The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Izandai]

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

This is where the meaningful info that answered my question stopped, and thus where you should've stopped typing.

So what you're saying is that it would cost $10 a month to use Netflix, but you don't actually get to watch any movies unless you spend one of those dollars directly on a movie that you want to watch? Then what's the point of centering the whole thing on a monthly fee? Why not just charge people per movie they watched, basically turning the whole thing into an on-demand service? The system you've described is effectively that, but with an additional cap on how many movies you can watch in a month and a penalty if you watch less than the maximum. So if I understand what you're saying right, why is this a better system than the monthly fee with unlimited use system that Netflix currently uses? And if I misunderstand, what is the actual system you are proposing, and why would it be better?

[Neanderthaland]

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

Unless he's a Samurai.

[Xerographica]

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'?

This doesn't make any sense. Imagine you have a tree full of apples. You say that you highly value apples but you're not picking your apples. You're not using them to make applesauce or apple pies. So... in any case, maybe you don't need to plant another apple tree.

Back in the day oranges used to be a luxury item. They were super expensive because the demand was far greater than the supply. The world obviously didn't have enough orange trees. However, the super high price that oranges were commanding encouraged more producers to plant orange trees. The supply went up and the price went down.

This system works because people use their money to communicate what they want the supply to be. But because of consumer surplus, it really isn't the shortest distance between scarcity and abundance. If we get rid of consumer surplus, then we'd overcome scarcity of valuable things even faster.

[Xerographica]

Well, the fee is like $10 dollars a month. So if you spend $1 dollar on a chick flick

This is where the meaningful info that answered my question stopped, and thus where you should've stopped typing.

So what you're saying is that it would cost $10 a month to use Netflix, but you don't actually get to watch any movies unless you spend one of those dollars directly on a movie that you want to watch?

I really didn't say that. You'd still be able to watch whatever you wanted. You'd simply have the option to use your fees to communicate your valuation of what you watch. In other words, you'd have the option to use your fees to reveal your demand for content. The Least Blind Group Will Win. The Most Shy Group Will Poll Vault. Amish People Won't Win By Default.

[Galloism]

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'?

This doesn't make any sense. Imagine you have a tree full of apples. You say that you highly value apples but you're not picking your apples. You're not using them to make applesauce or apple pies. So... in any case, maybe you don't need to plant another apple tree.

Back in the day oranges used to be a luxury item. They were super expensive because the demand was far greater than the supply. The world obviously didn't have enough orange trees. However, the super high price that oranges were commanding encouraged more producers to plant orange trees. The supply went up and the price went down.

This system works because people use their money to communicate what they want the supply to be. But because of consumer surplus, it really isn't the shortest distance between scarcity and abundance. If we get rid of consumer surplus, then we'd overcome scarcity of valuable things even faster.

You're missing the point, AGAIN, because you won't answer a simple fucking question, AGAIN.

Answer the fucking question Xero.

As we've repeatedly asked: Instead of paying the $1 that I have to, I pay $100 for an ear of corn. 90% of the farmer's crop still spoils. Why does he interpret the information that he needs to produce more corn? Why does he listen to that information when it contradicts his much more informed opinion that he should produce less corn?

[Xerographica]

This doesn't make any sense. Imagine you have a tree full of apples. You say that you highly value apples but you're not picking your apples. You're not using them to make applesauce or apple pies. So... in any case, maybe you don't need to plant another apple tree.

Back in the day oranges used to be a luxury item. They were super expensive because the demand was far greater than the supply. The world obviously didn't have enough orange trees. However, the super high price that oranges were commanding encouraged more producers to plant orange trees. The supply went up and the price went down.

This system works because people use their money to communicate what they want the supply to be. But because of consumer surplus, it really isn't the shortest distance between scarcity and abundance. If we get rid of consumer surplus, then we'd overcome scarcity of valuable things even faster.

You're missing the point, AGAIN, because you won't answer a simple fucking question, AGAIN.

Answer the fucking question Xero.

As we've repeatedly asked: Instead of paying the $1 that I have to, I pay $100 for an ear of corn. 90% of the farmer's crop still spoils. Why does he interpret the information that he needs to produce more corn? Why does he listen to that information when it contradicts his much more informed opinion that he should produce less corn?

I'm not sure what's going on here. Do you not know that demand is aggregated?

[Galloism]

You're missing the point, AGAIN, because you won't answer a simple fucking question, AGAIN.

Answer the fucking question Xero.

I'm not sure what's going on here. Do you not know that demand is aggregated?

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?

[Xerographica]

Maqo, everyone pays the farmer $100 for a fucking ear of corn because they're all retarded and pay what they truly value, but they don't need much

Why pay $100 dollars for corn when there's a surplus?

