The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Xerographica]

Xero do you agree that people value money differently?

People value everything differently.

[Muthia]

Xero do you agree that people value money differently?

Under Xero's proposed "everything is a public good" system, I'm not exactly sure why anybody would value money at all.

True, but I'm asking because if it's yes, then there is no way to truly find out how much someone values something, and if he says no then... I don't really know what to say

[The Two Jerseys]

Because everybody has the same mentality as you, cancer isn't cured anytime soon...

At this rate, cancer will still be cured before you actually answer the question about whether the farmer should grow more corn...

[Galloism]

Because everybody has the same mentality as you, cancer isn't cured anytime soon...

At this rate, cancer will still be cured before you actually answer the question about whether the farmer should grow more corn...

I giggled.

I'll give you 10 Xero dollars for this post. Except you can't actually buy anything with that $10. It doesn't actually increase your standard of living, or help you in any way, except you can express approval to other people's posts by passing them the 10 Xero dollars.

That's incentive!

[The Holy Therns]

Because everybody has the same mentality as you, cancer isn't cured anytime soon...

At this rate, cancer will still be cured before you actually answer the question about whether the farmer should grow more corn...

Thank gods I didn't drink anything while reading that.

[The Two Jerseys]

At this rate, cancer will still be cured before you actually answer the question about whether the farmer should grow more corn...

I giggled.

I'll give you 10 Xero dollars for this post. Except you can't actually buy anything with that $10. It doesn't actually increase your standard of living, or help you in any way, except you can express approval to other people's posts by passing them the 10 Xero dollars.

That's incentive!

But most importantly, I GET COMPENSATED! *spins around while waving arms in the air*

[King Stannis Baratheon]

This is nonsense, but I can imagine that the Lannisters would love a system where money buys votes.

[Salandriagado]

No it fucking isn't. I think that might be the single most absurd claim I've ever read.

It's not at all absurd that we need to know the demand for corn. But it's the most absurd claim when I say that we need to know the demand for the cure for cancer?

We know that demand: it's "a fucking lot". It just turns out that selling something is a shit way to find out.

Why do we need to know the demand for corn?

We don't.

Hence, EVEN IF your idea made sense (it doesn't), it is subject to collective action problems, and is thus unworkable.

People are already paying taxes so how would it be subject to collective action problems?

But what you're saying is that the more I pay for corn, the more corn will be produced.
That doesn't change the amount that I need corn. It doesn't change the amount I value corn for.

V = what you think that the supply should be

The amount that you pay for corn should accurately communicate V to all the producers.

"V" doesn't exist. There is absolutely no level of supply of food that I "want" to exist, beyond "enough that I don't starve". That's fucking useless as something to communicate, largely on account of how the producers don't give a flying fuck.

Literally the only time you ever buy something is when you can get it for less than your valuation. Buying something for an amount equal to your valuation of it is a neutral trade. You gain nothing.

If nobody informs producers what V is, then how can the supply possibly be optimal?

Say you're going to grow corn in your own garden. Do you lie to yourself about how much corn you should plant? Or do you endeavor to plant a quantity of corn that will provide you with the maximum benefit?

Say Netflix allowed me to allocate my fees to my favorite content. Do I lie to myself about how much I value chick flicks? Do I lie to myself about how much I value nature documentaries? Do I lie to myself about how much I value New Zealand comedies?

Do I strive for my payment to be less than V? If I truly want there to be a LOT LOT LOT more New Zealand comedies... do I strive to make sure that my payment communicates that I want there to be a LOT more New Zealand comedies? How in the world would I possibly benefit from lying to producers? There would be absolutely no benefit. It would be the same thing as shooting myself in the foot. It would be the same thing as planting a small quantity of corn in my garden when I truly want a large quantity of corn.

Erm, no. That's literally just throwing money away, unless you think that the effect of your spending on their decision making is strictly larger than the value of that spending (in practice, it is always strictly smaller, because other people exist).

When did we start talking about taxes again?

I thought we were talking about whether I should pay $1 or $10 for an ear of corn.

A pragmatarian market is the only way that people are going to pay their valuation of corn.

You just provided yet another reason why it's shit because - again - everybody's valuation of food is functionally infinite. The current situation (where everybody pays far less than that) is strictly better in pretty much every way than your desired situation.

You benefit by paying the minimum amount possible by having that money available to fulfill other desires.

You donate $1 dollar a year to cancer research. However, your valuation of cancer research is actually $1,000 dollars a year. So why do you only donate $1 dollar a year to cancer research? Because this way you have $999 per year to spend on other desires... food, clothes, gadgets and lots of other stuff.

Because everybody has the same mentality as you, cancer isn't cured anytime soon... but we all have marginally more food, clothes, gadgets and lots of other stuff. This is great, if, and only if, having marginally more food, clothes, gadgets and other stuff is truly more important to us than having the cure for cancer.

That's not how science works.

The challenge here is appreciating that donating to cancer research is a public good... while buying clothes is a private good.

Donating to cancer research benefits everybody. Buying clothes only benefits you. Skimping on something that benefits everybody allows you to indulge in spending that only benefits you.

