Game Theory For Baby Names

[Neanderthaland]

There's no demand? Seriously? If there was absolutely no demand to name babies then babies wouldn't have names.

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

Also, fun fact, in some older societies, it was common not to name children until they were two years old. The death rate in the first two years was high enough they weren’t named until after that time (when they had a good shot of becoming adults).

It also strikes me as somewhat problematic that the name-economy is essentially post-scarcity. There is an infinite supply of names after all.

Which, come to think of it, is a perfect metaphor for Xero threads: infinite supply, no demand.

[Xerographica]

There's no demand? Seriously? If there was absolutely no demand to name babies then babies wouldn't have names.

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

It's a simple and basic fact that some people intensely prefer certain names. In economics, preference intensity is gauged by willingness to pay (WTP). So saying that people intensely prefer certain names is the same exact thing as saying that people are willing to pay much more for certain names. Saying that we can't see people's WTP for names is the same thing as saying that we can't see the demand for names. It's not annoying that I have spell this out. It's annoying that I have to spell this out to you. You should thoroughly understand the concepts of preference intensity, WTP and demand.

So again, what's the benefit of not seeing and knowing the demand for names?

[Bombadil]

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

It's a simple and basic fact that some people intensely prefer certain names. In economics, preference intensity is gauged by willingness to pay (WTP). So saying that people intensely prefer certain names is the same exact thing as saying that people are willing to pay much more for certain names. Saying that we can't see people's WTP for names is the same thing as saying that we can't see the demand for names. It's not annoying that I have spell this out. It's annoying that I have to spell this out to you. You should thoroughly understand the concepts of preference intensity, WTP and demand.

So again, what's the benefit of not seeing and knowing the demand for names?

Here you go, you can see the demand by what people name their babies - https://www.babycenter.com/top-baby-names-2017.htm

What people call their babies with no monetary incentive is probably a far better gauge of demand than adding payment.. because that would only indicate the value to the particular person who is prepared to pay the most.

[Xerographica]

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

Also, fun fact, in some older societies, it was common not to name children until they were two years old. The death rate in the first two years was high enough they weren’t named until after that time (when they had a good shot of becoming adults).

It also strikes me as somewhat problematic that the name-economy is essentially post-scarcity. There is an infinite supply of names after all.

Which, come to think of it, is a perfect metaphor for Xero threads: infinite supply, no demand.

The idea of "post-scarcity" is economically nonsensical. In economics "scarcity" is a not about quantity, it's about use. Imagine if you were immortal. Even though you had all the time in the world, you still couldn't do everything at once. So you'd still have to prioritize how you used your time.

Now let's imagine that you have all the bodies in the world. Would you still have to prioritize? Of course. Any body that you allocated to doing X is one less body available for doing anything else. There would still be trade-offs. There would still be opportunity costs.

The fact that progress can provide us with an incredible abundance of many useful thing changes absolutely nothing about the fundamental rules of economics. The idea of "post-scarcity" was invented by people who are fundamentally ignorant about economics.

Just because there are a gazillion names that are freely available changes absolutely nothing about the rules of economics. Prioritization is just as necessary. Markets are just as necessary. It is just as necessary for people to use their money to help rank names by their usefulness.

[Xerographica]

It's a simple and basic fact that some people intensely prefer certain names. In economics, preference intensity is gauged by willingness to pay (WTP). So saying that people intensely prefer certain names is the same exact thing as saying that people are willing to pay much more for certain names. Saying that we can't see people's WTP for names is the same thing as saying that we can't see the demand for names. It's not annoying that I have spell this out. It's annoying that I have to spell this out to you. You should thoroughly understand the concepts of preference intensity, WTP and demand.

So again, what's the benefit of not seeing and knowing the demand for names?

Here you go, you can see the demand by what people name their babies - https://www.babycenter.com/top-baby-names-2017.htm

What people call their babies with no monetary incentive is probably a far better gauge of demand than adding payment.. because that would only indicate the value to the particular person who is prepared to pay the most.

