Check out this graph that I created...
(//http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-kLyzvbvaBNM/Uksax_EAkQI/AAAAAAAAAIo/qS8D27e6X2o/s400/Picture3.tif) (//http://pragmatarianism.blogspot.com/2013/10/evaluating-mistakes-on-x-y-graph.html)
I wonder how many of you suffer from math PTSD. Let me know if you felt any anxiety when you saw this chart.
Ok, so here's the logic. At any given time you have a finite amount of resources at your disposal. Just having these resources though isn't as important as how you use them. Each particular use (allocation) of your resources will provide you with x amount of value and others with y amount value. Given that that no two allocations of your resources will create/destroy the same exact amount of value, every single possible allocation of your resources can be plotted on a different point on this graph.
Where would you plot the following?
Forgetting to wear deodorant
Helping your friend move
Realizing after it's too late that there isn't any toilet paper
Donating $100 to your favorite cause
Pranking your friend
Going to a party instead of studying for an exam
Having sex with your best friend's significant other
Curing cancer
Losing $1000 at the race track
Starting WWIII
When you compare any two points on the graph, whichever point is closest to (10,10) is the more efficient (less wasteful) allocation. A mistake is when the less efficient allocation is chosen. The size of the mistake can be determined by subtracting the shorter distance from the longer distance.
We're all fallible, but we're not all equally fallible. It's a given that some people are going to make less mistakes than other people. Markets work because people can give you positive feedback (money) if your resource allocations create value for them. As a result, the more value that you create for others, the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used. This fail safe device limits the amount of resources that end up in the hands of the people who make the most mistakes.
If we can't give people feedback on how well they are using society's limited resources, then too many resources will end up in the wrong hands. Even when resources do happen to end up in the right hands...producers will be decentivized because the size of the carrot will not depend on their effort to research and accurately predict the most valuable allocations.
If anybody is interested in a critique of dollar voting please read On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs (//http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/) by David Graeber. For a short and sweet rebuttal please read BS Jobs and BS Economics (//http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/10/bs-jobs-and-bs-economics.html) by Alex Tabarrok. For a longer, but relatively accessible, rebuttal I highly recommend reading Democracy, the Market, and the Logic of Social Choice (//http://www.samueldecanio.com/papers/decanio.2012.logicofsocialchoice.pdf) by Samuel DeCanio.
:-s
Quote from: "aitm":-s
The most profound comment you've ever made. I completely agree. :-D
Quote from: "Xerographica"Markets work because people can give you positive feedback (money) if your resource allocations create value for them. As a result, the more value that you create for others, the more influence you'll have over how society's limited resources are used.
(//http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTgzMDI2MTYxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjU2MzQ5NQ@@._V1._SX140_CR0,0,140,209_.jpg)
:-k
When you make up a premise that has nothing to do with reality (which is all you seem to be doing for months), any conclusions you reach from that premise are nonsense. (Even if the conclusion is correct, it's not provable from the premise, so it's useless.)
Resource allocation depends on a number of things, but two things that have absolutely no bearing on it are efficiency and what people say the resource is worth.
And if that doesn't work, you can make copies and use it to play Battleship.
QuoteWhen you compare any two points on the graph, whichever point is closest to (10,10) is the more efficient (less wasteful) allocation.
Prove it. Why isn't the point closest to 10,0 better? If I can do something that creates massive value for me and no value for anyone else, wouldn't that be much better for me?
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteWhen you compare any two points on the graph, whichever point is closest to (10,10) is the more efficient (less wasteful) allocation.
Prove it. Why isn't the point closest to 10,0 better? If I can do something that creates massive value for me and no value for anyone else, wouldn't that be much better for me?
What allocation of your resources would put you at 10,0?
I have no idea, because your entire graph looks silly to me. I'm just seeing more baseless assumptions and I'd figured I'd ask for proof that they're correct.
Quote from: "Colanth"Resource allocation depends on a number of things, but two things that have absolutely no bearing on it are efficiency and what people say the resource is worth.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe it would help if you tried using examples.
Quote from: "Plu"I have no idea, because your entire graph looks silly to me. I'm just seeing more baseless assumptions and I'd figured I'd ask for proof that they're correct.
Let's go through this step by step to figure out where the bug is. Do you agree with the following?
1. At any given time you have a finite number of resources
Quote1. At any given time you have a finite number of resources
What qualifies as resources? My imagination is unending and it's paying the bills, so technically I have access to a limitless resource.
But for the sake of your argument, assume yes and get to the point.
(//http://www.freakyts.com/siteimages/my%20give%20a%20fuck%20is%20still%20broken%20but%20my%20go%20fuck%20yourself%20is%20still%20fully%20functional.jpg)
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteBut for the sake of your argument, assume yes and get to the point.
Would you agree that you can do different things with your resources?
Sure. That's an easy one.
Quote from: "Plu"Sure. That's an easy one.
