The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Xerographica]

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?

I'm asking whether or not it's beneficial. As in, you should brush your teeth before you go to bed...

1. True
2. False

[Xerographica]

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.

The amount of resources that I allocate to pragmatarianism should accurately reflect how strongly I care about it.

What does your answer depend on?

[Camicon]

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

I'm asking whether or not it's beneficial. As in, you should brush your teeth before you go to bed...

1. True
2. False

Excuse me while I add "can't write a 'True or False' question" to the list...

[Uiiop]

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!

Just a minor nitpick but for the record the person you actually sent that letter is a chick who is currently working with ESPN as a senior writer.

[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!

Just a minor nitpick but for the record the person you actually sent that letter is a chick who is currently working with ESPN as a senior writer.

I have a bad habit of sending e-mails to the wrong people. Maybe that's why I prefer forums.

[Xerographica]

Just a minor nitpick but for the record the person you actually sent that letter is a chick who is currently working with ESPN as a senior writer.

I have a bad habit of sending e-mails to the wrong people. Maybe that's why I prefer forums.

Wait a second, how'd you know that I sent the e-mail to Mina Kimes?

[Galloism]

Uh.

It depends I guess.


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

The amount of resources that I allocate to pragmatarianism should accurately reflect how strongly I care about it.

And yet, you still don't throw nickels at your friends.

What does your answer depend on?

The situation presented. In practical terms, it depends whether doing so has a good result or not.

It's like saying this:

A: The plane should pitch up more.

1. True
2. False

[Galloism]

I'm asking whether or not it's beneficial. As in, you should brush your teeth before you go to bed...

1. True
2. False

Excuse me while I add "can't write a 'True or False' question" to the list...

It's actually supremely funny he picked that, because the answer to that is ALSO it depends..

[Uiiop]

I have a bad habit of sending e-mails to the wrong people. Maybe that's why I prefer forums.

Wait a second, how'd you know that I sent the e-mail to Mina Kimes?

I just clicked the article link and googled the author's name.
You probably had it right(This really was a nitpick on pronouns.) but unless you just did a @gmail type of thing it just seemed odd you did without knowing she was a she.

[Xerographica]

The amount of resources that I allocate to pragmatarianism should accurately reflect how strongly I care about it.

And yet, you still don't throw nickels at your friends.

What does your answer depend on?

The situation presented. In practical terms, it depends whether doing so has a good result or not.

It's like saying this:

A: The plane should pitch up more.

1. True
2. False

Give us some examples of when the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should not reflect how strongly society cares about it.

[Galloism]

And yet, you still don't throw nickels at your friends.


The situation presented. In practical terms, it depends whether doing so has a good result or not.

It's like saying this:

A: The plane should pitch up more.

1. True
2. False

Give us some examples of when the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should not reflect how strongly society cares about it.

Climate change, space travel, pollution controls, species conservation...

Oh yeah, and space colonies. We're one big rock away from extinction over here.

[Xerographica]

Wait a second, how'd you know that I sent the e-mail to Mina Kimes?

I just clicked the article link and googled the author's name.
You probably had it right(This really was a nitpick on pronouns.) but unless you just did a @gmail type of thing it just seemed you did without knowing she was a she.

Actually, I sent the e-mail to Lampert. But when you replied to me I got curious and looked up the author of the article. I just forwarded her the e-mail I sent to Lampert... and included this...

"Did you know that the Rose Bowl is responsible for the extinction of Southern California's only species of fresh water shrimp?"

After I sent the e-mail I looked up the date on her article. It was published 4 years ago. Sheesh. I though it was a new article. Somebody on Twitter did a grave dig and I fell for it. I guess Twitter needs more Mods.

[Xerographica]

Give us some examples of when the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should not reflect how strongly society cares about it.

Climate change, space travel, pollution controls, species conservation...

Oh yeah, and space colonies. We're one big rock away from extinction over here.

Uh, what? I suppose you're saying that society doesn't care strongly enough about climate change.

Well... I'm saying that society doesn't care strongly enough about pragmatarianism.

Therefore?

[Galloism]

Climate change, space travel, pollution controls, species conservation...

Oh yeah, and space colonies. We're one big rock away from extinction over here.

Uh, what? I suppose you're saying that society doesn't care strongly enough about climate change.

Well... I'm saying that society doesn't care strongly enough about pragmatarianism.

Therefore?

Therefore we need to follow physics and facts and data instead of peoples feelings.

Sadly, that's not being done, but it would be even less likely to be done with the extremely ironically named 'pragmatarianism' in the works.

[Xerographica]

Uh, what? I suppose you're saying that society doesn't care strongly enough about climate change.

Well... I'm saying that society doesn't care strongly enough about pragmatarianism.

Therefore?

Therefore we need to follow physics and facts and data instead of peoples feelings.

How strongly do I feel about climate change?

[Galloism]

Therefore we need to follow physics and facts and data instead of peoples feelings.

How strongly do I feel about climate change?

It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it or don't.

