- Joined
- Sep 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,071
- Reaction score
- 163
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The other side spent more, but I'm only getting $20. That's all my cut ended up being.
Surely you understand that it's not actually just me against one other person. I have to split the "pot" with the hundred million or so people who were on my side.
If you didn't spend $20... then how much did you spend?
Let's say all of my $30 disposable income.
If your side loses... then it's technically impossible to get back less than you spent. Here are some easy numbers to illustrate this.
You spend $1 dollar. Your side spends a total of $100 dollars
1/100 = 1%
The other side spends a total of $500 dollars. So your side loses. How much money do you get?
1/100 = x/500
500(1/100) = 500(x/500)
5 = x
Your $1 dollar was returned to you and you also get $5 dollars.
You spent 1% of your side's pie. The other side's pie was larger so your side lost. But you got back 1% of the other side's pie.
Fantastic, so now I have five dollars and no ability to get to work.
Which means in future proposals, I'm not even going to be able to put that one dollar in, am I?
Well... we can certainly debate the effectiveness of public transportation. But it's hard to take this example seriously. When there are so many real life issues that we could look at.... abortion, marijuana, gun control, minimum wage, school funding, transportation funding... I'm not sure why you want to consider the legality of driving cars.
Coasianism would replace voting with spending. So it's main relevance is for things that we'd actually vote on. And I don't think it's at all likely that we'd ever vote on the legality of driving cars. Lowering the voting age to 16? Yes. I could easily see us voting on that.
What's the size of the tax increase?I brought up cars because you totally ignored my tax rate example. Replace the scenario with a new tax package: tax hike on the poor, tax break for the rich. Now the situation is worse: what if that pitiful check I get back ends up smaller than my tax increase?
I want to replace politics with economics. With economics, with good economics, we would know the intensity of people's preferences. This is the only way that society's limited resources can be put to their most valuable uses.The wealthiest 400 Americans have more money than the lower 150 million. And you want political power to literally be based on the number of dollars one has. Still no comment on how corruptible this system would be? Don't you think money's influence on politics is bad enough right now?
If we don't want to know how strongly people feel about bad things... then doesn't it follow that we wouldn't want people to even see bad things? The logical result would be a species that is incapable of seeing or solving problems.
They are.If you genuinely care about the survival of our species... then here's how society should work...
1. Everybody should be free to see problems
They are.2. Everybody should be free to valuate problems
They are.3. Everybody should be free to communicate their valuation of problems
They are.4. Everybody should be free to allocate their resources accordingly
I see a problem, valuate it and communicate my valuation to you. You see a different problem, valuate it and communicate your valuation to me. We valuate each other's problems and allocate our resources accordingly.
I see a little kid about to wander into a street... I valuate this problem and communicate my valuation to you. You see a punk with a spray can tagging a wall... you valuate this problem and communicate your valuation to me. We valuate each other's problems and allocate our resources accordingly. Chances are good that first we'll worry about the kid and then we'll worry about the punk. This is what it means for society's limited resources to be efficiently allocated. It's only possible for society's limited resources to be efficiently allocated when we know the intensity of people's preferences.
Clearly you're communicating a greater preference intensity than Gates is. Therefore? What? Let's totally disregard disparities in the intensities of your own preferences? Let's completely ignore the fact that if, given the opportunity you would...Which communicates a greater intensity of preference, aka shouting louder?
1) Bill Gates spending $1000 on a law.
2) Me spending $800 on a law.
What, exactly, do you mean that preference intensity is useful information? How, exactly, do we measure and use this information?You've taken a reasonable concept (intensity of preference is useful information) and applied it ass-backwards by supporting a system which does not actually end up reflecting that intensity.
This forum isn't a market. Or, we can say that it isn't a very good market. I can't see the intensity of your preferences for posts. From my perspective... we could solve this problem by applying the pragmatarian model to this website. Each month we'd have to pay $1 dollar... but we could choose which posts we allocate our pennies to. If you allocate your pennies to my posts... then the pennies would be automatically withdrawn from your digital wallet and deposited into mine. If you allocate your pennies to your posts... then the pennies would be automatically withdrawn from your digital wallet and deposited into the the digital wallet of the forum owner.Your other fundamental problem is the same one you had with pragmatarianism: attempting to shoehorn free market economic principles into something that isn't a free market.
