The Least Blind Group Will Win

[Xerographica]

You're saying that quality and popularity are not connected. What am I saying? That taxpayers should be free to directly allocate their taxes. What are you saying? That taxpayers shouldn't be free to allocate their taxes because we're better off allowing representatives to allocate them. Except, how do we choose our representatives? Popularity contest.

Ouch, my most of me.

You said something about me claiming I could "accurately predict how American taxpayers would allocate their taxes" - something I certainly hadn't claimed.

I pointed out that the point I had been making was that popularity is what people choose when they spend their own money in commercial arenas - and that the problem with your 'idea' is that it makes everything commercial.

I even explained this in the post you are now apparently pretending not to understand - and pointed out that they will actually select AGAINST quality, in favour of popularity.

You still didn't address the fact that we choose our representatives by popular vote.

I think that cat videos are pretty popular. Imagine if Youtubers paid a fee that they could spend on videos. What percentage of the total fees would be spent on cat videos? In other words, what would be the demand for cat videos? I think it would be broad but super shallow. Lots of people would be willing to spend only a small amount of money on cat videos.

Which videos would people be willing to spend larger amounts of money on? Wouldn't you like to know? I sure would. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Xerographica]

Oh you're really going to have to quote me on this!!! Because I sure call shenanigans.

I said that value is a function of availability/importance. Poison oak is available enough... but I don't value it because I don't think it's at all important to me. Lemons, on the other hand, are certainly important to me... but I don't value them because my tree is full of them.

What are you talking about? You've been saying throughout this entire thread that people should pay for things based on how much they value them.

Language is inside a bar. Drinking way too much... as usual. Let's wait for him outside. When he comes out, we'll kick his ass.

When I say "value"... I kinda mean something like, "absence makes the heart grow fonder". If you're willing to give your left nut for something, then I guess it must be pretty absent from your life.

If Netflix allows you to spend your fees on your favorite content... and you spend all your fees on the Gilmore Girls... then I'll guess that they are really helping to fill a huge hole in your heart.

If, on the other hand, you spend all your fees on Cosmos... then I'll guess that Neil deGrasse Tyson is really helping to fill a huge hole in your head.

[Galloism]

What are you talking about? You've been saying throughout this entire thread that people should pay for things based on how much they value them.

Language is inside a bar. Drinking way too much... as usual. Let's wait for him outside. When he comes out, we'll kick his ass.

When I say "value"... I kinda mean something like, "absence makes the heart grow fonder". If you're willing to give your left nut for something, then I guess it must be pretty absent from your life.

If Netflix allows you to spend your fees on your favorite content... and you spend all your fees on the Gilmore Girls... then I'll guess that they are really helping to fill a huge hole in your heart.

If, on the other hand, you spend all your fees on Cosmos... then I'll guess that Neil deGrasse Tyson is really helping to fill a huge hole in your head.

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.

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.

You know, we do this instead of having some factories produce cars, some produce computers, some produce toasters, and no retooling required.. We can't have continuous production based on aggregate demand. We only fund things when they're absent. If they're not absent, we don't fund them, so then they go out of business. That makes sense.

[Xerographica]

Language is inside a bar. Drinking way too much... as usual. Let's wait for him outside. When he comes out, we'll kick his ass.

When I say "value"... I kinda mean something like, "absence makes the heart grow fonder". If you're willing to give your left nut for something, then I guess it must be pretty absent from your life.

If Netflix allows you to spend your fees on your favorite content... and you spend all your fees on the Gilmore Girls... then I'll guess that they are really helping to fill a huge hole in your heart.

If, on the other hand, you spend all your fees on Cosmos... then I'll guess that Neil deGrasse Tyson is really helping to fill a huge hole in your head.

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.

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.

Imagine everybody in the US was simultaneously informed that Canada was going to invade the US. Would we perceive the absence of national defense equally? Of course not. Perhaps plenty of people would feel that we already have more than enough defense to defeat the invasion. Other people might feel that we don't have near enough defense to defeat the invasion. Other people might not even believe that Canada was going to invade. Some people might actually prefer being ruled by Canada.

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.

People and their circumstances are incredibly diverse. The idea that all this diversity can be adequately represented is by far the most harmful idea that has ever existed. It results in a massively detrimental disparity between how society's limited resources are used and how they truly should be used. When we give taxpayers the option to choose where their taxes go, then the supply of public goods will far more accurately reflect the diversity of people and their circumstances.