What needs to be done as a matter of physics and climatology doesn't change one bit on the basis of your feelings. The science remains what it is.

Whether you think it requires going back to a free-agriculture society or we can proceed with reckless abandon, you're wrong in either case. The facts remain what they are.

[Xerographica]

How strongly do I feel about climate change?

It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it or don't.

I argued that allocation should reflect valuation. You replied that climate change is an exception. Because... facts > feelings.

Well... what about religions? Those are all feelings and no facts. So shouldn't religions also be an exception?

[Galloism]

It doesn't matter how strongly you feel about it or don't.

I argued that allocation should reflect valuation. You replied that climate change is an exception. Because... facts > feelings.

Well... what about religions? Those are all feelings and no facts. So shouldn't religions also be an exception?

I wouldn't say religions are all feelings and no facts. They are hotly debated facts, with a severe lacking of evidence either way in many cases, but I'd say all religions make claim of facts that either are or aren't true.

Whether they are or aren't true can be debated and is - a lot.

So I'm not sure why you're asking if religion should 'be an exception'.

[Salandriagado]

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

False. Points of diminishing returns exist.

[Unrepentant Piracy]

The Libertarian Party (LP) has never won. But check this out…

https://www.lp.org/help-choose-theme-for-2018-convention/

Scroll down on that page and you’ll be able to see the actual demand for the different potential themes for their 2018 convention. We can see, in dollar amounts, just how important/relevant/valuable each theme is. We can see more! Being able to see more means being less blind! And whichever group is the least blind will win!

I’m pretty sure that markets work because they allow us to see the demand for things. In markets… people are less blind. The economic decisions they make more accurately reflect the rarity of resources in conditions and circumstances that are complex and constantly changing.

The LP is, in theory, the party that’s most supportive of markets. Now they are even allowing the market to choose the theme for their 2018 convention! If the LP allows the market to guide its biggest decisions then it will be the least blind group by far. And whichever group is the least blind will win!

. . .


I wouldn't pay for this, and consider me alienated from the US Libertarian party. I'm offended.

Does anybody know of any other examples of surveys where voting has been replaced with spending? Do these type of surveys have a technical name?

How about "cash grabs"?

[Unrepentant Piracy]

Give us some examples of when the amount of resources allocated to an endeavor should not reflect how strongly society cares about it.

Climate change, space travel, pollution controls, species conservation...

Oh yeah, and space colonies. We're one big rock away from extinction over here.

I don't know about species conservation. The idea of conserving nature is good, don't get me wrong, but, some species deserve to die.

For example, there's a certain bird in my state that is protected by law. Not just civil law either, I'm pretty sure it's a felony to harm these birds in any way. God damn things stand right in the middle of the road like it's all okay.

[Salandriagado]

Climate change, space travel, pollution controls, species conservation...

Oh yeah, and space colonies. We're one big rock away from extinction over here.

I don't know about species conservation. The idea of conserving nature is good, don't get me wrong, but, some species deserve to die.

For example, there's a certain bird in my state that is protected by law. Not just civil law either, I'm pretty sure it's a felony to harm these birds in any way. God damn things stand right in the middle of the road like it's all okay.

I'm pretty sure that by "species conservation" he means "conservation of the human species". Making sure we don't get wiped out by an asteroid and such.

[Xerographica]

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

1. True
2. False

False. Points of diminishing returns exist.

Resources should be inefficiently allocated because... diminishing returns?

[Xerographica]

I argued that allocation should reflect valuation. You replied that climate change is an exception. Because... facts > feelings.

Well... what about religions? Those are all feelings and no facts. So shouldn't religions also be an exception?

I wouldn't say religions are all feelings and no facts. They are hotly debated facts, with a severe lacking of evidence either way in many cases, but I'd say all religions make claim of facts that either are or aren't true.

Whether they are or aren't true can be debated and is - a lot.

So I'm not sure why you're asking if religion should 'be an exception'.

I argued that the amount of resources allocated to any endeavor should reflect how strongly society cares about it. In other words, I argued that society's resources should be efficiently allocated. You replied that combating climate change is an exception because... science. So I asked you whether religion should also be an exception and now you're not sure why I'm asking.

Imagine a strange society with only two goods...

1. combating climate change
2. religion

This society has one trillion dollars to divide between these two goods. My argument is that the money should be efficiently allocated. In other words, the amount of money allocated to each good should reflect how strongly society cares about it...

1. combating climate change = $700 billion
2. religion = $300 billion

However, you've argued that the rule of efficient allocation should not apply to combating climate change. Therefore... what happens? There aren't a lot of options. You can take money from combating climate change and give it to religion... or you can do the opposite. But whichever option you choose... you'd still be arguing that the rule of efficient allocation does not apply to both goods.

[Camicon]

False. Points of diminishing returns exist.

Resources should be inefficiently allocated because... diminishing returns?

Resources shouldn't be allocated based on how strongly people feel about particular issues because of diminishing returns.

Do try to keep up.