And yet, this system does not treat it that way. The system you are supporting treats Bill Gates' preference as more intense. If intensity of preference is so valuable, why are you supporting a system that actually reduces the accuracy of that information?Clearly you're communicating a greater preference intensity than Gates is. Therefore? What? Let's totally disregard disparities in the intensities of your own preferences? Let's completely ignore the fact that if, given the opportunity you would...
But that's exactly what you are supporting here. Gates has more money, so his preferences are treated as far more important than mine.1) spend $800 on law A
2) spend $50 on law B
We should care less that you obviously and blatantly care a whole lot more about law A than you do about law B? Gates has more money than you do so let's throw the intensities of your preference into the garbage?
Opinion polls and surveys, observations of the market, town halls, people write their representatives... there are thousands of ways in which people communicate, but somehow you are under the impression that nobody has a clue about intensity of preference in the government.What, exactly, do you mean that preference intensity is useful information? How, exactly, do we measure and use this information?
No.Do you think it would be a good idea to apply the pragmatarian model to this website?
I think mandatory subscriptions would reduce overall userbase and therefore actually be a disincentive.Or do you think that the current model is optimal? Do you think incentives are overrated? Or do you think "liking" a post adequately communicates your valuations of people's posts?
No, netflix has other methods of gathering that information.With Netflix people already pay a monthly fee... but they can't use their fees to communicate the intensity of their preferences. Do you think that Netflix should implement the pragmatarian model?
No, The Economist has other methods of gathering t,hat information.With The Economist people also pay a monthly fee... but they can't use their fees to communicate the intensity of their preferences. Do you think that The Economist should implement the pragmatarian model?
The market works because we can use our cash to at least partially communicate the intensity of our preferences. But if you understand why it's beneficial for people to be able to use their cash to communicate.... then you'll be able to clearly see all the places and spaces where people can't use their cash to communicate. And once you realize how many crappy markets there are... you'll realize that life could be a whole lot better if we greatly improved these markets by giving people the opportunity to use their cash to communicate.
But that's exactly what you are supporting here. Gates has more money, so his preferences are treated as far more important than mine.
When it comes to revealing preferences there are two methods...Opinion polls and surveys, observations of the market, town halls, people write their representatives... there are thousands of ways in which people communicate, but somehow you are under the impression that nobody has a clue about intensity of preference in the government.
Of course. Why do you think we have a jury system? We have a jury system because 12 heads are better than 1. But if 12 heads are better than 1... then aren't 100 heads better than 12? Aren't 1,000 heads better than 100 heads? Aren't millions and millions of heads better than 1,000 heads?I know, let's make criminal convictions based on cash. If people really prefer a particular murderer to go to prison, they can donate money to convict that person. If the defense has more donated than the prosecution, the criminal walks.
When it comes to things that aren't even remotely or vaguely important then voting is fine. Some coworkers want to vote on where to eat? Fine. They can knock themselves out. But if something is even remotely or vaguely important... then **** voting. When it comes to things that are even vaguely or remotely important... then it's imperative that each and every person be given the chance to put their money where their mouth is. We need people to fully and personally and directly feel the economic consequences of their decision. It's the only way that people are going to seriously think about the issue.Intensity of preference is always better, right?
You're right that law and order isn't a market... but you're entirely wrong that it shouldn't be a market. Law and order should be a market. It's the only way to ensure that law and order maximizes benefit.Legislation isn't a market. Law and order isn't a market. Once you realize that free market principles only work in a free market, you'll stop seeing the world in such a simplistic fashion.
Law A
Gates: $1000
You: $800
Total: $1800
Law B
Gates: $10,000
You: $50
Total: $10,050
With coasianism... the intensities of both your preferences are incorporated.
You're right that law and order isn't a market... but you're entirely wrong that it shouldn't be a market. Law and order should be a market. It's the only way to ensure that law and order maximizes benefit.