Let's level the playing field by making clothing a public good. If you spend your money on clothes... it doesn't necessarily mean that you, and only you, get more clothes. It simply means that marginally more clothes will be available for everyone.

Every dollar that you use to increase the supply of clothes, is one less dollar that you can use to increase the supply of cancer research. How do you divvy your dollars between clothes and cancer research?

Let's think of this in terms of brains. Every unit of brainpower that is used to tackle clothing problems, is one less unit of brainpower that is used to tackle cancer problems. How do you want society's brainpower divided between clothing problems and cancer problems?

Funding is not what is slowing down cancer research, and donations provide a minuscule proportion of said funding.

In all cases, how you spend your money should honestly communicate how you truly want society's brainpower to be divided up among all the different problems. But this really isn't going to happen when clothes and cancer research aren't on a level playing field.

No it shouldn't, because it never can: I will always spend my money on things that make me not die in the short term, and that has no relationship whatsoever to how I think brainpower should be divided up. You also entirely miss how research works: the consequences are almost always unpredictable at the start: nobody thought that the Hilbert Program would have any practical applications (certainly those involved didn't), and yet it provided a vast swathe of the groundwork behind computers.

Let's imagine Netflix allowing subscribers to choose how they divide their fees among all the content. If you spend lots of your fees on chick flicks... it really doesn't mean that you, and only you, get more chick flicks. It simply marginally increases the supply of chick flicks that will be available to all the subscribers. So in this sense, chick flicks and nature documentaries and action movies are public goods all on a perfectly level playing field.

Now let's get a bit strange and imagine that everybody in the US subscribed to Netflix. But rather than paying $100 dollars a year... each person had to pay $2500 dollars a year. However, not only would movies and shows be options on Netflix... so would food. You couldn't eat food over Netflix of course. You'd simply use Netflix to communicate how you wanted resources to be divided between all the different types of movies and shows and food. Nobody in the US would have to pay to eat food... it would be freely available. Food would be a public good.

Food is not and never will be a public good. In particular, it is both rivalous and excludable.

[Izandai]

V = what you think that the supply should be

I think the supply of food (to generalize a bit) should be infinite so that I don't have to pay for it (because if there is no scarcity of a good it's not possible to charge people for it). Since an amount of food is not a dollar value, I'm going to assume that what you mean by this is that the value I place on a good is equal to the amount I would have to pay for that good if it were in as much supply as I think it should be. This would mean that I place no value on food, as if there were as great a supply of it as I think there should be I would not have to pay anything for it. However, this clearly doesn't make any sense, as food is not free, and I am willing to pay for it. Thus the amount that I value food at must be very different than what your formula says, so your formula must be wrong. It's all right though, we all make mistakes. Give it a tweak and we'll try it again.

[Tmutarakhan]

And the winning theme is: Libertarian McLibertarianFace

[Xerographica]

V = what you think that the supply should be

I think the supply of food (to generalize a bit) should be infinite so that I don't have to pay for it (because if there is no scarcity of a good it's not possible to charge people for it). Since an amount of food is not a dollar value, I'm going to assume that what you mean by this is that the value I place on a good is equal to the amount I would have to pay for that good if it were in as much supply as I think it should be. This would mean that I place no value on food, as if there were as great a supply of it as I think there should be I would not have to pay anything for it. However, this clearly doesn't make any sense, as food is not free, and I am willing to pay for it. Thus the amount that I value food at must be very different than what your formula says, so your formula must be wrong. It's all right though, we all make mistakes. Give it a tweak and we'll try it again.

My V for lemons is $0 dollars. I have a tree that's full of lemons. I have far more lemons than I need or want. I give bags of lemons away to people.

As my V increases, the more scarce I perceive lemons to be (the more abundant I want them to be).

[Grave_n_idle]

Xero do you agree that people value money differently?

People value everything differently.

You don't even see the irony in that, do you?

[Izandai]

I think the supply of food (to generalize a bit) should be infinite so that I don't have to pay for it (because if there is no scarcity of a good it's not possible to charge people for it). Since an amount of food is not a dollar value, I'm going to assume that what you mean by this is that the value I place on a good is equal to the amount I would have to pay for that good if it were in as much supply as I think it should be. This would mean that I place no value on food, as if there were as great a supply of it as I think there should be I would not have to pay anything for it. However, this clearly doesn't make any sense, as food is not free, and I am willing to pay for it. Thus the amount that I value food at must be very different than what your formula says, so your formula must be wrong. It's all right though, we all make mistakes. Give it a tweak and we'll try it again.

My V for lemons is $0 dollars. I have a tree that's full of lemons. I have far more lemons than I need or want. I give bags of lemons away to people.

As my V increases, the more scarce I perceive lemons to be (the more abundant I want them to be).

Okay, yes. As demand increases, if supply does not change scarcity also increases. What's your point?

[Galloism]

My V for lemons is $0 dollars. I have a tree that's full of lemons. I have far more lemons than I need or want. I give bags of lemons away to people.

