The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Izandai]

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.

If I do what you suggest, then over time the amount of votes (because that's what we're talking about here, not money, I don't know why you keep going back to money) I allocate to each movie I've watched (or book I've read) becomes vanishingly small, to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to extract any meaningful data from how I've apportioned my votes. And this still runs into an issue of misrepresentation. If I watch one movie in one month and give it all 10 of my votes, then watch 9 movies in the next month and give all 10 movies I've watched so far 1 vote each because I liked them all equally, that first movie is still 10 votes ahead, and it looks like I liked it much more than the other movies, even though I liked them all the same. And this problem only gets worse as I watch more and more movies and my limited votes are stretched more and more thin, and while I used an intentionally simplified scenario here to clearly illustrate my point, this misrepresentation will happen even if I like some movies that I watch more or less than others.

[Izandai]

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.

Well, if not everyone who can be working on the problem is already (and they aren't) more money can always buy the time of more researchers. But again, this is a question for another thread. Let's stop talking about it before we get told off for going off-topic.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

You mean to tell us that you would pay $5 every month for a book that you could probably buy outright for the same amount?

[Galloism]

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.

You mean to tell us that you would pay $5 every month for a book that you could probably buy outright for the same amount?

It's public domain. You can read it online for free.

[Galloism]

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.

You mean to tell us that you would pay $5 every month for a book that you could probably buy outright for the same amount?

It's public domain. You can read it online for free.

[Xerographica]

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.

If I do what you suggest, then over time the amount of votes (because that's what we're talking about here, not money, I don't know why you keep going back to money)...

It IS money... whether or not Netflix or AKU passes it onto the creators of the content doesn't change the fact that you're using your money to communicate your valuation of the content.

...I allocate to each movie I've watched (or book I've read) becomes vanishingly small, to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to extract any meaningful data from how I've apportioned my votes. And this still runs into an issue of misrepresentation. If I watch one movie in one month and give it all 10 of my votes, then watch 9 movies in the next month and give all 10 movies I've watched so far 1 vote each because I liked them all equally, that first movie is still 10 votes ahead, and it looks like I liked it much more than the other movies, even though I liked them all the same. And this problem only gets worse as I watch more and more movies and my limited votes are stretched more and more thin, and while I used an intentionally simplified scenario here to clearly illustrate my point, this misrepresentation will happen even if I like some movies that I watch more or less than others.

Eh? Sure, you can equally divide your fees among all your favorite content. Then you're communicating that you really don't perceive any content is significantly or particularly scarce.

Personally, one of my favorite movies is Chungking Express. I perceive movies like it to be super scarce. Maybe the closest movie that I've seen is Mr. Nobody but they are pretty different.

And my favorite book is definitely Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Sure there are a gazillion economics books but his is by far the best, that I know of, on the topic of the Invisible Hand. So I perceive books like his to be super scarce.

Of course I'm just one consumer in a gazillion. So my fees aren't going to make much difference in the overall demand for things. But what type of content does the crowd perceive to be super scarce? As far as movies and books is concerned... we don't know... but we really should. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Izandai]

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.

They may not know exactly how I want the nation's tax dollars spent, but neither do I. I am not nearly well-informed enough about the innumerable issues facing a nation and the world to draw up a complete and detailed budget. But I do know what my ideals are, and my representative knows that their ideals match mine (or match mine closer than any other contender for the office), and will attempt to enact whatever policy they think most appropriate to make the world closer match my ideals. That's how representative government works, and it works quite well. Because people can vote with things other than money. They can also vote with votes.

[Xerographica]

You mean to tell us that you would pay $5 every month for a book that you could probably buy outright for the same amount?

It's public domain. You can read it online for free.

It's awesome that people can read it for free but it's the biggest problem that there isn't a system for people to use their money to accurately communicate their valuation of it. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Xerographica]

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.

They may not know exactly how I want the nation's tax dollars spent, but neither do I. I am not nearly well-informed enough about the innumerable issues facing a nation and the world to draw up a complete and detailed budget. But I do know what my ideals are, and my representative knows that their ideals match mine (or match mine closer than any other contender for the office), and will attempt to enact whatever policy they think most appropriate to make the world closer match my ideals. That's how representative government works, and it works quite well. Because people can vote with things other than money. They can also vote with votes.

