure he can use a good laugh as much as anyone else, I guess.

A. The amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should accurately reflect how strongly society cares about it.

1. True
2. False

Are you asking if it actually does, or if it's obliged to?