[Galloism]

Maqo, everyone pays the farmer $100 for a fucking ear of corn because they're all retarded and pay what they truly value, but they don't need much

Why pay $100 dollars for corn when there's a surplus?

Because you told them to be retarded and pay what they truly value it instead of what they can get it for, and they're so fucking stupid they believed you instead of thinking about what's in their best interests.

Answer the question Xero. They're sending a "bright value signal" that they love corn and value it highly. WHAT should the farmer do with this information Xero?

Produce MORE corn, or LESS corn. Why?

[Izandai]

This is where the meaningful info that answered my question stopped, and thus where you should've stopped typing.

So what you're saying is that it would cost $10 a month to use Netflix, but you don't actually get to watch any movies unless you spend one of those dollars directly on a movie that you want to watch?

I really didn't say that. You'd still be able to watch whatever you wanted. You'd simply have the option to use your fees to communicate your valuation of what you watch. In other words, you'd have the option to use your fees to reveal your demand for content. The Least Blind Group Will Win. The Most Shy Group Will Poll Vault. Amish People Won't Win By Default.

So my $10 dollar monthly fee gets me 10 votes to portion out among the various movies, and by doing so demonstrate what kinds of movies I want Netflix to purchase the rights to more of? How is this better than the current system, where Netflix knows what kinds of movies I most like and would want to be able to watch more of based on what movies I watch?

[Xerographica]

Why pay $100 dollars for corn when there's a surplus?

Because you told them to be retarded and pay what they truly value it instead of what they can get it for, and they're so fucking stupid they believed you instead of thinking about what's in their best interests.

Answer the question Xero. They're sending a "bright value signal" that they love corn. WHAT should the farmer do with this information Xero?

People know about the supply of corn. They go shopping and see how much corn is available. They use their money to communicate how they feel about the supply. The more money they spend on corn, the greater they perceive that there's a shortage of corn. Producers get the message and plant more corn.

[Galloism]

Because you told them to be retarded and pay what they truly value it instead of what they can get it for, and they're so fucking stupid they believed you instead of thinking about what's in their best interests.

Answer the question Xero. They're sending a "bright value signal" that they love corn. WHAT should the farmer do with this information Xero?

People know about the supply of corn. They go shopping and see how much corn is available. They use their money to communicate how they feel about the supply. The more money they spend on corn, the greater they perceive that there's a shortage of corn. Producers get the message and plant more corn.

So if people who "highly value corn" pay $100 for their fucking corn for some damn reason, farmers will plant more corn, so more can go to waste because they're not even selling what they have?

And this is the efficiency of the invisible hand?

[Neanderthaland]

Because you told them to be retarded and pay what they truly value it instead of what they can get it for, and they're so fucking stupid they believed you instead of thinking about what's in their best interests.

Answer the question Xero. They're sending a "bright value signal" that they love corn. WHAT should the farmer do with this information Xero?

People know about the supply of corn. They go shopping and see how much corn is available. They use their money to communicate how they feel about the supply. The more money they spend on corn, the greater they perceive that there's a shortage of corn. Producers get the message and plant more corn.

I'm going to just go ahead and say that I know fuck-all about the supply of corn. I assume there's a lot of it. I have no idea what a reasonable price for corn should be beyond what I see when I go shopping for it. My demand for corn is mostly determined by my girlfriend saying "would you pick up some corn."

Consumers are not as well-informed as you suppose.

[Xerographica]

I really didn't say that. You'd still be able to watch whatever you wanted. You'd simply have the option to use your fees to communicate your valuation of what you watch. In other words, you'd have the option to use your fees to reveal your demand for content. The Least Blind Group Will Win. The Most Shy Group Will Poll Vault. Amish People Won't Win By Default.

So my $10 dollar monthly fee gets me 10 votes to portion out among the various movies, and by doing so demonstrate what kinds of movies I want Netflix to purchase the rights to more of?

Yup.

How is this better than the current system, where Netflix knows what kinds of movies I most like and would want to be able to watch more of based on what movies I watch?

I mean, sure you can share with me a list of all the content that you've given 5 stars to. But this really doesn't mean that you value all this content equally.

Netflix doesn't know your valuations. It doesn't have this information... and it really can't use information that it doesn't have. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Xerographica]

People know about the supply of corn. They go shopping and see how much corn is available. They use their money to communicate how they feel about the supply. The more money they spend on corn, the greater they perceive that there's a shortage of corn. Producers get the message and plant more corn.

I'm going to just go ahead and say that I know fuck-all about the supply of corn. I assume there's a lot of it. I have no idea what a reasonable price for corn should be beyond what I see when I go shopping for it. My demand for corn is mostly determined by my girlfriend saying "would you pick up some corn."

Consumers are not as well-informed as you suppose.