Directly allocating your taxes would be optional. If you were super happy with how your representatives were spending your tax dollars then you'd have absolutely no reason to take the time or make the effort to spend them yourself.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's public domain. You can read it online for free.

It's awesome that people can read it for free but it's the biggest problem that there isn't a system for people to use their money to accurately communicate their valuation of it. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

So if we give Jeff Bezos money, then Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Hayek will know how much we "value" their work, and it will prompt the three of them to write more books on economics?

[Xerographica]

It's awesome that people can read it for free but it's the biggest problem that there isn't a system for people to use their money to accurately communicate their valuation of it. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

So if we give Jeff Bezos money, then Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Hayek will know how much we "value" their work, and it will prompt the three of them to write more books on economics?

Oh yes, zombie economics!!! Heh. Clearly Smith, Mill and Hayek won't be able to see the value signals for their words. But the brighter the value signals for their words, the more likely that more people will read them. And the more likely that writers will try and supply better words. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Izandai]

If I do what you suggest, then over time the amount of votes (because that's what we're talking about here, not money, I don't know why you keep going back to money)...

It IS money... whether or not Netflix or AKU passes it onto the creators of the content doesn't change the fact that you're using your money to communicate your valuation of the content.

...I allocate to each movie I've watched (or book I've read) becomes vanishingly small, to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to extract any meaningful data from how I've apportioned my votes. And this still runs into an issue of misrepresentation. If I watch one movie in one month and give it all 10 of my votes, then watch 9 movies in the next month and give all 10 movies I've watched so far 1 vote each because I liked them all equally, that first movie is still 10 votes ahead, and it looks like I liked it much more than the other movies, even though I liked them all the same. And this problem only gets worse as I watch more and more movies and my limited votes are stretched more and more thin, and while I used an intentionally simplified scenario here to clearly illustrate my point, this misrepresentation will happen even if I like some movies that I watch more or less than others.

Eh? Sure, you can equally divide your fees among all your favorite content. Then you're communicating that you really don't perceive any content is significantly or particularly scarce.

Personally, one of my favorite movies is Chungking Express. I perceive movies like it to be super scarce. Maybe the closest movie that I've seen is Mr. Nobody but they are pretty different.

And my favorite book is definitely Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Sure there are a gazillion economics books but his is by far the best, that I know of, on the topic of the Invisible Hand. So I perceive books like his to be super scarce.

Of course I'm just one consumer in a gazillion. So my fees aren't going to make much difference in overall demand for things. But what type of content does the crowd to be super scarce? As far as movies and books is concerned... we don't know... but we really should. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

It's public domain. You can read it online for free.

It's awesome that people can read it for free but it's the biggest problem that there isn't a system for people to use their money to accurately communicate their valuation of it. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

So it's not that you are trying to come up with a better way for people to exchange money for goods and services, you're just trying to come up with a way for people to tell goods makers/service providers what goods and services they want more of? Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the current system already does that. If there's not enough supply of a good or service to keep up with demand, then others will enter into the market and start providing that good or service until demand and supply are in balance. The bad news is that there's no easy way to communicate that you want to be able to buy more of a good or service that doesn't exist at all. But there's good news there too, because if there's a demand for a good or service that doesn't exist, that's a ripe opportunity for you to get in on the ground floor of a new part of the economy.

[Izandai]

They may not know exactly how I want the nation's tax dollars spent, but neither do I. I am not nearly well-informed enough about the innumerable issues facing a nation and the world to draw up a complete and detailed budget. But I do know what my ideals are, and my representative knows that their ideals match mine (or match mine closer than any other contender for the office), and will attempt to enact whatever policy they think most appropriate to make the world closer match my ideals. That's how representative government works, and it works quite well. Because people can vote with things other than money. They can also vote with votes.

Directly allocating your taxes would be optional. If you were super happy with how your representatives were spending your tax dollars then you'd have absolutely no reason to take the time or make the effort to spend them yourself.

There's no reason for me to allocate my tax dollars myself as it is. I would do a terrible job of it. Much better to have an elected representative who's job it is to study the issues of the day do it. This is the value of career politicians and of representative government.

