NationStates

Xerographica wrote:

Forsher wrote:
But the truth is that there are markets for those things... they don't exist together in a single market... and Xero's asking us if we'd like to buy some advertising for these products. We don't. We don't get value from that. But there are other ways of promoting things, and we might be into those... which have exactly the same impact as buying advertising except for the bit where we just might get utility from those pursuits.

Your point is completely trivial and has no generalisable consequences.

You're not being very clear. What are you saying?

1. Crowdfunded advertising is a bad idea
2. A website for crowdfunded advertising is a bad idea

Forsher is saying that we're not suckers who are going to bankroll your advertisements and get nothing in return.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:You're not being very clear. What are you saying?

1. Crowdfunded advertising is a bad idea
2. A website for crowdfunded advertising is a bad idea

Forsher is saying that we're not suckers who are going to bankroll your advertisements and get nothing in return.

Would you be sad if your favorite show was canceled?

Parent: "Honey, me and Dad want to tell you something...."

Kid: "Wat?"

Parent: "We're going to have another kid! You get to be a big brother!!!"

Kid: *Gets out gameboard*

---

In all seriousness, though, gambling over a kid's name and losing that gamble could make them have a predisposed hatred of 'em...That, and gambling is kinda not the kind of thing little kids should be folded into from birth. Take it from someone who lives in Nevada; it ends badly.

Pohjamaade wrote:Parent: "Honey, me and Dad want to tell you something...."

Kid: "Wat?"

Parent: "We're going to have another kid! You get to be a big brother!!!"

Kid: *Gets out gameboard*

---

In all seriousness, though, gambling over a kid's name and losing that gamble could make them have a predisposed hatred of 'em...That, and gambling is kinda not the kind of thing little kids should be folded into from birth. Take it from someone who lives in Nevada; it ends badly.

Your username is "Pohjamaade". How many people participated in choosing this name?

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Forsher is saying that we're not suckers who are going to bankroll your advertisements and get nothing in return.

Would you be sad if your favorite show was canceled?

Who put the bomp in the bomp-bomp-bomp?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Would you be sad if your favorite show was canceled?

Who put the bomp in the bomp-bomp-bomp?

I've never heard of this show. Would you be sad if your favorite restaurant went out of business?

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Who put the bomp in the bomp-bomp-bomp?

I've never heard of this show. Would you be sad if your favorite restaurant went out of business?

Who let the dogs out?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:I've never heard of this show. Would you be sad if your favorite restaurant went out of business?

Who let the dogs out?

I'd be sad if Trader Joes canceled their cheese and chile tamales.

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Who let the dogs out?

I'd be sad if Trader Joes canceled their cheese and chile tamales.

And I care about this why, exactly?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:I'd be sad if Trader Joes canceled their cheese and chile tamales.

And I care about this why, exactly?

Everybody should be concerned about the wrong things getting canceled.

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:And I care about this why, exactly?

Everybody should be concerned about the wrong things getting canceled.

And what does that have to do with buying advertisements?

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Forsher is saying that we're not suckers who are going to bankroll your advertisements and get nothing in return.

Would you be sad if your favorite show was canceled?

You know, i think i can connect the dots from here to an intetesting idea. However because you're so bad at articulating it, im going to claim the idea as my own (even though its probably not particularly novel and even less feasible) and post it when i get home.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Everybody should be concerned about the wrong things getting canceled.

And what does that have to do with buying advertisements?

More highly promoted products are less likely to be canceled.

Maqo wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Would you be sad if your favorite show was canceled?

You know, i think i can connect the dots from here to an intetesting idea. However because you're so bad at articulating it, im going to claim the idea as my own (even though its probably not particularly novel and even less feasible) and post it when i get home.

I have an idea with this too, I'm curious to see if we're on the same train of thought...

Maqo wrote:

Xerographica wrote:Would you be sad if your favorite show was canceled?

You know, i think i can connect the dots from here to an intetesting idea. However because you're so bad at articulating it, im going to claim the idea as my own (even though its probably not particularly novel and even less feasible) and post it when i get home.

