The usual touchstone, whether that which someone asserts is merely his persuasion—or at least his subjective conviction, that is, his firm belief—is betting. It often happens that someone propounds his views with such positive and uncompromising assurance that he seems to have entirely set aside all thought of possible error. A bet disconcerts him. Sometimes it turns out that he has a conviction which can be estimated at a value of one ducat, but not of ten. For he is very willing to venture one ducat, but when it is a question of ten he becomes aware, as he had not previously been, that it may very well be that he is in error. If, in a given case, we represent ourselves as staking the happiness of our whole life, the triumphant tone of our judgment is greatly abated; we become extremely diffident, and discover for the first time that our belief does not reach so far. Thus pragmatic belief always exists in some specific degree, which, according to differences in the interests at stake, may be large or may be small. - Immanuel Kant , The Critique of Pure Reason
Xerographica
It is easy to believe; doubting is more difficult. Experience and knowledge and thinking are necessary before we can doubt and question intelligently. Tell a child that Santa Claus comes down the chimney or a savage that thunder is the anger of the gods and the child and the savage will accept your statements until they acquire sufficient knowledge to cause them to demur. Millions in India passionately believe that the waters of the Ganges are holy, that snakes are deities in disguise, that it is as wrong to kill a cow as it is to kill a person—and, as for eating roast beef…that is no more to be thought of than cannibalism. They accept these absurdities, not because they have been proved, but because the suggestion has been deeply imbedded in their minds, and they have not the intelligence, the knowledge, the experience, necessary to question them. We smile…the poor benighted creatures! Yet you and I, if we examine the facts closely, will discover that the majority of our opinions, our most cherished beliefs, our creeds, the principles of conduct on which many of us base our very lives, are the result of suggestion, not reasoning… Prejudiced, biased, and reiterated assertions, not logic, have formulated our beliefs. - Dale Carnegie
I definitely agree with Scott’s argument. Using extreme scenarios can help get to the heart of the matter/morality. It’s especially interesting because Scott’s previous post was… Is Everything A Religion? If everything is truly a religion then Phil Robertson’s scenario loses steam. The atheist would simply reply to the intruders that he does believe in God… just not the Christian God. If the intruders pressed the atheist for details… and the atheist was a liberal… then he could tell him that the state is his God. This would be consistent with a paper written by a Nobel prize winning economist…
The state did, indeed, become God. - James M. Buchanan, Afraid to be free: Dependency as desideratum
It’s too bad that Scott didn’t share that paper as an additional example of how different beliefs can be considered religions.
But the atheist wouldn’t necessarily have to be a liberal to have some degree of faith that the state would track down, apprehend and judge the law-breakers.
Personally, even though I’m an atheist, it’s entirely possible that I would totally claim Christianity and quote the heck out of the Bible if I found myself in Robertson’s scenario. I would have absolutely no affinity with Kant in this regard. I would lie like a rug if I thought it would save my family. That being said, if we assumed that the intruders were highly intelligent, and/or had a lie detector test on them… then I would tell them that my “God” is progress. Difference is the engine of progress so difference is the engine of “God”. If the intruders killed my family and I… then this would decrease difference… and as such, be against my religion. And because everybody benefits from progress… even the intruders.. then it would behoove them not to kill us. In essence I would be making a consequentialist argument against being murdered.
The same thing is true if the leader of China called me on the phone and threatened to invade the US and kill/enslave all Americans. Again, assuming adequate intelligence… I’d make a consequential rather than a deontological argument against the invasion. Sure, China would gain X from having a bunch of additional resources at their disposal… but they would be foregoing Y. What’s Y? Y is what they would have gained from American innovations. Progress (innovations, discoveries, cures) depends on difference… and China would eliminate a lot of difference by invading us. Therefore… Y > X.
Perhaps it would be more effective to simply reply that we’d bomb the heck out of China if they invaded us? History clearly indicates that this argument doesn’t work in the long run. We’re all safer and better off when more, rather than less, people appreciate the value of difference.
I really like the idea of blogs “outsourcing” their comments to forums. A second best option would be for Scott to use Disqus for his comments. With Disqus you’re always logged in. Plus you can rate comments up or down.
Very cool! It sounds like they are doing something very similar to what Neighbor.ly is planning to do. You can read a good overview here… A New Way to Invest in Communities.
It’s interesting that Neighbor.ly started off as a “traditional” civic crowdfunding website. Evidently they think there’s more money to be made by making it easier for everybody to purchase municipal bonds. It makes sense because it’s an investment rather than a donation.
Speaking of donations… I’m convinced that it would be super excellent if every government organization (GO) had a really visible donate button on their website. If you’re interested… here’s what I wrote about the topic of donating to GOs… razotarianism.
Not sure if you saw it already but here’s my favorite budget argument… Is Pragmatarianism (Tax Choice) Less Wrong?.