[The Two Jerseys]

So if we give Jeff Bezos money, then Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Friedrich Hayek will know how much we "value" their work, and it will prompt the three of them to write more books on economics?

Oh yes, zombie economics!!! Heh. Clearly Smith, Mill and Hayek won't be able to see the value signals for their words. But the brighter the value signals for their words, the more likely that more people will read them. And the more likely that writers will try and supply better words. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

This may come as a surprise to you, but no matter how highly you "rate" those books with your money, most people don't want to curl up with a nice economic treatise...

[Neanderthaland]

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?

Literally everything.

However paying literally everything won't give me immortality. I would starve to death, ironically.

[Xerographica]

It IS money... whether or not Netflix or AKU passes it onto the creators of the content doesn't change the fact that you're using your money to communicate your valuation of the content.


Eh? Sure, you can equally divide your fees among all your favorite content. Then you're communicating that you really don't perceive any content is significantly or particularly scarce.

Personally, one of my favorite movies is Chungking Express. I perceive movies like it to be super scarce. Maybe the closest movie that I've seen is Mr. Nobody but they are pretty different.

And my favorite book is definitely Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Sure there are a gazillion economics books but his is by far the best, that I know of, on the topic of the Invisible Hand. So I perceive books like his to be super scarce.

Of course I'm just one consumer in a gazillion. So my fees aren't going to make much difference in overall demand for things. But what type of content does the crowd to be super scarce? As far as movies and books is concerned... we don't know... but we really should. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

It's awesome that people can read it for free but it's the biggest problem that there isn't a system for people to use their money to accurately communicate their valuation of it. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

So it's not that you are trying to come up with a better way for people to exchange money for goods and services, you're just trying to come up with a way for people to tell goods makers/service providers what goods and services they want more of? Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the current system already does that.

It doesn't do it that well. It's not easy for forum members to spend their money on their favorite threads. It's not possible for Netflix subscribers to spend their fees on their favorite content. It's not possible for taxpayers to spend their taxes on their favorite public goods.

But, the Libertarian Party did give donors the freedom to spend their contributions on their favorite themes. So there is some progress being made in the right direction. But it's way too slow. Because in the meantime... Trump wants to slash the EPA's budget. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Xerographica]

Directly allocating your taxes would be optional. If you were super happy with how your representatives were spending your tax dollars then you'd have absolutely no reason to take the time or make the effort to spend them yourself.

There's no reason for me to allocate my tax dollars myself as it is. I would do a terrible job of it. Much better to have an elected representative who's job it is to study the issues of the day do it. This is the value of career politicians and of representative government.

Sure, I definitely wouldn't force you to spend your taxes yourself. Why would you want to force me to not spend my taxes myself?

[Izandai]

So it's not that you are trying to come up with a better way for people to exchange money for goods and services, you're just trying to come up with a way for people to tell goods makers/service providers what goods and services they want more of? Well, I have good news and bad news. The good news is that the current system already does that.

It doesn't do it that well. It's not easy for forum members to spend their money on their favorite threads. It's not possible for Netflix subscribers to spend their fees on their favorite content. It's not possible for taxpayers to spend their taxes on their favorite public goods.

But, the Libertarian Party did give donors the freedom to spend their contributions on their favorite themes. So there is some progress being made in the right direction. But it's way too slow. Because in the meantime... Trump wants to slash the EPA's budget. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

It actually does it quite well. If someone likes a thread, they post on it, continuing the discussion and bringing it to the top of the page for more people to see and contribute to. Netflix subscribers communicate what sort of content they would like to see more of by what content they watch and how they rate it. Taxpayers get their taxes spent the way they want by electing the representatives who will spend their taxes the way they want. The system works quite well. Or rather, these three disparate systems that really don't have all that much in common with each other work quite well.

[Xerographica]

Oh yes, zombie economics!!! Heh. Clearly Smith, Mill and Hayek won't be able to see the value signals for their words. But the brighter the value signals for their words, the more likely that more people will read them. And the more likely that writers will try and supply better words. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

This may come as a surprise to you, but no matter how highly you "rate" those books with your money, most people don't want to curl up with a nice economic treatise...