We'll have a pragmatarian market in the public sector and a regular market in the private sector. However, there won't be any consumer surplus in the public sector. What does this mean? It means that, in the public sector, people will be more honest about the intensity of their preferences. As a result, the supply of public goods will far more accurately reflect the diversity of people and their circumstances than the supply of private goods will. As more and more people understand and appreciate this, they will want the public sector to supply more and more private goods. The private sector will shrink, the public sector will expand and the tax rate will increase.

It's just my theory though. It seems pretty reasonable because when you're in a restaurant, if the waiter brings you the wrong dish you say, "This isn't what I ordered". We all naturally prefer it when the things we spend our money on actually match our preferences. And the closer they match our preferences the better. But in order for future things to far more closely match our preferences in far less time, we have to accurately communicate how closely present things match our preferences. With one-price-fits-all (OPFA)... everybody pays the same price for the same thing. But, nothing equally matches everybody's preferences. Therefore, OPFA is not, or should not be, the future. Pragmatarian markets should be the future. The amount of money that you spend on something will accurately communicate how closely it matches your preferences. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

[Senkaku]

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

Unrelated- if I gave you $.25 to start ending your posts with "Tenno Heika Banzai" or "Heil Hitler" or "Carthago delenda est" or "harder daddy" or something, instead of this nonsense all-caps mantra, would you start doing it until someone communicated a different preference with more money

[Galloism]

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.

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.

[Xerographica]

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

Unrelated- if I gave you $.25 to start ending your posts with "Tenno Heika Banzai" or "Heil Hitler" or "Carthago delenda est" or "harder daddy" or something, instead of this nonsense all-caps mantra, would you start doing it until someone communicated a different preference with more money

How is it unrelated? How is it nonsense? I'm not a mind-reader so I can't "divine" how much my mantra bothers or benefits you. By offering me a quarter to use a different mantra you're ironically helping me to be less blind.

To be honest, I'm not necessarily perfectly happy with my mantra. The LEAST blind group will win? Isn't there a better way of saying "Least Blind"? The group with the clearest vision will win? The group that can see the best will win? The group with 20-20 vision will win? The group with the most insight will win? Those are all worse.

What about "knowing is half the battle"? Then I'll feel like a G.I. Joe advertisement.

Deng Xiaoping is my hero. He went around saying that it didn't matter whether the cat was black or white as long as it caught mice. Results are what matter. He also often talked about groping for stepping stones to cross the river. Well, the easier it is to see the stepping stones, the easier it is to cross the river. So again, the least blind group will win.

Would you give me $.25 per post to use a different mantra? Or just a grand total of $.25?

[Xerographica]

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.

Is the amount of money that people donate to the Red Cross based on their personal need or the global need? If Netflix subscribers could allocate their fees... would the amount of money that people allocated to science shows be based on their personal need or the global need?

A. I need more science in my life
B. We need more science in our lives
C. They need more science in their lives

If you're going to choose to spend your money on something... then clearly you're going to perceive its shortage somewhere. If you donate money to Doctors Without Borders... then clearly you perceive the shortage of medical treatment in developing countries. If you allocate your taxes to your local hospital... then clearly you perceive the shortage of medical treatment in your area.

If you allocate your taxes to an elementary school in Zimbabwe, then clearly you perceive a shortage of elementary education in Zimbabwe. If you allocate your taxes to your local elementary school, then clearly you perceive a shortage of elementary education in your area. And it's not necessarily the case that you're going to attend your local elementary school in order to directly benefit from the marginal increase in the supply of elementary education in your area.

In all cases people should be able to use their money to help reduce shortages that concern them.

[Galloism]

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.

Is the amount of money that people donate to the Red Cross based on their personal need or the global need? If Netflix subscribers could allocate their fees... would the amount of money that people allocated to science shows be based on their personal need or the global need?

A. I need more science in my life
B. We need more science in our lives
C. They need more science in their lives

If you're going to choose to spend your money on something... then clearly you're going to perceive its shortage somewhere. If you donate money to Doctors Without Borders... then clearly you perceive the shortage of medical treatment in developing countries. If you allocate your taxes to your local hospital... then clearly you perceive the shortage of medical treatment in your area.

If you allocate your taxes to an elementary school in Zimbabwe, then clearly you perceive a shortage of elementary education in Zimbabwe. If you allocate your taxes to your local elementary school, then clearly you perceive a shortage of elementary education in your area. And it's not necessarily the case that you're going to attend your local elementary school in order to directly benefit from the marginal increase in the supply of elementary education in your area.

In all cases people should be able to use their money to help reduce shortages that concern them.

So the answer is "I'm going to refuse to answer so that I can't ever be nailed to which stupid result I'm going to get"?

Personal need or global need Xero. This really isn't a hard question. These hypothetical people paying their value for corn. Are they paying the price they choose based on their PERSONAL need for corn, or the GLOBAL need for corn?