As my V increases, the more scarce I perceive lemons to be (the more abundant I want them to be).

Okay, yes. As demand increases, if supply does not change scarcity also increases. What's your point?

Which gradually prices people out of the market, but their underlying value of the lemon does not change as a result of supply, simply whether they will/will not buy.

(Now, underlying value of the lemon may change, but not due to supply. For lemons, it's mostly due to how much you do or do not want to drink after reading xero threads.)

[Xerographica]

People value everything differently.

You don't even see the irony in that, do you?

Well it's the point of trade.

[Xerographica]

My V for lemons is $0 dollars. I have a tree that's full of lemons. I have far more lemons than I need or want. I give bags of lemons away to people.

As my V increases, the more scarce I perceive lemons to be (the more abundant I want them to be).

Okay, yes. As demand increases, if supply does not change scarcity also increases. What's your point?

My point is that Netflix subscribers should have the option to divide their fees among all the content.

[Galloism]

Okay, yes. As demand increases, if supply does not change scarcity also increases. What's your point?

My point is that Netflix subscribers should have the option to divide their fees among all the content.

Let's not kill netflix dead.

I like netflix, and am not a big fan of Hulu. I'd prefer that we don't make Netflix into a smoking hole trying a new concept that no business has ever tried ever.

If you want to do that, talk Wal-Mart into it.

[Xerographica]

My point is that Netflix subscribers should have the option to divide their fees among all the content.

Let's not kill netflix dead.

I like netflix, and am not a big fan of Hulu. I'd prefer that we don't make Netflix into a smoking hole trying a new concept that no business has ever tried ever.

If you want to do that, talk Wal-Mart into it.

First I'd have to talk Walmart into having subscribers. Why bother when Netflix already has subscribers? Would you prefer if the LA or NY Times allowed their subscribers to divide their fees among all the content?

[Izandai]

Okay, yes. As demand increases, if supply does not change scarcity also increases. What's your point?

My point is that Netflix subscribers should have the option to divide their fees among all the content.

What exactly do you mean by that? Specifically what business model do you think Netflix should adopt and why do you think it would be superior to the current system?

[Xerographica]

My point is that Netflix subscribers should have the option to divide their fees among all the content.

What exactly do you mean by that? Specifically what business model do you think Netflix should adopt and why do you think it would be superior to the current system?

Hi. I mean, exactly, that subscribers should use their fees to communicate their valuation of specific content. This model, the pragmatarian model, would be superior to the current model because The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Izandai]

What exactly do you mean by that? Specifically what business model do you think Netflix should adopt and why do you think it would be superior to the current system?

Hi. I mean, exactly, that subscribers should use their fees to communicate their valuation of specific content. This model, the pragmatarian model, would be superior to the current model because The Least Blind Group Will Win.

Okay, how would they do that? How exactly does the system you are proposing function?

[Galloism]

Let's not kill netflix dead.

I like netflix, and am not a big fan of Hulu. I'd prefer that we don't make Netflix into a smoking hole trying a new concept that no business has ever tried ever.

If you want to do that, talk Wal-Mart into it.

First I'd have to talk Walmart into having subscribers. Why bother when Netflix already has subscribers? Would you prefer if the LA or NY Times allowed their subscribers to divide their fees among all the content?

Sam's club then.

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

The most scary group will pole vault.

[Maqo]

Please don't let him start talking about Netflix. That's another rabbit hole. Even lemons is another tangent.

Stick to corn.

Why should a farmer, who is not currently selling out of corn, produce more corn because I value corn highly?

[Galloism]

Please don't let him start talking about Netflix. That's another rabbit hole. Even lemons is another tangent.

Stick to corn.

Why should a farmer, who is not currently selling out of corn, produce more corn because I value corn highly?

Good point Maqo. Sorry about that.

Xero, why should we produce more corn if corn is going already spoiling for not being sold enough, just because people 'value corn highly'?

[Xerographica]

Hi. I mean, exactly, that subscribers should use their fees to communicate their valuation of specific content. This model, the pragmatarian model, would be superior to the current model because The Least Blind Group Will Win.

Okay, how would they do that? How exactly does the system you are proposing function?

Well, the fee is like $10 dollars a month. So if you spend $1 dollar on a chick flick, then you'll have one less dollar to spend on action movies and nature documentaries. In considering the opportunity costs of your spending decisions... you'll have no choice but to prioritize... and then prosperity and progress.

It should always be easier, rather than harder, to find and nurture the things you love. Right? Shouldn't it be your responsibility to find and nurture the things you love? Because... who knows better than you do what you love? I have no idea what you love.

Right now I'm listening to a French Pop playlist on Youtube. I'm trying to find some new songs to love. What if happens if I do find a song that I love? Then I gotta nurture it! Like how? By clicking the "Thumbs Up"? That's not really adequate nurture. Adequate nurture requires sacrifice. The more I'm willing to sacrifice, the greater the nurture that I provide.

Except, well, the free-rider problem. But this isn't a problem on Netflix because subscribers are already spending their money! They just need to have the option to use their fees to nurture the content that they find and love.