In terms of evolution, the problem with foot voting is that it isn’t a very precise selective pressure. When you leave government A (GovA) for government B (GovB)… GovA doesn’t know why you exited and GovB doesn’t know why you entered. In economic terms… the bundles are huge. In programming terms… the mechanism is monolithic.
If neither GovA nor GovB knows whether you foot voted because you wanted to get away from your crazy ex or because you preferred GovB’s public school system… then the rate of evolution is going to be super slow. The selective pressure is way too vague.
Foot voting should always be an option, but if the goal is to improve governments sooner rather than later, then you need a mechanism which doesn’t force you to throw the baby (good traits) out with the bath water (bad traits). In economic terms… you need to unbundle government. In programming terms… government has to be more modular.
“economy” already mentioned Tiebout model… Exit, Voice, and Loyalty is also relevant.
I love information and economics… so I read through some of your material… but I’m really not sure what problem you’re trying to solve.
Is everybody going to have their own replicators on a spaceship? If so, just how big are they going to be? And, if they are big enough to replicate an elephant… then… it seems like it’s useful to think of the alternative uses of the space that all the large replicators and their produced items take up on a ship with limited space.
So at no point do you ever truly get away from the benefit maximization problem. Right now I have a bunch of bookcases filled with books. In theory I could free-up a bunch of space by digitizing all my books. But then I’d still have to figure out what to do with the free space.
Basically, it’s a continual process of freeing up resources for more valuable uses. Being free to valuate the alternatives is integral to this process. You can’t free-up resources for more valuable uses when individuals aren’t free to weigh and forego/sacrifice/give-up the less valuable alternatives.
Some good reading material...
18 articles!? Very cool! Now I see what you’re doing. Tiny steps. Slowly building a solid foundation. So that maybe one day we’ll open the paper and the stories will accurately reflect a basic understanding of economics. That would certainly be progress. I’m really looking forward to reading the rest of the articles!
But have you ever asked yourselves sufficiently how much the erection of every ideal on earth has cost? How much reality has had to be misunderstood and slandered, how many lies have had to be sanctified, how many consciences disturbed, how much “God” sacrificed every time? If a temple is to be erected a temple must be destroyed: that is the law—let anyone who can show me a case in which it is not fulfilled! - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals
No data, like I said...
What percentage of the total decline in page views does this explanation actually account for? Beats me. It has to account for some though.
I did find this...
The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since as the supply of new ones got choked off. This past summer only 31,000 people could be considered active editors. - The Decline of Wikipedia
That confirms a decline in editors… and by extension… a decline in edits/pageviews… but no idea what fraction of the total pageviews decline it represents. It’s probably pretty small.
The Google explanation probably represents a much higher fraction. For a while Wikipedia seemed to frequently be at the top of numerous search results. This would of course equate to considerable pageviews. Now it seems like Wikipedia results aren’t as frequently as high as they used to be.
Establishing nature reserves is hugely important… the problem is that the large bulk of valuation primarily takes place outside of the market. The result is that reserves are incorrectly valued. My guess is that if we created a market within the public sector… then reserves would receive a lot more money than they currently do. Here’s my most recent attempt to explain this… Football Fans vs Nature Fans.
I was just giving terrestrials a hard time in my previous comment. I think all nature is fascinating. But especially epiphytes. The relationship between orchids and fungi is very intriguing. A few years back I sprinkled some orchid seeds on my tree. I forgot about them until I noticed these tiny green blobs forming directly on the bark on my tree. Upon closer inspection I realized that they were orchid protocorms. It was a thrilling discovery. What was especially curious was that none of the protocorms were more than 1/2″ away from the orchid root of a mature orchid. Of course I didn’t only place orchid seeds near the roots. I couldn’t possibly control where the tiny seeds ended up on the bark. The fact that the only seeds that germinated were near the roots of other orchids seemed to indicate that the necessary fungi was living within the roots of these orchids. And, the fungus did not stray very far from the roots. This seems to indicate that, at least in my drier conditions, the fungus depends on the orchid for transportation. The orchid roots help the fungus colonize the tree. This is good for the orchid because… more fungus on the parent’s tree helps increase the density of fungal spore rain falling on surrounding trees… which increases the chances that seeds from the parent will land on the fungus that they need to germinate. You can see some photos here… orchid seeds germinated on tree. So far all the seedlings seem to be Laelia anceps… which is from Mexico. But none of the seedlings are near the roots of the Laelia anceps… which is lower down on the tree. They were all near the roots of orchids in other genera… a couple Dendrobiums from Australia and a Vanda from Asia. These other orchids have been in cultivation here in Southern California for who knows how long so perhaps they simply formed an association with the necessary fungus from the Americas.