Would you agree that the different things that you can do with your resources will provide yourself and others with different amounts of value?
Certainly. But I don't really care about the value it creates for others, though. Unless it's empathic feedback.
Quote from: "Plu"Certainly.
Those are all the assumptions that the graph is based on.
So then there's no proof that 10,10 is better than 10,0? You have only shown that point 10,10 exists, but nothing here gives any reason why it would be better than literally any other point on the graph. You haven't even shown why the positive side of the graph is better than the negative one, in any direction.
You seem to be running on the hidden assumption that generating value for yourself or others is a positive thing, but you haven't shown it.
Quote from: "Plu"So then there's no proof that 10,10 is better than 10,0? You have only shown that point 10,10 exists, but nothing here gives any reason why it would be better than literally any other point on the graph. You haven't even shown why the positive side of the graph is better than the negative one, in any direction.
You seem to be running on the hidden assumption that generating value for yourself or others is a positive thing, but you haven't shown it.
One allocation is only "better" than another allocation in the sense that it creates more value. For example...
QuoteI'm a millionaire, I'm a multi-millionaire. I'm filthy rich. You know why I'm a multi-millionaire? 'Cause multi-millions like what I do. That's pretty good, isn't it? - Michael Moore
Michael Moore allocates his resources in a way that millions value. How do we know that they value his allocation? Because they give him their money.
So if we compare Moore's allocation to my allocation...we can say that his allocation is "better" in the sense that it creates more value than mine does. His allocation is far closer to 10,10 than mine is. Obviously I didn't decide that...and neither did Michael Moore. Consumers decided it.
Let's bring it back to pragmatarianism. Right now Elizabeth Warren has far more influence over how taxes are spent than I do. Is it is fair? Sure, she received far more votes than I did. In a pragmatarian system, would it be fair if Michael Moore has far more influence over how taxes are spent than I would? Sure, he's received far more dollar votes than I have.
And now you're back to nonsense. And you were trying so hard. This whole post is full of all sorts of unsupported assertions again.
QuoteOne allocation is only "better" than another allocation in the sense that it creates more value.
What is 'value', and why does generating more of it result in a 'better' allocation? Why should I care about generating value for myself or others? How do I measure what value is? What reasoning is there to maximize value?
(Hell, I'd accept a way to measure it really. I've yet to hear one that makes sense.)
Quote from: "Plu"What is 'value'
It's subjective. Basically it relates to how much benefit somebody derives from something.
Quote from: "Plu"why does generating more of it result in a 'better' allocation?
Society is better off when there's more, rather than less, of the things we value.
Quote from: "Plu"Why should I care about generating value for myself or others?
You can do whatever is legal with your resources.
Quote from: "Plu"How do I measure what value is?
Value is most accurately measured by what you're willing to give up.
Quote from: "Plu"What reasoning is there to maximize value?
I think most people want to get the most out of life.
QuoteIt's subjective. Basically it relates to how much benefit somebody derives from something.
So why are you acting like you can plot it on a graph when it's subjective and unmeasurable?
QuoteSociety is better off when there's more, rather than less, of the things we value.
If it's subjective, "society" cannot have an opinion as it has no way to make subjective judgements. Only members of society can be better off, and because it's subjective there's no way to say which kind of value is "better".
QuoteValue is most accurately measured by what you're willing to give up.
But what you're willing to give up also has subjective value, so you're just calculating with two subjective values, which basically gives meaningless (and subjective) answers only. Not things you can plot on a graph.
QuoteI think most people want to get the most out of life.
This is kind of admitting that providing for others is not a goal in itself, it's only worth doing it if increases value for yourself. If I can generate more value for myself by reducing the value of other's lives, I'm still meeting this goal.
You seem to be highly confused between a form of economics where you can use math and using entirely subjective terms in all of your calculations. Don't be surprised when the outcome of adding the beauty level of two paintings is a completely arbitrary number.
Quote from: "Plu"So why are you acting like you can plot it on a graph when it's subjective and unmeasurable?
A cattle rancher allocates his resources to supplying beef. His allocation provides a finite amount of value for society. This doesn't mean that beef provides the same exact amount of value for every individual in society. It just means that we look at how much money the cattle rancher receives to get the best possible approximation of the total amount of value created by his allocation.
If values were objective...and/or producers were omniscient...then we wouldn't need a market. There wouldn't be any need for consumers to decide how much they are willing to give up for beef. It would already be known.
QuoteIt just means that we look at how much money the cattle rancher receives to get the best possible approximation of the total amount of value created by his allocation.
No, that just gives us the best possible approximation of the total amount of money received for his allocation of resources. Without a proper way to convert between money and value, it's completely meaningless in ways of determining value.
This is still just like saying that a painting's beauty is measured by how many people look at it. It's completely arbitrary without a conversion scale.