It's really a simple question.

[Xerographica]

Is the amount of money that people donate to the Red Cross based on their personal need or the global need? If Netflix subscribers could allocate their fees... would the amount of money that people allocated to science shows be based on their personal need or the global need?

A. I need more science in my life
B. We need more science in our lives
C. They need more science in their lives

If you're going to choose to spend your money on something... then clearly you're going to perceive its shortage somewhere. If you donate money to Doctors Without Borders... then clearly you perceive the shortage of medical treatment in developing countries. If you allocate your taxes to your local hospital... then clearly you perceive the shortage of medical treatment in your area.

If you allocate your taxes to an elementary school in Zimbabwe, then clearly you perceive a shortage of elementary education in Zimbabwe. If you allocate your taxes to your local elementary school, then clearly you perceive a shortage of elementary education in your area. And it's not necessarily the case that you're going to attend your local elementary school in order to directly benefit from the marginal increase in the supply of elementary education in your area.

In all cases people should be able to use their money to help reduce shortages that concern them.

So the answer is "I'm going to refuse to answer so that I can't ever be nailed to which stupid result I'm going to get"?

Personal need or global need Xero. This really isn't a hard question. These hypothetical people paying their value for corn. Are they paying the price they choose based on their PERSONAL need for corn, or the GLOBAL need for corn?

It's really a simple question.

Let's imagine all the people who would choose to allocate their taxes to meals on wheels. What percentage of these people would actually receive meals on wheels?

[Galloism]

So the answer is "I'm going to refuse to answer so that I can't ever be nailed to which stupid result I'm going to get"?

Personal need or global need Xero. This really isn't a hard question. These hypothetical people paying their value for corn. Are they paying the price they choose based on their PERSONAL need for corn, or the GLOBAL need for corn?

It's really a simple question.

Let's imagine all the people who would choose to allocate their taxes to meals on wheels. What percentage of these people would actually receive meals on wheels?

Xero. The question. Let's have an answer.

These corn eaters. Are they valuing based on personal scarcity or global scarcity, given you said value is a function of scarcity?

[Xerographica]

Let's imagine all the people who would choose to allocate their taxes to meals on wheels. What percentage of these people would actually receive meals on wheels?

Xero. The question. Let's have an answer.

These corn eaters. Are they valuing based on personal scarcity or global scarcity, given you said value is a function of scarcity?

I guess that some people who would choose to fund meals on wheels wouldn't necessarily receive meals on wheels. Therefore, I guess that some of the people who would choose to fund corn would do so because they perceive a more local shortage. Other people who would choose to fund corn would do so because they perceive a less local shortage.

Some people would use their tax dollars to say, "We need more corn here!" Other people would use their tax dollars to say, "They need more corn there!"

[Galloism]

Xero. The question. Let's have an answer.

These corn eaters. Are they valuing based on personal scarcity or global scarcity, given you said value is a function of scarcity?

I guess that some people who would choose to fund meals on wheels wouldn't necessarily receive meals on wheels. Therefore, I guess that some of the people who would choose to fund corn would do so because they perceive a more local shortage. Other people who would choose to fund corn would do so because they perceive a less local shortage.

Some people would use their tax dollars to say, "We need more corn here!" Other people would use their tax dollars to say, "They need more corn there!"

So these corn eaters are basing it on regional scarcity not personal scarcity?

Is that what you're saying?

[Xerographica]

I guess that some people who would choose to fund meals on wheels wouldn't necessarily receive meals on wheels. Therefore, I guess that some of the people who would choose to fund corn would do so because they perceive a more local shortage. Other people who would choose to fund corn would do so because they perceive a less local shortage.

Some people would use their tax dollars to say, "We need more corn here!" Other people would use their tax dollars to say, "They need more corn there!"

So these corn eaters are basing it on regional scarcity not personal scarcity?

Is that what you're saying?

Personal scarcity is a very local scarcity.

[Galloism]

Is that what you're saying?

Personal scarcity is a very local scarcity.

Are you allergic to questions?

So these corn eaters are basing it on regional scarcity not personal scarcity?

[Xerographica]

Personal scarcity is a very local scarcity.

Are you allergic to questions?

So these corn eaters are basing it on regional scarcity not personal scarcity?

There's a continuum of scarcity...

1. My kitchen has a shortage of corn
2. My supermarket has a shortage of corn
3. My city has a shortage of corn
4. My state has a shortage of corn
5. My country has a shortage of corn
6. My planet has a shortage of corn
7. My universe has a shortage of corn

The manufacturers first supply the neighbourhood, and afterwards, as their work improves and refines, more distant markets. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

[The Two Jerseys]

Are you allergic to questions?