Back on the topic of conservation… much of the main thrust seems to be for trying to protect/save/carry as much biodiversity as possible. If it was wrong that people in the past “robbed” us of Syncaris pasadenae… then it’s wrong for us to “rob” people in the future of any species. This implies that when it comes to biodiversity… more is better than less. Except, I haven’t read much about facilitating the creation of biodiversity. I touched on this issue in this blog entry on my other blog… The Inefficient Allocation of Epiphytic Orchids. I think we have an obligation to try and create and fill as many niches as possible.
Does Netflix have a shortage of fictional content that stimulates your mind?
Yes/No
My answer is yes.
From the economic perspective… there’s absolutely no difference between...
choosing between feeding or clothing your children
choosing which bundle of genetic traits your children will have
The rules/laws of economics don’t change just because you change the variables.
Heh, errr… starting a blog doesn’t mean that you’ll have to write twice as many articles… It just means that you copy and paste some, or all, of what you’ve already written into a blog entry and hit “post”. The additional time and energy is extremely marginal. It’s vanishingly small.
When you have a blog, people can easily subscribe to it. This way they are notified whenever you post something new. Plus, having a blog creates a wider net which increases your chances of catching more fish (aka educating more people). It also provides you with helpful traffic statistics. I always love it when somebody in China finds my blog.
When I add you to my blogroll… then anybody who visits my blog will be able to hop on over to your blog. Then they’ll hop on over here… or anywhere else you link them to.
Generally I wouldn’t tell somebody that the opportunity cost of blogging isn’t that high. Because… how in the world could I possibly know what they would have to sacrifice? But in your case… the opportunity cost is extremely small because you’re already making the sacrifice. All a blog does is help you get the most bang for your buck/sacrifice.
Just some food for thought!
One does not serve the interests of a man who wants a new coat by giving him a pair of shoes or those of a man who wants to hear a Beethoven symphony by giving him admission to a boxing match. - Ludwig von Mises, Theory and History: An Interpretation of Social and Economic Evolution
Ran across that passage a few days ago and I almost didn’t collect it. But now here I am sharing it.
You’re trying to teach rationality and I’m trying to teach economics. Why are you trying to teach rationality and why am I trying to teach economics? I’m trying to teach economics so people can understand how their interests are served.
Using your graphic… we can imagine that if the girl had $20 then she would have given it to the guy who correctly guessed that she wanted a baseball bat rather than a vampire bat. Markets work because consumers reward whichever producers correctly guess their preferences. To use your terminology… producers that “succeed at other minds” will gain more influence over how society’s limited resources are used.
The producer whose product turns out to have the combination of features that are closest to what the consumers really want may be no wiser than his competitors. Yet he can grow rich while his competitors who guessed wrong go bankrupt. But the larger result is that society as a whole gets more benefit from its limited resources by having them directed toward where those resources produce the kind of output that millions of people want, instead of producing things that they don’t want. - Thomas Sowell, Basic Economics
If consumers really want baseball bats… then it would be a huge waste to supply them all with vampire bats. Markets, because they operate on the basis of consumer sovereignty, help prevent this from happening. Consumers don’t give their money to producers who fail at other minds.
With the public sector, on the other hand, people like to believe that producers of public goods succeed at other minds...
For example, the discussion assumes that the community of consumers has a well-functioning, formal state structure. Like a benevolent dictator, this state somehow guesses the preferences that people have for public goods. - Meghnad Desai, Providing Global Public Goods
But in the absence of consumer sovereignty in the public sector.… how can we be sure that the government supplies the public goods equivalent of baseball bats rather than vampire bats?
Anyways, this is the economic relevance of succeeding vs failing at other minds.
Personally, I think it’s great, and not at all weird, that I can subscribe to a google alert for “futarchy” and not have to worry about being swamped with irrelevant results.
It’s pretty important that important concepts have unique “tags”. Otherwise you run into problems. For example...
The concept of “exit” is fundamentally important. But good luck trying to search for relevant pages just using that word. You’d have to do a bit of scrolling before you’d find any pages dedicated to the concept as its used here… Exit, Voice, and Loyalty
In my opinion, it would be a really good idea if somebody gave this concept a unique name. This would help people learn about its relevance.
Thanks for sharing! Blendle is pretty neat because you can get a refund if you’re unsatisfied. But I’m pretty sure that the “One-Price-Fits-All” (OPFA) model isn’t as good as the “Pay-What-You-Want” (PWYW) model.
Just create a subreddit for the meet up. You can post/vote(up/down) comments/questions/topics before/during/after the meeting.
Of course it would work even better if people could “quarters up” their favorite posts. Why would it work better? Because it would allow participants to quantify their interest in the various comments/questions/topics. Plus, how cool would it be to get paid for being an excellent poster?
I created the world’s first micropayments forum… RudeBagel. Some additional info.