I kinda like your username. I don't remember seeing it in my other threads. Is this your first time replying to one of my threads?

Thanks for sharing the link. It's nice that you tried to bring something to the table. I appreciate that. However, the list really doesn't show us the demand for names. Demand is a function of sacrifice. Spending money is a sacrifice so demand can be expressed in terms of dollars.

Imagine that Samantha the bee discovers a big patch of blooming Aloes. She automatically quantifies the usefulness of the patch. After collecting as much pollen/nectar as she can, she quickly flies back to hive to report her discovery to the rest of the bees. The way she submits her report is by dancing. Her dancing communicates the patch's distance, direction and usefulness. The longer/harder she dances, the more useful she perceives the patch to be. She quantifies the usefulness of the patch by spending her precious calories. This is how she reveals her demand for the Aloe patch. The onlooking bees use Samantha's demand for the patch to decide whether it's worth it to inspect the patch for themselves.

Think about if we made a list of all the different flower patches that the bees had inspected. The bees essentially use their calories to order the list by usefulness. The more useful a patch is, the more bees that will harvest it.

Each potential baby name is like a flower patch. Just like flower patches, baby names aren't equally useful. Some baby names are more useful than others. Think about a long list of potential names for a baby. People should use their money to order the list by usefulness. Then the name at the top would be the most useful name.

[Bombadil]

However, the list really doesn't show us the demand for names. Demand is a function of sacrifice.

There is no demand on names as such, what is the value of creating a demand arbitrarily on names? There's no intrinsic value to a name, it doesn't feed anyone, it doesn't drive efficiency.. you might as well place a value on.. tulips?

What is this need to categorise and monetise the simple pleasure of a parent or two in choosing a name for their child, a name that might have as much to do with a grandparent, a memory.. something far beyond the base value of money. Any value of a name would be the false product of a value system based on artificial exchange. Perhaps 'James' becomes a hot pick, perhaps 'John' does, there is absolutely no underlying value.

I'm fine with the idea of opening a child's name to family and friends for monetary exchange, I just know of no parent who would do it, who would derive greater value from telling their child their name went to the highest bidder over some aspect of significance, value other than a monetary value.

It's a similar idea of money for organs, it wouldn't really tell you which organ was most valuable over who was most desperate to sell them.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Because you were bitten by a radioactive money spider and now you can only think in terms of spending money.

Hey look, money spiders.

Oh shit, brb, gonna find some money spiders.

[Camicon]

Hey look, money spiders.

Oh shit, brb, gonna find some money spiders.

Money doesn't grow on trees, but it is spun by spiders.

Now, the question is, can I overcome my desire to reduce everything within the general vicinity of a spider to ashes long enough for the money spiders to do their work?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Oh shit, brb, gonna find some money spiders.

Money doesn't grow on trees, but it is spun by spiders.

Now, the question is, can I overcome my desire to reduce everything within the general vicinity of a spider to ashes long enough for the money spiders to do their work?

Leave it to this Spiderbro.

[Petrasylvania]

Hey look, money spiders.

Oh shit, brb, gonna find some money spiders.

Money Spiderman. Shoots dollar bills instead of web.

[Camicon]

Oh shit, brb, gonna find some money spiders.

Money Spider-Man. Shoots dollar bills instead of web.

Money Spider-man, Money Spider-Man
Does whatever a Money Spider-Man can
Prints some bills, any size
Laughs at poors, like they're flies
Look out! Here comes the Money Spider-Man.

Is he strong?
Shit no, bud,
He's got radioactive blood.
Can he swing from a thread
Why would he? He's got bills instead
Hey, there
There goes the Money Spider-Man.

In the chill of night
At the scene of a crime
Like a fancy gent
He's fashionably late.

Money Spider-Man, Money Spider-Man
Friendly neighborhood Money Spider-Man
Wealth and fame
His reward
Action is what he ignores.

