Xerographica wrote:Galloism wrote:Of course, the logic behind that being, if we were to only fund things when they're absent and our "dollars" communicate that there's "not enough" of something, we'd have corn for a bit, then no one would fund corn, then corn would be nearly extinct, then everyone would fund corn, then we'd have an overabundance of corn and half of it spoils again.
Everybody around the world is going to
simultaneously perceive the
equal absence of corn? If you perceive people, and their circumstances, to be so homogeneous, then markets are a massive waste of time. We can simply pick anybody to decide how everybody's money should be spent.
First you tell me that people will pick based on PERSONAL need, then you say people will pick based on GLOBAL need.
Make up your damn mind. You can't do both.
Galloism wrote:Of course, corn isn't that hard to grow from a minimal amount of seeds. Where this really affects things is things like computers or cars or other manufacturing which requires significant tooling. This is because if we only fund them when they're absent, when computers are being supplied, we don't fund them, so then the factories switch over to toasters (because that's what's being funded this week) with significant retooling, then everyone realizes no one's making computers anymore, so we start funding computers again, then they switch back from toasters to computers (again, requiring significant effort at retooling). Suddenly all these "brains" are working on switching from computers to toaster to ovens to space heaters to printers over and over and over again instead of making computers faster, making space heaters more efficient, or making toasters toast bread more evenly.
Chances are good that our computers aren't the same age. This means that chances are good that we won't need to buy new computers at the same exact time. This means that we really won't perceive the absence of computers
equally.
Actually, my computer is probably newer than yours, but at no point would I say that the global supply of computers is insufficient. Computers are repeatedly released, sit on the shelf, go out of date, and are sold for basically nothing to get it off the shelf. We produce far more computers than we need. Our GLOBAL supply of computers is excessive. My PERSONAL supply of computers is adequate because I purchase a computer every few years.
(Well, to be a bit more precise, I purchase parts and build one, but the principle is the same)
If I were to base my price on the GLOBAL supply of computers, I would pay nothing. Computers are already being produced in excess. If I were to pay on my PERSONAL value of computers, it would be an amount based on the amount it will generate income to me because I use it it for work, which would probably be mid 5 figures somewhere (20k? 30k?).
Which are consumers valuating with, PERSONAL value, or GLOBAL value?
It can't be both. They're different numbers.
Going back to corn, either they're going to pay $100 an ear because they have no corn at home and they give it a personal value it at $100, making supply increase and cuasing more waste, or they'll pay nothing because they know we already produce so much corn that part of it goes to waste NOW, and they need to depress global supply by consuming it without paying for it. Make up your mind.
Let's consider a somewhat less silly example... milk. Everybody's going to run out of milk at the same time? Of course not. Some people don't even drink milk. Others drink soy milk or almond milk rather than cow milk. Some people drink goat milk. Lots of babies drink human milk. As far as I know nobody drinks cat milk or dog milk or mouse milk or elephant milk or whale milk. Some people drink more milk than other people.
No, but either the global milk supply is adequate, overabundant, or scarce.
If they're valuing with PERSONAL dollars, than a mother who needs milk for her children to grow may pay hundreds of dollars for milk, even though milk routinely spoils for being overproduced because she needs it for her children, and parents value their children's growth extremely highly. If it's based on GLOBAL needs, she'll pay nothing because we already produce so much milk that a good chunk of it spoils before being sold.
So which is it Xero, PERSONAL need or GLOBAL need? These are two different numbers.
The more was just more nonsense except this:
The Least Blind Group Will Win.
The most scary group will pole vault.