Heh. I'm not sure exactly what's going on here. It feels like I just watched a strange trailer for an idea. In any case, my interest is piqued, so hurry up and get home.

Xerographica wrote:

Forsher wrote:
But the truth is that there are markets for those things... they don't exist together in a single market... and Xero's asking us if we'd like to buy some advertising for these products. We don't. We don't get value from that. But there are other ways of promoting things, and we might be into those... which have exactly the same impact as buying advertising except for the bit where we just might get utility from those pursuits.

Your point is completely trivial and has no generalisable consequences.

You're not being very clear. What are you saying?

1. Crowdfunded advertising is a bad idea
2. A website for crowdfunded advertising is a bad idea

I am saying that:

• Few people get value from contributing money.
• Many people get value from just going out and promoting things they like.
• Crowdfunded advertising as a concept doesn't have any implications for the world that we should care about... it is completely trivial and has no generalisable consequences.

In particular, that third bullet point precludes that I was saying either (1) or (2)... those are generalisations.

Xerographica wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:And what does that have to do with buying advertisements?

More highly promoted products are less likely to be canceled.

But I'm still not paying for someone else to make money at my expense.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

Xerographica wrote:More highly promoted products are less likely to be canceled.

But I'm still not paying for someone else to make money at my expense.

Take a step back for a moment.

Let's pretend you're a big fan of Breaking Bad... I don't know if this is true or not. You learn that someone else, say, me hasn't seen it. Do you:

1. Do nothing.
2. Crowdfund some advertising to encourage me to watch it.
3. Make a recommendation to me, e.g. "hey, Forsher, you should watch this show".
4. Do something else.

For whatever reason Xero seems to believe that there is widespread interest in (b). There isn't really. Sometimes you hear about people crowdfunding cancelled programmes but that's about it. However, (c) which is basically the same thing (actually, Breaking Bad's marketing staff prefer it) is quite likely something you might do. The difference is that the cost of typing such a recommendation is worth the reward of typing it.

Okay, so it turned out that you did recommend Breaking Bad to me and it's now the future. I learn that you've never seen a programme called Cracker, starring Robbie Coltrane. I face a similar dilemma to you do I:

1. Do nothing.
2. Crowdfund some advertising to encourage you to watch it.
3. Make a recommendation to you, e.g. "hey, your grace, you should watch this show, it's even better than Breaking Bad".
4. Do something else.

Like you (b) doesn't give me any personal reward so the cost of carrying it out isn't worth it. Like the hypothetical you, though, I do find (c) worthwhile so I do it.

Now, there might be some lunatics out there who get value from (b): I can believe that. But everyone who does (b) is probably also going to do (c)... and some people that might have done (b) are likely going to decide not to because they know "word of mouth" is more effective than (traditional) advertising. Where Xero goes wrong is that the people who do (b) aren't helping to determine the optimal amount of Breaking Bad or Cracker in the universe but rather the optimal amount of advertising for two programmes which no longer air. There's no great insight to learn from crowdfunded advertising and the way Xero talks about it just misunderstands what markets are being participated in. It's all... pretty boring, certainly compared to crowdfunding itself, Breaking Bad or Cracker.

(Forsher has in fact seen Breaking Bad and does, in fact, think Cracker is better than it.)

Forsher wrote:(Forsher has in fact seen Breaking Bad and does, in fact, think Cracker is better than it.)

Impossible. Relevant extremely short clip.

Forsher wrote:I learn that you've never seen a programme called Cracker, starring Robbie Coltrane.

I've never heard of this show. Even if you recommend it I'm probably not going to try and watch it.

Think about how the bees work. Samantha discovers a patch of blooming Aloes and flies back to tell the rest of the hive about her discovery. Once the other bees learn about the patch's existence... do they all immediately just fly out to the patch? Of course not, they first have to know whether it's worth it to inspect the patch for themselves. Samantha provides this information by sacrificing her calories dancing long and hard. Her sacrifice proves that the patch was useful to her. Perhaps a few bees will decide it's worth it to inspect the patch for themselves. When they return to the hive they also sacrifice their calories to help quantify and prove the usefulness of the patch.