To him, life is a great big laugh up
Wherever there's a bankrupt(cy)
You'll find the Money Spider-Man.

[Xerographica]

However, the list really doesn't show us the demand for names. Demand is a function of sacrifice.

There is no demand on names as such, what is the value of creating a demand arbitrarily on names? There's no intrinsic value to a name, it doesn't feed anyone, it doesn't drive efficiency.. you might as well place a value on.. tulips?

What is this need to categorise and monetise the simple pleasure of a parent or two in choosing a name for their child, a name that might have as much to do with a grandparent, a memory.. something far beyond the base value of money. Any value of a name would be the false product of a value system based on artificial exchange.

Imagine that you have to decide how to divide $20 dollars between eggplants and artichokes...

eggplants: $16
artichokes: $4

This would say, "For every 1 acre of farmland used to grow artichokes there should be 4 acres used to grow eggplants."

How you divided your dollars between eggplants and artichokes revealed how you wanted society's resources to be divided between them. Except, should your preferred division solely determine the actual division? No. Because maybe you're a weird guy. In other words, maybe you're exceptionally fond of eggplants.

The optimal division of resources between eggplants and artichokes depends on everyone having the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their dollars between eggplants and artichokes.

Imagine Emily is pregnant and single. She's solely going to determine which name is the most useful for her baby. But what if she's a weird lady?

Now imagine Emily is pregnant and married to Chris. In this case she is no longer going to solely determine which name is most useful for her baby. Emily and Chris are going to put their heads together. This is a good thing. It makes it more likely that the baby will end up with a more useful name.

There's a pretty obvious correlation between number of heads and usefulness. Except with a larger number of people involved in the process it becomes increasingly more challenging for everybody to effectively put their heads together. Voting is one solution. The problem is that there's no way to filter out the frivolous input. This is why the market is a better solution.

There just can't be two best ways to determine the usefulness of things.

[The Two Jerseys]

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

It's a simple and basic fact that some people intensely prefer certain names. In economics, preference intensity is gauged by willingness to pay (WTP). So saying that people intensely prefer certain names is the same exact thing as saying that people are willing to pay much more for certain names. Saying that we can't see people's WTP for names is the same thing as saying that we can't see the demand for names. It's not annoying that I have spell this out. It's annoying that I have to spell this out to you. You should thoroughly understand the concepts of preference intensity, WTP and demand.

So again, what's the benefit of not seeing and knowing the demand for names?

So tell me, where is this name factory where it's so vital for them to know whether they should idle the Dwayne production line and retool it to produce an Adonis?

[Forsher]

Have you ever been responsible for helping to choose a baby's name? If so, how was the decision made? Was it made by voting? If so, this would explain why so many people have stupid names...

Doesn't follow. Voting has a tendency to work.

Also, in personal situations the questing beast you're sometimes thought to seek Xero, i.e. assessment of preference intensity, is not mythical but the normal reality... it's called putting the foot down, dying on a hill, drawing a line etc. etc.

Sure it breaks down in the situation of equal preferences (people are remarkably hesitant to agree with the rationality of flipping coins to decide which outcome of indifference) but do you really imagine rows occur if people don't "vote their feeling" in inter-personal situations? That would be idiotic.

Your friends and family come up with a list of over 400 potential names. Here are the rules of the "game"...

1. Each participant can spend as much money as they want on their preferred names.
2. Participants can see each other's allocations.
3. Participants can change their allocations as many times as they want.
4. There's no time limit.

When no more "pareto improvements" can be made, whichever name has the most money will be selected. Assume that all the money will go into a college fund.

Is there an optimal strategy? Is there a "legal" way to "cheat"?

Seriously, you literally just described the traditional English non-silent auction (if we assume the highest bid wins: there's only one product here, the opportunity to choose the name). Go read a book. It will tell you exactly what you allegedly want to know.

It will also tell you if the pareto improvements bit is correct as well.