I guess you don't appreciate how many people purchased Piketty's book.

Still though, picking up rocks sure doesn't sound very fun... but if you see a big gold nugget I'm sure that you'd have fun picking it up and carrying it with you. Why? Because you'd know its value.

How much time and effort we put into things depends on their value. So if we don't correctly know the true value of things... chances are good that we'll misallocate way too much of our limited time and energy and brain cells.

[Galloism]

It's public domain. You can read it online for free.

It's awesome that people can read it for free but it's the biggest problem that there isn't a system for people to use their money to accurately communicate their valuation of it. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

The most scary group will pole vault.

Given you just said people doing what you propose will cause millions of tons of corn to be continually produced so it can spoil, clearly more blind groups win.

[Izandai]

There's no reason for me to allocate my tax dollars myself as it is. I would do a terrible job of it. Much better to have an elected representative who's job it is to study the issues of the day do it. This is the value of career politicians and of representative government.

Sure, I definitely wouldn't force you to spend your taxes yourself. Why would you want to force me to not spend my taxes myself?

Because you would probably also do a terrible job of it. Some people would do a good job allocating their taxes (mostly the career politicians that should be allocating everyone's taxes anyways), but almost everyone would be terrible at it, and most of them have better things to be doing with their time anyways. This is the core principle behind representative democracy.

[The Two Jerseys]

How much time and effort we put into things depends on their value. So if we don't correctly know the true value of things... chances are good that we'll misallocate way too much of our limited time and energy and brain cells.

And allocate it to shipping all your corn to Timbuktu...

[Xerographica]

It doesn't do it that well. It's not easy for forum members to spend their money on their favorite threads. It's not possible for Netflix subscribers to spend their fees on their favorite content. It's not possible for taxpayers to spend their taxes on their favorite public goods.

But, the Libertarian Party did give donors the freedom to spend their contributions on their favorite themes. So there is some progress being made in the right direction. But it's way too slow. Because in the meantime... Trump wants to slash the EPA's budget. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

It actually does it quite well. If someone likes a thread, they post on it, continuing the discussion and bringing it to the top of the page for more people to see and contribute to. Netflix subscribers communicate what sort of content they would like to see more of by what content they watch and how they rate it. Taxpayers get their taxes spent the way they want by electing the representatives who will spend their taxes the way they want. The system works quite well. Or rather, these three disparate systems that really don't have all that much in common with each other work quite well.

Spending time certainly is a sacrifice. But we use money for a reason. It's because it's a really convenient way to make a sacrifice. So it's a convenient way to communicate our valuation of things. Then the issue is ensuring that we use our money to accurately communicate our valuation of things. Hence the point of pragmatarian markets. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Xerographica]

Sure, I definitely wouldn't force you to spend your taxes yourself. Why would you want to force me to not spend my taxes myself?

Because you would probably also do a terrible job of it. Some people would do a good job allocating their taxes (mostly the career politicians that should be allocating everyone's taxes anyways), but almost everyone would be terrible at it, and most of them have better things to be doing with their time anyways.

First you argue that people who chose to allocate their taxes would do a terrible job. Then you argue that they have better things to do with their time. Which one is it?

[Izandai]

It actually does it quite well. If someone likes a thread, they post on it, continuing the discussion and bringing it to the top of the page for more people to see and contribute to. Netflix subscribers communicate what sort of content they would like to see more of by what content they watch and how they rate it. Taxpayers get their taxes spent the way they want by electing the representatives who will spend their taxes the way they want. The system works quite well. Or rather, these three disparate systems that really don't have all that much in common with each other work quite well.

Spending time certainly is a sacrifice. But we use money for a reason. It's because it's a really convenient way to make a sacrifice. So it's a convenient way to communicate our valuation of things. Then the issue is ensuring that we use our money to accurately communicate our valuation of things. Hence the point of pragmatarian markets. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

We use money because having a portable medium of exchange that we can trade for things we want instead of bartering makes trade much easier. How we spend our money in our attempts to get the most bang for our buck naturally tells goods makers whether they're making too much or too little of a given good, and whether they need to raise or lower prices. How exactly we value the things we buy doesn't generally come into it because we're trying to pay as low a price as we can for the things we want.