Right now you think that, despite the fact that we don't know people's valuations of laws, that the laws are somehow going to maximize benefit. However you spin it... that's socialism. It's the idea that you can efficiently allocate resources without actually knowing people's valuations. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Except no, they aren't. In both cases, Gates is going to win when clearly he valued BOTH laws far, far less than I did. Bill Gates earns that $10,000 in less than a minute. That's all the value he placed on the laws. A few seconds worth of his salary. But me? Even that $50 represents far more than a minute's salary. That $1000 he spent was, like, four seconds of income for him when the $800 I put up against it is probably the limit of a month's disposable income after I've done that annoying "pay bills" and "save for retirement" thing.
My preferences were stronger in both cases, but in both cases the system treats them as a lesser preference. Your system has reversed the representation of preference.
If law and order becomes a market it literally becomes legal for the wealthy to murder someone.
It's not a "versus." There's no war between the rich and the poor. I'm merely pointing out the fact that your system literally treats rich people as having stronger preferences inherently.Sure, when it's just you and Gates... then he's going to "win". But when the F*** is it ever going to be just you and Gates? Was it just one poor person and one rich person when California voted on the tax increase? Of course it wasn't. It was millions and millions of people. And the proponents of the tax increase spent more money than the opponents. That's a fact that really doesn't fit your stupid narrative of poor people versus rich people. Gates has a lot more money than I do but the world is filled with plenty of things that I want and can afford. I want and can afford artichokes. Is this because I'm the only one who wants artichokes? Obviously it isn't. It's because lots of people want and are willing to pay for artichokes.
I made no such claim. In fact, I've brought several examples of competing interests. How you conclude I think people have the same interests is beyond me. What was that you said about reading posts carefully?Again with this stupid narrative. As if wealthy people are all the same. So are poor people. In fact, you and I are exactly the same. We obviously have all the same interests and preferences. You and I are not at all different.
If you're going to stick with this stupid narrative... then seriously stick with it. Argue for full blown socialism. Then, in theory, you'd get rid of wealthy people. And your world would be a really better place. Seriously sticking with your stupid narrative would be the smart thing to do. But why should I expect you to do the smart thing when you're so enthralled with such a stupid narrative?
It's not just me and Bill, but how can you possibly say your system will accurately reflect intensity of preference on the aggregate when it completely flips the comparison on an individual scale?
Your system treats those 1000 wealthy people as having a more intense preference,
Your system behaves as though wealthy people have stronger desires.
your system heavily tilts the preference comparison towards wealthy people because you assume absolute dollars accurately reflects intensity of preference.
Your oppose my system because people don't have equal wealth. Yet, you don't argue for getting rid of the wealthy. Why don't you argue for getting rid of the wealthy? Why do you want our system to treat wealthy people as having a more intense preference? Why do you want our system to behave as though wealthy people have stronger desires? Why do you want our system to heavily tilt the preference comparison towards the wealthy?Fun fact: socialism isn't communism, and our current system isn't communism. I never argued for getting rid of the wealthy.
Your oppose my system because people don't have equal wealth. Yet, you don't argue for getting rid of the wealthy.
because that's dumb.Why don't you argue for getting rid of the wealthy?
I don't. Coasianism does that.Why do you want our system to treat wealthy people as having a more intense preference?
You want that. Aren't you reading?Why do you want our system to behave as though wealthy people have stronger desires?
No, that's what coasianism does.Why do you want our system to heavily tilt the preference comparison towards the wealthy?
Which is precisely why coasianism does not represent the two equally. Bill gates can throw away money on laws he barely cares about, but to you this means he cares a lot more... Bill Gates can buy a small island while poor families can barely afford a small apartment.
the current system is not a "command economy."If I was a genius then maybe I'd be able to help even you understand the problem with command economies. But I'm not a genius. If you don't understand something as simple as...
Why is it dumb? Why do you want Gates to have far more influence and power in the private sector than poor people?because that's dumb.
Why is it dumb? Why do you want Gates to have far more influence and power in the private sector than poor people?
Why does communism suck? I think it sucks because it doesn't allow people to reveal the intensity of their preferences. But this is exactly why I think that our public sector sucks. So why, exactly, do you think that communism sucks?Because communism sucks?
Why does communism suck? I think it sucks because it doesn't allow people to reveal the intensity of their preferences.
But this is exactly why I think that our public sector sucks. So why, exactly, do you think that communism sucks?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?