*Timeless tests in cricket are obviously not time bound but they conclude after each team has completed both of their innings. Baseball is still played on this basis but with 9 innings each and innings conclusion conditions I don't know. Both sports have end conditions. Even the auction has an end, i.e. when everyone stops bidding.

[Forsher]

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

I doubt that. People like auctions.

No-one actually does this because people tend to be invested in naming their own children... the actual problem is there is literally no supply. And there probably never will be.

(If the state is ever in the situation of having to name someone, Xero's auction might actually be a reasonable approach within certain parameters, especially regarding the number of names, but only if the costs of managing the auction were worth it. I suspect they wouldn't be because while I can see people participating I do not see the sums involved being at all large. You could adapt the model slightly so that every increment also costs the bidder, there used to be a website that did this... outcomes were irrational.)

There’s no demand from an economics perspective. Don’t mix lay concepts and economics concepts. It’s annoying.

It's a simple and basic fact that some people intensely prefer certain names. In economics, preference intensity is gauged by willingness to pay (WTP). So saying that people intensely prefer certain names is the same exact thing as saying that people are willing to pay much more for certain names. Saying that we can't see people's WTP for names is the same thing as saying that we can't see the demand for names. It's not annoying that I have spell this out. It's annoying that I have to spell this out to you. You should thoroughly understand the concepts of preference intensity, WTP and demand.

So again, what's the benefit of not seeing and knowing the demand for names?

Where's the supply Xero? Who is going to do this and why?

And what do you think the benefit of seeing and knowing the "demand" for names is? So that you can better know that Sparrow's going to be the only Sparrow in their class?

The market makes a good metaphor for quite a lot of things, a reasonably adequate metaphor some other stuff and completely breaks down in any situation where you can't decide what the prices would be, who the suppliers would be or analyse the incentives of the buyers. We're in that last case here. We can't make a market, and there's nothing that a market can actually tell us about either.

[Forsher]

There just can't be two best ways to determine the usefulness of things.

I have $5.

I can spend it on option A. A costs $5 and involves unpriced costs that I value at $2 and gives me an output of $10.

I can also spend my $5 on A^C. This is literally the only other thing I can do with my money. It incurs unpriced costs of $2 also and likewise costs $5 and gives me an output of $10.

Voila, I have demonstrated that it is possible for the "best" thing to be no better than the alternative. There is no inherent logic to the claim "there just can't be two best ways" and thus mere assertion. What is your reasoning Xero for your claim? Why must it be so?

Let's look at a more reasonable situation. Say I've got to choose between this course and another course. There are lots of different ways of making that choice, right? I could go with the most expensive one, the cheapest one, the one I think gives the most value, the one with the least value etc. etc. Let's say that I decide that the best way to decide which course to take is to look at the net benefits of each course and go with the highest. It doesn't really matter why this is the best way... for now... we can just assume that is the case.

Crap.

It turned out that each course had equal net benefits every way I tried to look at it (and because this is a hypothetical, I look in every possible way). I am officially indifferent between the options. Rationally speaking it doesn't matter to me which one I actually choose. This is where it turns out that we actually do need to know why a method is the best way.

It could matter a lot to me that I actually make a decision. Thus there is a difference between my choosing option one, your choosing option one for me and my (fairly) flipping a (fair) coin which says to go with option one. Maybe what matters to me most is that a decision is made. In which case my having to make the decision is a worse methodology because it results in anguish and literally any way of choosing where the choice is out of my hands is the best.

Now, you might try and say that there is an objective idea of usefulness (wrong) and that we evaluate method's entirely within that paradigm but even then it's quite trivial to show that there can be two most useful methods.