Imagine that it took zero time, effort and risk for the other bees to inspect Samantha's patch for themselves. In this case, would it be necessary for Samantha to sacrifice her calories to quantify/prove how useful the patch is to her? Of course not. Even if the patch was entirely useless, the other bees wouldn't waste anything inspecting it. This is because these bees didn't have to take any time, or make any effort, or incur any risk, to inspect the patch.

Waste is a bad thing. This is why proving/quantifying usefulness is a good thing.

Now imagine that there was a website for crowdfunded advertising. You go on it and spend a few bucks to help promote Cracker. This increases its ranking. Other people also spend their money to help promote this show. The higher the show's ranking, the less likely that it will be a waste for me to take the time, and make the effort, to watch it.

Group A: people who haven't watched Cracker

Group B: people who have watched Cracker

People in group A obviously don't know how useful the show is to them. People in group B obviously do know how useful the show is to them. It should be really straightforward that the people in group B should share their knowledge of the show's usefulness with the people in group A.

Every society, whether bee or human, benefits from the minimization of waste. In order for waste to be minimized, members have to inform each other about the worth of things. Words alone do not cut it. Even bees understand this. It's not a difficult concept.

Forsher wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:But I'm still not paying for someone else to make money at my expense.

Take a step back for a moment.

Let's pretend you're a big fan of Breaking Bad... I don't know if this is true or not. You learn that someone else, say, me hasn't seen it. Do you:

1. Do nothing.
2. Crowdfund some advertising to encourage me to watch it.
3. Make a recommendation to me, e.g. "hey, Forsher, you should watch this show".
4. Do something else.

For whatever reason Xero seems to believe that there is widespread interest in (b). There isn't really. Sometimes you hear about people crowdfunding cancelled programmes but that's about it. However, (c) which is basically the same thing (actually, Breaking Bad's marketing staff prefer it) is quite likely something you might do. The difference is that the cost of typing such a recommendation is worth the reward of typing it.

Okay, so it turned out that you did recommend Breaking Bad to me and it's now the future. I learn that you've never seen a programme called Cracker, starring Robbie Coltrane. I face a similar dilemma to you do I:

1. Do nothing.
2. Crowdfund some advertising to encourage you to watch it.
3. Make a recommendation to you, e.g. "hey, your grace, you should watch this show, it's even better than Breaking Bad".
4. Do something else.

Like you (b) doesn't give me any personal reward so the cost of carrying it out isn't worth it. Like the hypothetical you, though, I do find (c) worthwhile so I do it.

Now, there might be some lunatics out there who get value from (b): I can believe that. But everyone who does (b) is probably also going to do (c)... and some people that might have done (b) are likely going to decide not to because they know "word of mouth" is more effective than (traditional) advertising. Where Xero goes wrong is that the people who do (b) aren't helping to determine the optimal amount of Breaking Bad or Cracker in the universe but rather the optimal amount of advertising for two programmes which no longer air. There's no great insight to learn from crowdfunded advertising and the way Xero talks about it just misunderstands what markets are being participated in. It's all... pretty boring, certainly compared to crowdfunding itself, Breaking Bad or Cracker.

(Forsher has in fact seen Breaking Bad and does, in fact, think Cracker is better than it.)

Funny thing, there is one show I can think of that has an actual relevant thing to this example. A while back there was a show Young justice. The show however was not popular among the target audience but was instead popular among a slightly older group. The show was canceled after two seasons, much to many people's disappointment. For a few years man people did attempt to have the show start up again using crowdfunding. It didn't work. You know what did work, word of mouth. People getting together and mass watching the show, and getting other people to mass watch the show on netflix. It became a thing on twitter. Thanks to that campaign the show has been restarted and will release season 3 in 2018.