In America, 2+2=4.
In Soviet Russia, 4=2+2.
In Xerographica, 2+2=William Shakespeare!

[Galloism]

Are you allergic to questions?

So these corn eaters are basing it on regional scarcity not personal scarcity?

There's a continuum of scarcity...

1. My kitchen has a shortage of corn
2. My supermarket has a shortage of corn
3. My city has a shortage of corn
4. My state has a shortage of corn
5. My country has a shortage of corn
6. My planet has a shortage of corn
7. My universe has a shortage of corn

The manufacturers first supply the neighbourhood, and afterwards, as their work improves and refines, more distant markets. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

So is it a running average of the 7 layers you've proposed, NOT based on regional availability as you previously seemed to indicate?

Because I'll tell you right off, the universe has a shortage of everything we make. Literally everything.

[Xerographica]

There's a continuum of scarcity...

1. My kitchen has a shortage of corn
2. My supermarket has a shortage of corn
3. My city has a shortage of corn
4. My state has a shortage of corn
5. My country has a shortage of corn
6. My planet has a shortage of corn
7. My universe has a shortage of corn

So is it a running average of the 7 layers you've proposed, NOT based on regional availability as you previously seemed to indicate?

Because I'll tell you right off, the universe has a shortage of everything we make. Literally everything.

I already explained that everybody should be free to use their money to reduce shortages that concern them. If across the universe there are some aliens that are concerned that we humans don't have enough corn, then they should be free to spend their money accordingly.

[Galloism]

So is it a running average of the 7 layers you've proposed, NOT based on regional availability as you previously seemed to indicate?

Because I'll tell you right off, the universe has a shortage of everything we make. Literally everything.

I already explained that everybody should be free to use their money to reduce shortages that concern them. If across the universe there are some aliens that are concerned that we humans don't have enough corn, then they should be free to spend their money accordingly.

Ok, so here's the interesting question.

Bob the Corn addict pays $100 for an ear of corn. How is the producer supposed to interpret that?

A personal shortage, a supermarket shortage, a city shortage, a state shortage, a country shortage, the planet shortage, or the universe shortage?

[Xerographica]

I already explained that everybody should be free to use their money to reduce shortages that concern them. If across the universe there are some aliens that are concerned that we humans don't have enough corn, then they should be free to spend their money accordingly.

Ok, so here's the interesting question.

Bob the Corn addict pays $100 for an ear of corn. How is the producer supposed to interpret that?

A personal shortage, a supermarket shortage, a city shortage, a state shortage, a country shortage, the planet shortage, or the universe shortage?

Bob donates $100 dollars to the LP. How is the LP supposed to interpret that? By giving Bob the option to use his donation to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences.

So you can have bigger organizations that give contributors the option to use their money to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences. Or you can have smaller organizations that are dedicated to specific preferences.

[Camicon]

Ok, so here's the interesting question.

Bob the Corn addict pays $100 for an ear of corn. How is the producer supposed to interpret that?

A personal shortage, a supermarket shortage, a city shortage, a state shortage, a country shortage, the planet shortage, or the universe shortage?

Bob donates $100 dollars to the LP. How is the LP supposed to interpret that? By giving Bob the option to use his donation to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences.

So you can have bigger organizations that give contributors the option to use their money to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences. Or you can have smaller organizations that are dedicated to specific preferences.

You do understand that money is a extremely carefully managed resource for the overwhelming majority of people, right? Most people can barely afford their necessities, how the fuck do you expect them to spend money they don't have to "communicate their intensity" through donations?

[Galloism]

Ok, so here's the interesting question.

Bob the Corn addict pays $100 for an ear of corn. How is the producer supposed to interpret that?

A personal shortage, a supermarket shortage, a city shortage, a state shortage, a country shortage, the planet shortage, or the universe shortage?

Bob donates $100 dollars to the LP. How is the LP supposed to interpret that? By giving Bob the option to use his donation to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences.

So you can have bigger organizations that give contributors the option to use their money to communicate the intensity of more specific preferences. Or you can have smaller organizations that are dedicated to specific preferences.

So, each producer should setup thousands of different funds to see what that $100 represents by which fund the person puts it into?

How is this different than insisting wal-mart allow us to allocate gross revenue by division?

What it will do is certainly make shopping for fucking dinner an all day event if people followed your insane ideas.

It will also lead to funny results. People have an inherent first option bias for undesirable choices, and last option bias for desirable choices. This persists regardless of the choice type.

So, the person controlling the list order also controls the funding direction. Humans are weird.