Say we're wanting to gamble on which computer started at the same time is going to be ready to use first. Every second counts in this situation. We've got to hand our assignment in on time and it's due in three minutes. If we choose wrong we can end up losing precious minutes, and we can't just start both up because we know the person coming up on our left is going to use one these two computers. It's obvious right? We try and remember which computer boots faster. If our memory is completely unreliable* then this is the same as flipping a coin, provided the probability we remember correctly is also 50%

And what if we have no information about the performance of either computer beyond that either could start up in enough time** to get our assignment in on time? It doesn't make a difference now between flipping a coin to choose one of the two and starting both and letting the person on the left make the decision for us. Here what is matters most is making the decision/call as fast as possible... and stopping to think is a problem. Regardless of which method we choose, we can only have the one computer and we're just as likely to have the faster one as the slower one.***

*Technically speaking, complete unreliability has to be 50/50 in this situation because if we're confident our memory is wrong then we know to go with the computer we remember being slower. Thus, our memory has to have a 50% chance of making the most useful decision.

**Obviously, if it takes three minutes for each computer to start up, we just give up on the assignment because it's not going to be possible to hand it in before the deadline. Why induce the stress?

***Or they turn out to be equally fast.

[Ifreann]

I have absolutely no idea how much money any company would be willing to spend on naming babies. Are baby names really the best way to advertise a company? How does Amazon's head of marketing pitch baby names to Jeff Bezos? "We should spend $10 million dollars on baby names because... " Voila! A bunch of kids named "Kindle" running around.

Imagine that you're Barnes and Noble's head of marketing. You go to the market naming website, search for "Kindle" and see a list of all the babies with this potential name. You click on the first result and see...

1. Kindle: $4,500
2. Samantha: $2,000
3. Gertrude: $100

What do you do? Do you submit "Nook" as a potential name? If so, you'd have to outspend "Kindle". Alternatively, you could spend money on "Samantha". Or you could search for a baby that doesn't have "Kindle" submitted to it and submit "Nook" to it. Of course, you know that Amazon's head of marketing will search the market naming website for "Nook". So maybe your best strategy is to join forces with the people who prefer "Samantha".

Worst case scenario, if baby naming does turn out to be so lucrative, that's a lot of money raised for college.

Let me ask you something Xero. If you walked into a company marketing department - or any company department for that matter - and said "I have an idea. I don't have any idea what it will do, what the results will be, if they'll be good or bad, have done zero research on the subject, and let's implement it immediately and see what happens", what do you think their response would be?

"Security!"

[Bombadil]

There is no demand on names as such, what is the value of creating a demand arbitrarily on names? There's no intrinsic value to a name, it doesn't feed anyone, it doesn't drive efficiency.. you might as well place a value on.. tulips?

What is this need to categorise and monetise the simple pleasure of a parent or two in choosing a name for their child, a name that might have as much to do with a grandparent, a memory.. something far beyond the base value of money. Any value of a name would be the false product of a value system based on artificial exchange.

Imagine that you have to decide how to divide $20 dollars between eggplants and artichokes...

eggplants: $16
artichokes: $4

This would say, "For every 1 acre of farmland used to grow artichokes there should be 4 acres used to grow eggplants."

How you divided your dollars between eggplants and artichokes revealed how you wanted society's resources to be divided between them. Except, should your preferred division solely determine the actual division? No. Because maybe you're a weird guy. In other words, maybe you're exceptionally fond of eggplants.

The optimal division of resources between eggplants and artichokes depends on everyone having the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their dollars between eggplants and artichokes.

Imagine Emily is pregnant and single. She's solely going to determine which name is the most useful for her baby. But what if she's a weird lady?

Now imagine Emily is pregnant and married to Chris. In this case she is no longer going to solely determine which name is most useful for her baby. Emily and Chris are going to put their heads together. This is a good thing. It makes it more likely that the baby will end up with a more useful name.

There's a pretty obvious correlation between number of heads and usefulness. Except with a larger number of people involved in the process it becomes increasingly more challenging for everybody to effectively put their heads together. Voting is one solution. The problem is that there's no way to filter out the frivolous input. This is why the market is a better solution.

There just can't be two best ways to determine the usefulness of things.

Explaining your theory again using a different analogy in no way makes it valid. We all understand your tirelessly reiterated point. One could determine the value of an eggplant scientifically predicated on nutritional value, we don't need a monetary popularity contest. The only value in that would be simply assessing it's popularity.