Xerographica wrote:

Camicon wrote:A group of ten people stranded on an island, each depending on the other for their own personal continued survival, would necessarily be communistic in nature, yes. When your survival depends on the survival of another then their wants and needs become as important as your wants and needs.

Now, will you respond to the rest of my post? Or are you going to keep ignoring it, as you are wont to do with anything too challenging?

First you said that "there is no system" and now you're saying that there is a system... communism. You believe that communism can determine the optimal division of labor. Does this belief only apply to societies with 10 people? Or does your belief also apply to larger societies?

"Communistic in nature" =/= communism.

The optimal division of labour, for ten people stranded on an island with only fish and coconuts to eat, is whatever division of labour ensures that they survive and, ideally, are rescued. Nutritional and caloric requirements determine that, not ideological systems. A communist/direct democracy type system would, in my opinion, maximize their chance at survival, but it would not determine the the requirements of their survival.

All of which misses a more fundamental point, which is that this theoretical fish and coconut island you've invented is not, as a thought experiment should be, generalizable. Scale matters. What is true for a group of ten concerned only with not starving to death is not true for a group of ten million living a comparative lap of luxury. Whatever point you think you're making here doesn't matter.

Xerographica wrote:Now imagine that there was a website for crowdfunded advertising. You go on it and spend a few bucks to help promote Cracker. This increases its ranking. Other people also spend their money to help promote this show. The higher the show's ranking, the less likely that it will be a waste for me to take the time, and make the effort, to watch it.

That's not true at all.

You like plants, right? Well, let's imagine a film whose whole point is that gardeners are evil. Let's say that this movie is really popular. Lots of people decide to crowdfund this movie and it appears highly ranked on this website. Despite this popularity, the movie is no more or less personally rewarding to you. It was just as much a waste of time before and after it became a fad.

What would help you decide whether or not the movie is for you is a trailer. Here's a movie trailer. Not for you? Here's another film. Still not your thing? Try this movie. As with all the other trailers this one gives you information about (a) what the movie is about and (b) whether or not it looks like it would be personally meaningful to you. It's not a perfect system (this trailer includes a scene not in the movie... and is really weird and not at all the trailer I remember... and this trailer is more fun than the movie itself) but it does at least tell give you information which is able to to say something personal.

But, no, you had to anthropomorphise some bees. Dude. Everyone knows that doesn't work.

Neutraligon wrote:Funny thing, there is one show I can think of that has an actual relevant thing to this example. A while back there was a show Young justice. The show however was not popular among the target audience but was instead popular among a slightly older group. The show was canceled after two seasons, much to many people's disappointment. For a few years man people did attempt to have the show start up again using crowdfunding. It didn't work. You know what did work, word of mouth. People getting together and mass watching the show, and getting other people to mass watch the show on netflix. It became a thing on twitter. Thanks to that campaign the show has been restarted and will release season 3 in 2018.

Yeah, marketers absolutely love word of mouth because it's so powerful. Thinking about your example, though, in some ways it makes more sense from the point of view of the producers of a television show to listen to word of mouth and petitions because the way to recoup money from a television show is via advertising. A whole bunch of people crowdfunding a series might manage to provide the funds but an audience that hasn't already spent its money? Now that speaks volumes. Or does hexagonal dances. Whatever works.

Xerographica wrote:

Maqo wrote:Xero, I know it is probably years too late for this, but are you able to restrict your examples and analogies to private commodity goods? Stuff you can regularly buy at a grocery store.

The reason being that things like baby names and 400 year old books and digital songs are non-traditional goods which introduce unnecessary complexity to the situation.

Given that it is still not clear to anyone but yourself exactly how your idea functions, you should try to wprk from a very simple foundation and build up to more complicated concepts once the easy ones sorted out.

Here's how simple it is. There are 10 people stranded on an island. There are two uses of their labor...

Oh dear god.
It really wasn't that much of a request, was it?
And yet your response to me asking for you to make your analogies more simple and relevant, is to create a new analogy that again introduces elements that are more complicated than they need to be.