[Grave_n_idle]

You still didn't address the fact that we choose our representatives by popular vote.

Why would I address that?

Not only do I not care about it, and haven't defended it, and - ultimately - don't see it as relevant - but I've got no desire to address it.

I think that cat videos are pretty popular. Imagine if Youtubers paid a fee that they could spend on videos. What percentage of the total fees would be spent on cat videos? In other words, what would be the demand for cat videos? I think it would be broad but super shallow. Lots of people would be willing to spend only a small amount of money on cat videos.

We can kind of test this idea.

There are rankings for Youtube. PewDiePie's particular brand of brainless noise is the most popular channel (54 million subscribers), putting it almost exactly 100% higher than Justin Bieber's VEVO channel (27 million).

The nearest competitor that makes content that might be comparable to what we were discussing (i.e. 'research') is Vsauce, which has 11 million subscribers.

In other words, with youtube's current model - 'popular' content outweighs even popular 'informative' content by 5 to 1.

Which videos would people be willing to spend larger amounts of money on? Wouldn't you like to know? I sure would.

Again, something we can kind of look up data for, by reviewing Patreon content,

The biggest Patreon content provider at this point is a junky popular content channel called "Chapo trap House" that makes more than 50k a month through Patreon.

For comparison, the nearest 'informative' channel is CGP Grey, which makes 17k per month.

(A 'pure' informative channel is unlikely to net that much - "Metatron", for example (historical and translation content) makes about $335 per month - so, less than 1% of the pure 'entertainment' content).

The Least Blind Group Will Win.

That's a meaningless phrase.

Based on real evidence, 'popular nonsense' will win.

[Salandriagado]

You're saying that quality and popularity are not connected. What am I saying? That taxpayers should be free to directly allocate their taxes. What are you saying? That taxpayers shouldn't be free to allocate their taxes because we're better off allowing representatives to allocate them. Except, how do we choose our representatives? Popularity contest.

Ouch, my most of me.

You said something about me claiming I could "accurately predict how American taxpayers would allocate their taxes" - something I certainly hadn't claimed.

I pointed out that the point I had been making was that popularity is what people choose when they spend their own money in commercial arenas - and that the problem with your 'idea' is that it makes everything commercial.

I even explained this in the post you are now apparently pretending not to understand - and pointed out that they will actually select AGAINST quality, in favour of popularity.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that I can predict exactly that: they'll go for whatever the default option is, or failing that, whatever item immediately jumps out at them as directly benefiting them, and failing that, the first one on the list.

"quick, everyone, pillage the magazine, take as much as you can, and run for it!" would be your approach to dealing with Rorke's Drift, then?

Noooo... everybody would accurately reveal/communicate their demand for ammunition and it would be allocated accordingly.

Except that they wouldn't, because for most of them, the value of said ammunition would be infinite (because their lives depend on it), and they lack funds with which to "communicate". Also, there's no reason to tell the truth, because it's literally always better to overstate your demand: it's far better to have more ammo than you need than it is to not have ammo and be dead.

You said something about me claiming I could "accurately predict how American taxpayers would allocate their taxes" - something I certainly hadn't claimed.

I pointed out that the point I had been making was that popularity is what people choose when they spend their own money in commercial arenas - and that the problem with your 'idea' is that it makes everything commercial.

I even explained this in the post you are now apparently pretending not to understand - and pointed out that they will actually select AGAINST quality, in favour of popularity.

You still didn't address the fact that we choose our representatives by popular vote.

This has been addressed at least three times and you've ignored all of them. To add another one: it's selected from among a small pool of mostly competent options, not from among a continuum of literally trillions (and often many more than that) of options.

I think that cat videos are pretty popular. Imagine if Youtubers paid a fee that they could spend on videos. What percentage of the total fees would be spent on cat videos? In other words, what would be the demand for cat videos? I think it would be broad but super shallow. Lots of people would be willing to spend only a small amount of money on cat videos. Which videos would people be willing to spend larger amounts of money on? Wouldn't you like to know? I sure would. The Least Blind Group Will Win.

This is already a thing. It's called "ad revenue".

There's a continuum of scarcity...

1. My kitchen has a shortage of corn
2. My supermarket has a shortage of corn
3. My city has a shortage of corn
4. My state has a shortage of corn
5. My country has a shortage of corn
6. My planet has a shortage of corn
7. My universe has a shortage of corn

So is it a running average of the 7 layers you've proposed, NOT based on regional availability as you previously seemed to indicate?

Because I'll tell you right off, the universe has a shortage of everything we make. Literally everything.

Except threads by Xeno. We have way too many of those for one universe.