When you go to the store do you see many mangosteens? Do you see many starfruit? What about dragon fruit?

Do you see many flying cars? Do you know if there's a cure for cancer?

"I wish there was more ___________ "

How many different ways can you fill in the blank?

[Izandai]

So my $10 dollar monthly fee gets me 10 votes to portion out among the various movies, and by doing so demonstrate what kinds of movies I want Netflix to purchase the rights to more of?

Yup.

How is this better than the current system, where Netflix knows what kinds of movies I most like and would want to be able to watch more of based on what movies I watch?

I mean, sure you can share with me a list of all the content that you've given 5 stars to. But this really doesn't mean that you value all this content equally.

Yes it does. That's why they all have five stars. If I valued them differently I would've given them different star ratings. I have 5 levels in this system. That's a lot of nuance to play around with. More nuance, in fact, than your 10 votes system, which can produce misleading statistics. If I only watch 2 movies in a month and like them equally, I'll give them each 5 votes (assuming I'm allowed to vote on a movie more than once). But if the next month I watch 5 movies and like them all the same, I can only give each of them 2 votes, even if I liked them more than the movies I watched last month. This makes it look like I liked the movies from last month more, when the opposite is true.

Netflix doesn't know your valuations. It doesn't have this information...

Yes it does. I told Netflix that I like movies about cops by watching a lot of cop movies and rating them highly.

[Xerographica]

People know about the supply of corn. They go shopping and see how much corn is available. They use their money to communicate how they feel about the supply. The more money they spend on corn, the greater they perceive that there's a shortage of corn. Producers get the message and plant more corn.

So if people who "highly value corn" pay $100 for their fucking corn for some damn reason, farmers will plant more corn, so more can go to waste because they're not even selling what they have?

And this is the efficiency of the invisible hand?

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

[The Two Jerseys]

So if people who "highly value corn" pay $100 for their fucking corn for some damn reason, farmers will plant more corn, so more can go to waste because they're not even selling what they have?

And this is the efficiency of the invisible hand?

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

Do they send their entire corn harvest to Timbuktu because they're willing to pay $100 an ear, while those cheapskate Yankees are only paying $1 an ear?

[Izandai]

So if people who "highly value corn" pay $100 for their fucking corn for some damn reason, farmers will plant more corn, so more can go to waste because they're not even selling what they have?

And this is the efficiency of the invisible hand?

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

And then under your system, the people in Timbuktu will continue paying $100 for corn because that's what they value it at. And then corn growers keep sending more and more corn to Timbuktu because they think there's a huge unsatisfied demand for corn, based on the high price that it fetches. But people don't buy more corn as the supply of corn becomes greater, leading to a lot of wasted corn. So the corn growers lose money on unsold corn and the people of Timbuktu lose money because they're overpaying for corn. How is this system better than the current one, where as the supply of corn increases in response to high demand, the price drops because consumers can get away with paying less?

[Neanderthaland]

I'm going to just go ahead and say that I know fuck-all about the supply of corn. I assume there's a lot of it. I have no idea what a reasonable price for corn should be beyond what I see when I go shopping for it. My demand for corn is mostly determined by my girlfriend saying "would you pick up some corn."

Consumers are not as well-informed as you suppose.

When you go to the store do you see many mangosteens? Do you see many starfruit? What about dragon fruit?

Do you see many flying cars? Do you know if there's a cure for cancer?

"I wish there was more ___________ "

How many different ways can you fill in the blank?

I go to a store that stocks Durian, but I don't see how your response is any kind of sensible response at all.

Besides which, I think you know even less about engineering and biology then you do about economics. A cure for cancer does not exist not because there's not a demand for it, but because it's likely impossible to make human biological systems maintain themselves perfectly forever, and when detrimental errors inevitably occur it often takes the form of cancer. If we knew a way to make living cells function flawlessly all the time, forget cancer, we could literally cure death.

[Galloism]

So if people who "highly value corn" pay $100 for their fucking corn for some damn reason, farmers will plant more corn, so more can go to waste because they're not even selling what they have?

And this is the efficiency of the invisible hand?

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

So we're going to make more corn rot and spoil, and this is the efficiency of the invisible hand?

[Xerographica]

Yup.


I mean, sure you can share with me a list of all the content that you've given 5 stars to. But this really doesn't mean that you value all this content equally.

Yes it does. That's why they all have five stars. If I valued them differently I would've given them different star ratings. I have 5 levels in this system. That's a lot of nuance to play around with. More nuance, in fact, than your 10 votes system, which can produce misleading statistics. If I only watch 2 movies in a month and like them equally, I'll give them each 5 votes (assuming I'm allowed to vote on a movie more than once).

Why are you assuming that you'd only be able to spend fees on a movie more than once?

Here are three things that I love...