In your theory heroin has most value because shoot people up with heroin and give them an eggplant and they'll one-up on heroin every time.

Rather than condescendingly rewriting the same point every post try and open your mind to the idea that the value of naming your child is greater than the value of auctioning that name out to a crowd in some bizarre experiment to calculate a meaningless value.

Then go crazy and consider the idea that money isn't the only value in this world.

[Xerographica]

Imagine that you have to decide how to divide $20 dollars between eggplants and artichokes...

eggplants: $16
artichokes: $4

This would say, "For every 1 acre of farmland used to grow artichokes there should be 4 acres used to grow eggplants."

How you divided your dollars between eggplants and artichokes revealed how you wanted society's resources to be divided between them. Except, should your preferred division solely determine the actual division? No. Because maybe you're a weird guy. In other words, maybe you're exceptionally fond of eggplants.

The optimal division of resources between eggplants and artichokes depends on everyone having the opportunity to decide for themselves how they divide their dollars between eggplants and artichokes.

Imagine Emily is pregnant and single. She's solely going to determine which name is the most useful for her baby. But what if she's a weird lady?

Now imagine Emily is pregnant and married to Chris. In this case she is no longer going to solely determine which name is most useful for her baby. Emily and Chris are going to put their heads together. This is a good thing. It makes it more likely that the baby will end up with a more useful name.

There's a pretty obvious correlation between number of heads and usefulness. Except with a larger number of people involved in the process it becomes increasingly more challenging for everybody to effectively put their heads together. Voting is one solution. The problem is that there's no way to filter out the frivolous input. This is why the market is a better solution.

There just can't be two best ways to determine the usefulness of things.

Explaining your theory again using a different analogy in no way makes it valid. We all understand your tirelessly reiterated point. One could determine the value of an eggplant scientifically predicated on nutritional value, we don't need a monetary popularity contest. The only value in that would be simply assessing it's popularity.

Not sure if I'm quite following. Are you arguing that we don't need to know the demand for eggplant?

[Bombadil]

Explaining your theory again using a different analogy in no way makes it valid. We all understand your tirelessly reiterated point. One could determine the value of an eggplant scientifically predicated on nutritional value, we don't need a monetary popularity contest. The only value in that would be simply assessing it's popularity.

Not sure if I'm quite following. Are you arguing that we don't need to know the demand for eggplant?

Are you arguing that a scientifically based assessment of the nutritional value of an eggplant is less important than a popular vote? How far are you willing to take that?

You're going to get into a debate about a perceived value basis that you will lose, do you think you will 'quite follow'?

If after ten minutes at the poker table you do not know who the patsy is—you are the patsy.

[Xerographica]

There just can't be two best ways to determine the usefulness of things.

I have $5.

I can spend it on option A. A costs $5 and involves unpriced costs that I value at $2 and gives me an output of $10.

I can also spend my $5 on A^C. This is literally the only other thing I can do with my money. It incurs unpriced costs of $2 also and likewise costs $5 and gives me an output of $10.

Voila, I have demonstrated that it is possible for the "best" thing to be no better than the alternative. There is no inherent logic to the claim "there just can't be two best ways" and thus mere assertion. What is your reasoning Xero for your claim? Why must it be so?

The point is to figure out how to divide society's resources. For example, how should we divide society's limited farmland between poison oak and artichokes? Logically we allocate far more farmland to artichokes than to poison oak. This is simply because artichokes are far more useful. We know this to be true because far more money is spent on artichokes.

There can't be two best ways of deciding how to divide society's resources.

1. Society’s resources have to be divided somehow.
2. It matters how you want society’s resources to be divided.
3. Your preferred resource division can only be revealed by your dollar division.

I take each thing to be true. If you dispute #1, then #2 and #3 are moot points. If you dispute #2, then #3 is a moot point. If you dispute #3, then evidently you perceive a better way of revealing how you want society's resources to be divided.