How should the 10 people divide their labor between A and B? The more people that do A, the less people available to do B. The opportunity cost of A is B.

Is there an optimal division? If so, how is it achieved?

The people decide how to allocate their own labor in a way that benefits themselves.
Lets say that 5 harvest coconuts and 5 catch fish.
There ends up being too many coconuts! When people go to the market there are thousands of the things and the sellers have no bartering power - if you want to sell anything you have to price very low, only making $5 per day. If you try to charge more, buyers say "Why should I buy your coconuts for $6 when next door has a ton that I bet he will want to get rid of". On the other hand, fishermen are selling $15 worth of fish per day. At first they sold fish for $5, and they all sold out. Then $10. Then $20, but that was obviously too steep and there was still stock left on the shelves, so they settled back on a price of $15.
1 of the coconut farmers begins to think the fishermen have it easy. A day's worth of fishing you'd catch enough fish to sell for $15. Why break your back for $5 when for the same labor you can earn $15? So he becomes a fisherman, and the split is 4-6.
After a while things still aren't good for the coconut farmers. The supply of coconuts has gone down, so you make about $8 per day, but there are still more than people want to buy. On the other hand, because there are more fish, and at $15 a piece there ended up still being stock left on the shelves, so prices dropped to $12 so that all the stock moved.
One of the coconut farmers decides its still better to be a fisherman, so he changes careers. And the split is 3-7.
After that it settles and an equilibrium. There are less coconuts so the sellers have more bargaining power, and they make $10 a day. And there are more fish, so sellers have less bargaining power, and they make $10 per day.
None of the islanders can become better off by changing to producing a different thing.
And so labour is now optimally divided.

I don't understand how you can unironically quote "The Wealth of Nations" where it explains this exact situation, yet not comprehend it.

From my perspective, the optimal division of labor depends on each person deciding how they divide their dollars between A and B.

You'd be wrong.

Let's add a non-traditional good...

A = catching fish
B = harvesting coconuts
C = belly dancing

Belly dancing is not a non-traditional good.
"The Wealth of Nations" is non-traditional, in that it is a public good with essentially zero marginal cost of production. There are infinite copies of this book available for whoever wants to read it.
Your songs are non-traditional, because they are public goods that have been made in to club goods (artificial scarcity introduced) by government intervention.
Baby names are non-traditional because demand to name any one particular baby is so extremely narrow that it can't really be considered a product in a marketplace at all - the market size is in the single digits of people and there are no substitute goods. At the very least I'm unaware of it ever being a significant traded product at any time in history.
You pay a belly dancer to perform in the same way you pay anyone else to perform any other service. Its a normal product.

1. The island's limited labor has to be divided between all the different activities.
2. It's impossible to optimally divide labor if more than one way is used to measure the usefulness of labor.
3. There can only be one best way to measure the usefulness of labor.

In the OP you talk about 'pareto improvements'. I would have hoped this meant you understood multi-objective problems and how there are multiple different ways to measure what is best.
For example, an ethical vegan might think that the 'best' allocation of resources was the one that killed the least fish. An environmentalist might think the 'best' allocation of resources is the one that results in the most sustainable use. Someone else might think the best use is the one that allows the population to grow the fastest! And someone else might take the strict economic approach that it is when you can't become personally better off by changing careers.
All different ways to measure 'best'.

Xerographica wrote:

Forsher wrote:I learn that you've never seen a programme called Cracker, starring Robbie Coltrane.

I've never heard of this show. Even if you recommend it I'm probably not going to try and watch it.

Think about how the bees work. Samantha discovers a patch of blooming Aloes and flies back to tell the rest of the hive about her discovery. Once the other bees learn about the patch's existence... do they all immediately just fly out to the patch? Of course not, they first have to know whether it's worth it to inspect the patch for themselves. Samantha provides this information by sacrificing her calories dancing long and hard. Her sacrifice proves that the patch was useful to her. Perhaps a few bees will decide it's worth it to inspect the patch for themselves. When they return to the hive they also sacrifice their calories to help quantify and prove the usefulness of the patch.