Quote from: "Plu"This is still just like saying that a painting's beauty is measured by how many people look at it. It's completely arbitrary without a conversion scale.
The amount of food that should be supplied is not completely arbitrary. We know that there's some optimal amount between both extremes of all or none of society's limited resources being used to produce food.
Using none of society's limited resources to produce food would result in everybody starving to death. Using all of society's limited resources to produce food would result in shortages of everything else we need to survive.
The basic idea is that every resource that is used to supply food cannot be used for any other use. So using more of society's limited resources to produce food...means less of society's limited recourse available to produce other things that society needs to survive.
How do we determine the optimal amount of society's limited resources that should be used to produce food? Again, because values are subjective and producers are not omniscient...we need to allow each and every individual to decide for themselves how much of all the other possible products/services they are willing to forgo for food.
But now I'm explaining to you the concept of supply and demand. Demand is simply people's preferences. Individuals go to the market, spend their money according to their preferences...and resources are allocated accordingly.
QuoteThe amount of food that should be supplied is not completely arbitrary.
Obviously not.
QuoteWe know that there's some optimal amount between both extremes of all or none of society's limited resources being used to produce food.
Do we? I doubt such an optimal amount exists.
QuoteThe basic idea is that every resource that is used to supply food cannot be used for any other use.
Not true; plenty of the resources used to supply food are recycled to be used for other uses at the same time. (Or rather, resources that are combined with other resources are used for a dual purpose rather than letting their other half go to waste; ie making compost of the non-edible parts of plants) It's not as simple as resource in -> resource out.
QuoteHow do we determine the optimal amount of society's limited resources that should be used to produce food?
Even if it exists, we don't. Because "society" doesn't have a desire for food, people do. Thousands of other things go into the production of food, most importantly things like distribution, nutritional value, preventing spoils and rotting, etc. Thinking about this in terms of "food producting" is incredibly naive. We produce more than enough food for everyone in the world as is; the problem is moving it to the right place before it spoils.
Quotewe need to allow each and every individual to decide for themselves how much of all the other possible products/services they are willing to forgo for food.
This is assuming that either
A) people
have resources to forgo for food
or
B) it's perfectly acceptable if people starve to death because they have no money left to spend
Which is again a very subjective situation to be arguing from.
Quote from: "aitm":-s
:shock: Exactly, I mean WTF?!
Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "aitm":-s
:shock: Exactly, I mean WTF?!
I posted the same thing over at the NationStates forum...Evaluating Mistakes (//http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=264413). What do you think about the quality of the comments over there? How do they compare to the quality of the comments here?
QuoteI posted the same thing over at the NationStates forum...Evaluating Mistakes. What do you think about the quality of the comments over there? How do they compare to the quality of the comments here?
They use more words and seem less critical, overall.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "aitm":-s
:shock: Exactly, I mean WTF?!
I posted the same thing over at the NationStates forum...Evaluating Mistakes (//http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=264413). What do you think about the quality of the comments over there? How do they compare to the quality of the comments here?
Fine, stay over at that forum, thanks, bye.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Quote from: "mykcob4"Quote from: "aitm":-s
:shock: Exactly, I mean WTF?!
I posted the same thing over at the NationStates forum...Evaluating Mistakes (//http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=264413). What do you think about the quality of the comments over there? How do they compare to the quality of the comments here?
It's clear, based on multiple post(s) over there, that they too believe value and the subjectivity therein is an issue!
Quote from: "Xerographica"Would you agree that the different things that you can do with your resources will provide yourself and others with different amounts of value?
With just the information in your question? Of course not.
Could doping different things with your resources provide different amounts of value? Sure.
Will it? Insufficient information.
Regardless of what I do with a dollar bill (unless I destroy it), it yields $1 of value (what someone would be willing and able to pay for it). So your question doesn't have a single general answer. It's not even a competent question.
Quote from: "Xerographica"Michael Moore allocates his resources in a way that millions value. How do we know that they value his allocation? Because they give him their money.
So if we compare Moore's allocation to my allocation...we can say that his allocation is "better" in the sense that it creates more value than mine does. His allocation is far closer to 10,10 than mine is. Obviously I didn't decide that...and neither did Michael Moore. Consumers decided it.
Of course - because what Moore says makes sense, while what you say doesn't. It has nothing to do with how you "allocate" your words, versus how Moore does. You could plaster your words on the front page of the New York Times and they'd still be worth only making fun of.
QuoteLet's bring it back to pragmatarianism. Right now Elizabeth Warren has far more influence over how taxes are spent than I do. Is it is fair? Sure, she received far more votes than I did. In a pragmatarian system, would it be fair if Michael Moore has far more influence over how taxes are spent than I would? Sure, he's received far more dollar votes than I have.
See the above paragraph - it wasn't because of allocation of resources, it was because of the quality of the resources. People pay a lot more for fresh oats than oats that have gone through a horse - but it has nothing to do with how the oats are allocated.