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
On Liberty by J.S. Mill
The Use of Knowledge in Society by Friedrich Hayek

Not too long ago I divided $10 dollars among these things and a few others...

The Wealth of Nations: $5
On Liberty: $3
The Use of Knowledge in Society: $1

If these things were available on Amazon Kindle Unlimited (AKU)... then each month for sure I'd continue allocating similar amounts of fees to them.

How many books would you give 5 stars to? Maybe a few? But how would you divide $10 dollars among them? This is what I would want to know.

You using your limited money to prioritize your favorite books would help me decide how to prioritize using my limited time. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Izandai]

When you go to the store do you see many mangosteens? Do you see many starfruit? What about dragon fruit?

Do you see many flying cars? Do you know if there's a cure for cancer?

"I wish there was more ___________ "

How many different ways can you fill in the blank?

I go to a store that stocks Durian, but I don't see how your response is any kind of sensible response at all.

Besides which, I think you know even less about engineering and biology then you do about economics. A cure for cancer does not exist not because there's not a demand for it, but because it's likely impossible to make human biological systems maintain themselves perfectly forever, and when detrimental errors inevitably occur it often takes the form of cancer. If we knew a way to make living cells function flawlessly all the time, forget cancer, we could literally cure death.

Some people actually think that with concerted research and study, we could find a way to cure mortality. We have a decent grasp of the reasons why people age (and even an example of a creature that is seemingly immune to aging in the naked mole rat), and with enough effort we should be able to find a way to replicate the process in humans.

Naked mole rats also don't seem to get cancer, so a cure for cancer definitely seems possible, at least in theory (and even if we never are totally able to prevent cancer, we could probably be a lot better at curing it when it happens). These are questions for another thread, though.

[The Two Jerseys]

I go to a store that stocks Durian, but I don't see how your response is any kind of sensible response at all.

Besides which, I think you know even less about engineering and biology then you do about economics. A cure for cancer does not exist not because there's not a demand for it, but because it's likely impossible to make human biological systems maintain themselves perfectly forever, and when detrimental errors inevitably occur it often takes the form of cancer. If we knew a way to make living cells function flawlessly all the time, forget cancer, we could literally cure death.

Some people actually think that with concerted research and study, we could find a way to cure mortality. We have a decent grasp of the reasons why people age (and even an example of a creature that is seemingly immune to aging in the naked mole rat), and with enough effort we should be able to find a way to replicate the process in humans.

Naked mole rats also don't seem to get cancer, so a cure for cancer definitely seems possible, at least in theory (and even if we never are totally able to prevent cancer, we could probably be a lot better at curing it when it happens). These are questions for another thread, though.

Still, despite what Xero may claim, throwing money at research won't do anything when there's only so many qualified researchers who can only do so much work in any given time period.

[Xerographica]

When you go to the store do you see many mangosteens? Do you see many starfruit? What about dragon fruit?

Do you see many flying cars? Do you know if there's a cure for cancer?

"I wish there was more ___________ "

How many different ways can you fill in the blank?

I go to a store that stocks Durian, but I don't see how your response is any kind of sensible response at all.

Besides which, I think you know even less about engineering and biology then you do about economics. A cure for cancer does not exist not because there's not a demand for it, but because it's likely impossible to make human biological systems maintain themselves perfectly forever, and when detrimental errors inevitably occur it often takes the form of cancer. If we knew a way to make living cells function flawlessly all the time, forget cancer, we could literally cure death.

What's the demand for immortality then? How much would you be willing to pay to be as healthy for as long as you want?

If you're willing to spend lots of money on Durians then clearly it's going to marginally shift society's resources accordingly. But Durian is something that you can buy. And if you buy it, then you get the benefit. It's a private good.

But what about public goods? There's the free-rider problem. So... taxes. But this really doesn't mean that some politician knows your demand for anything better than you do.

Have your representative guess your demand for Durians or donuts. Then have him or her guess your demand for environmental protection or space colonization. Let me know how good his or her guesses are.

Chances are that YOU don't even know your demand for environmental protection or space colonization. These are the kinda things that you can only truly know when given the option to allocate your tax dollars.

This emphasis is misleading. Individuals do not act so as to maximize utilities described in independently existing functions. They confront genuine choices, and the sequence of decisions taken may be conceptualized, ex post (after the choices), in terms of "as if" functions that are maximized. But these "as if" functions are, themselves, generated in the choosing process, not separately from such process. If viewed in this perspective, there is no means by which even the most idealized omniscient designer could duplicate the results of voluntary interchange. The potential participants do not know until they enter the process what their own choices will be. From this it follows that it is logically impossible for an omniscient designer to know, unless, of course, we are to preclude individual freedom of will. - James Buchanan, Order Defined in the Process of its Emergence