Imagine that it took zero time, effort and risk for the other bees to inspect Samantha's patch for themselves. In this case, would it be necessary for Samantha to sacrifice her calories to quantify/prove how useful the patch is to her? Of course not. Even if the patch was entirely useless, the other bees wouldn't waste anything inspecting it. This is because these bees didn't have to take any time, or make any effort, or incur any risk, to inspect the patch.

Your bees analogy is as useless as always.

Did you ever consider that, just maybe, hive-mind creatures who are literally genetically encoded to commit suicide in order to provide a slight nuisance to potential threats to their colony, who have no language or currency system, might not be able to offer much insight in to economies?
If you think the bees are engaging in some kind of market activity, can you please identify:
What is the product being produced?
What is the marginal cost of production?
Who is the producer?
Who is the consumer?

THE IDEA THAT EXPENDING MORE CALORIES WHEN COMMUNICATING NECESSARILY MEANS THAT YOUR IDEA IS BETTER OR YOU BELIEVE IN IT MORE IS PRETTY SILLY. THAT WOULD MEAN THAT SHOUTING ALL THE TIME MEANS MY OPINION IS WORTH MORE. OR THE MORE VERBOSE MY ARGUMENTS THE BETTER THEY ARE. DEAR GOD I THINK THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN A LOT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT...

(I expended unnecessary calories holding my finger on shift the entire time. I could have pressed caps lock, but then I wouldn't have sacrificed so much. Does my (keyboard) shouting at you make me more convincing?)

For your reference, here's the equivalent exchange in human terms:
[Xero enters a restaurant and takes his seat].
Wendy: "Hi, I'm your waitress Wendy, how can I help you tonight?"
Xero: "Hmm. I've never been here before, can you tell me what's good?"
Wendy: "Sure thing. In my opinion, the best things on the menu are the veal tortellini or the beef cheeks"
Xero: "I don't believe you"
Wendy: "I beg your pardon?"
Xero: "You're not sacrificing anything to give me your opinion. How do I know you're being serious?"
Wendy: "I'm not really sure what you mean sir, I think those are our best dishes. If you don't like them perhaps the baked salmon might be more to your taste?"
Xero: "It's too risky for me to take your advice without some kind of show of sacrifice. Give me $10 then I'll take you seriously"
Wendy: "Ummm sir? This is a restaurant, you're the one who is supposed to be paying us, at least when you've ordered your food."
Xero: "You don't even have to give it to me, you can burn it if you'd like"
Wendy: "I'm not going to burn ten dollars to give you some advice. You can take my advice on the menu or not at all."
Xero: "Its really simple. Imagine you're ten bee stranded on a deserted island and the only things you can buy are the name of your sister's baby and 'The wealth of Nations'.... "
[Wendy leaves the table. Xero continues talking to himself]

This is really what you're expecting people to do. Pay (someone? you? the website? god?) for the privilege of performing some service for you.

Now imagine that there was a website for crowdfunded advertising. You go on it and spend a few bucks to help promote Cracker. This increases its ranking. Other people also spend their money to help promote this show. The higher the show's ranking, the less likely that it will be a waste for me to take the time, and make the effort, to watch it.

Always with you it is a 'website'. Someone needs to make a website, and only then will humanity shake off our terrible backwards economic systems and realize our true economic potential.
Its easy to make a website. The kind you're talking about can be made in a week or two, for a few thousand dollars. Pittance in the scheme of things. According to you, if you truly believed in your idea, you should be falling all over yourself to 'sacrifice' this money to the web designer gods and get your idea out in the world.

I think the reality is that there are very, very few categories of products being sold on the internet that weren't being sold in some form before the internet was invented.
Gypsy cabs and taxis existed before Uber. Movie rentals existed before Netflix (hell, Netflix started as a DVD delivery service). Renting out houses and apartments existed before AirBnb. Classified papers existed before AirTasker.

There is nothing special about making a website that suddenly makes an idea that has not been implemented for the last 10000 years viable.