[Xerographica]

Not sure if I'm quite following. Are you arguing that we don't need to know the demand for eggplant?

Are you arguing that a scientifically based assessment of the nutritional value of an eggplant is less important than a popular vote?

I said "demand" but you said "popular vote". Why is that?

Demand is people's willingness to pay. Voting, on the other hand, is not. In the example I gave in the OP, the name "Boaty McBoatface" was not chosen by demand. It was chosen by popular vote. Nobody spent any money on "Boaty McBoatface".

Voting is anathema to me. So I am definitely not going to argue for voting. I really don't know what you were hoping to accomplish by replacing what I am arguing for (spending/demand) for something that I'm arguing against (voting/democracy).

[Xerographica]

It's a simple and basic fact that some people intensely prefer certain names. In economics, preference intensity is gauged by willingness to pay (WTP). So saying that people intensely prefer certain names is the same exact thing as saying that people are willing to pay much more for certain names. Saying that we can't see people's WTP for names is the same thing as saying that we can't see the demand for names. It's not annoying that I have spell this out. It's annoying that I have to spell this out to you. You should thoroughly understand the concepts of preference intensity, WTP and demand.

So again, what's the benefit of not seeing and knowing the demand for names?

So tell me, where is this name factory where it's so vital for them to know whether they should idle the Dwayne production line and retool it to produce an Adonis?

This sentence... is interesting. Every time somebody starts a band, their head becomes a name factory. Same thing when people start a business/website. Same thing when people start a new person. My argument is that the supply of names isn't going to be optimal when the demand isn't seen or known.

Let's broaden it to words in general. Is there a demand for words? Obviously. Is there a supply of words? Obviously as well. But do we see and know the demand for words? Obviously not. So is the supply of words optimal? Obviously not.

I genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "to improve". I also genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "mistake". My demand exists but nobody else sees or knows it. Out of all the ideas that don't have words... which idea do people most want to have a word? We don't know. Nobody does. This is why it's guaranteed that the supply of words is suboptimal.

[Bombadil]

Are you arguing that a scientifically based assessment of the nutritional value of an eggplant is less important than a popular vote?

I said "demand" but you said "popular vote". Why is that?

Demand is people's willingness to pay. Voting, on the other hand, is not. In the example I gave in the OP, the name "Boaty McBoatface" was not chosen by demand. It was chosen by popular vote. Nobody spent any money on "Boaty McBoatface".

Voting is anathema to me. So I am definitely not going to argue for voting. I really don't know what you were hoping to accomplish by replacing what I am arguing for (spending/demand) for something that I'm arguing against (voting/democracy).

Regardless of 'popular vote' or 'spending/demand', would you state categorically that either is more important than a scientifically based assessment of the nutritional value of an eggplant?

A. Popular vote
B. Populist spending/demand value
C: Scientific value

A, B, C..?

What is of the greatest value?

[Galloism]

So tell me, where is this name factory where it's so vital for them to know whether they should idle the Dwayne production line and retool it to produce an Adonis?

This sentence... is interesting. Every time somebody starts a band, their head becomes a name factory. Same thing when people start a business/website. Same thing when people start a new person. My argument is that the supply of names isn't going to be optimal when the demand isn't seen or known.

Let's broaden it to words in general. Is there a demand for words? Obviously. Is there a supply of words? Obviously as well. But do we see and know the demand for words? Obviously not. So is the supply of words optimal? Obviously not.

I genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "to improve". I also genuinely want a word that's the opposite of "mistake". My demand exists but nobody else sees or knows it. Out of all the ideas that don't have words... which idea do people most want to have a word? We don't know. Nobody does. This is why it's guaranteed that the supply of words is suboptimal.

The way you've envisioned spending in this context (and in other contexts with "pragma-socialism", which is still hilarious for how long you railed against me for "being a socialist" before embracing some weird version of socialism yourself), spending IS voting. It's just some people have more votes than others.