Coasianism (1 Viewer)

[Xerographica]

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?

 

[Deuce]

If you didn't spend $20... then how much did you spend?

Let's say all of my $30 disposable income.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

 

[Deuce]

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? I'm going to lose my job and my house, but thank god for that big fat check!

 

[Xerographica]

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.

 

[Deuce]

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.

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?

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?

 

[Xerographica]

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?

What's the size of the tax increase?

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?

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.

You see a little kid about to wander into the street. You intervene if you can. What if you're on a two story balcony? Do you whisper? "yoohoo... folks... we have a problem... " Of course not. You point at the kid and shout "STOP THAT KID!!!" Some people hear you shout and they automatically look to figure out what's going on. Hopefully somebody understands you and is close enough to intervene.

It's beneficial for people to be able to accurately communicate the intensity of their preferences. Preference intensity is very important information. Without it, resources can't be efficiently allocated.

Sure, some people have more money than other people. Just like some people can shout louder than other people. Just like some people can run faster than other people. Just like some people can think faster than other people. Just like some people are smarter than other people. In no case does society benefit when it reduces people's ability to communicate the intensity of their preferences.

All of society's problems stem from people being prevented or blocked or hindered from communicating the intensity of their preferences. It matters what people see. It matters what people hear. And it matters how strongly people feel about the things that they hear and see.

When a poor person votes... are they whispering or shouting? We can't tell. And you think it's beneficial that we can't tell. You think that poor people are going to benefit when we can't see and know the intensity of their preferences. You think politicians are going to put society's limited resources to the best possible uses when they can't see or know the intensity of poor people's preferences.

So let's give all our money to politicians. Would you argue this? Of course not. But do you understand what's actually wrong with this proposal? Of course not. You clearly don't realize that giving all our money to politicians would fail for the same reason that voting fails... we wouldn't be able to see or know the intensity of people's preferences.

A. It's beneficial to not know the intensity of some of the preferences of poor people
B. It's beneficial to not know the intensity of all of the preferences of poor people

If A is true.... then why is B false? If B is false... then why is A true?

A. It's beneficial to know the intensity of poor people's preference for music
B. It's detrimental to know the intensity of poor people's preference for abortion

How can both be true? Why is knowing sometimes beneficial and sometimes detrimental? Off the top of my head... ignorance is bliss. Ignorance is bliss for some things? For crime? For cancer? For global warming? For planet killing asteroids heading in our direction? Ignorance is bliss when it comes to bad things?

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.

 

[Xerographica]

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
2. Everybody should be free to valuate problems
3. Everybody should be free to communicate their valuation of problems
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.

 

[Deuce]

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.

False assumptions:

1) There's no way to judge how important an issue is without a dollar value
2) Dollars let you see how important something is to someone.
3) That preferences of the poor under your system will matter.

Is the poor person shouting? Hard to tell because the rich person has a howling jet engine, relatively speaking.

You claim the logical result is a species incapable of seeing or solving problems. And yet, that is demonstrably untrue with even cursory observation of the current system. Problems are seen, and problems are solved. Therefore, we can conclusively prove your logic is faulty.

You've decided to support a system in which laws can literally be purchased, and you're so ignorant of human behavior that you can't see the corruption this allows. To you, the preferences of the rich matter more than the preferences of the poor. How can you possibly say that this is a more efficient manner of judging preferences when it's literally the opposite. This system weights preferences based on income.

So, to you, rich people have more intense preferences.

 

[Deuce]

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

They are.

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.

I see the little kid, but because I'm super poor I can only whisper and the kid dies. And according to your logic, this means I placed little to no value on that kid's life. What a system you've come up with!

 

[Deuce]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

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...

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? It's the epitome of cutting your nose to spite your face. Ever heard of the parable of the widow's mite? She really didn't say, "screw contributing a little when other people contribute so much more!!!"

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.

What, exactly, do you mean that preference intensity is useful information? How, exactly, do we measure and use this information?

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.

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.

When we implemented this model... we'd all have $1 dollar in our digital wallet. But how long would this equality last? Not very long. People who write more valuable posts would quickly end up with more pennies in their wallets than people who write less valuable posts.

On the one hand, we'd have income inequality... on the other hand... we'd increase the supply of valuable posts. We can't change the fact that people aren't equally talented. But we can use our pennies to encourage the talented writers to write more posts. We can reward the talented writers who take the time and make the effort to write valuable posts. We can reward the talented writers who write about the topics we care about. As the supply of valuable posts increased... the monthly fee would also increase and so would the number of subscribers. Eventually we'd have Nobel economists writing posts here.

Do you think it would be a good idea to apply the pragmatarian model to this website? 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?

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?

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?

With the government people also pay a "fee"... but they can't use their fees to communicate the intensity of their preferences. Of course you don't think that the government 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.

 

[Deuce]

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...

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?

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?

But that's exactly what you are supporting here. Gates has more money, so his preferences are treated as far more important than mine.

What, exactly, do you mean that preference intensity is useful information? How, exactly, do we measure and use this information?

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.

Do you think it would be a good idea to apply the pragmatarian model to this website?

No.

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?

I think mandatory subscriptions would reduce overall userbase and therefore actually be a disincentive.

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, netflix has other methods of gathering that 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?

No, The Economist has other methods of gathering t,hat information.

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.

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.

Intensity of preference is always better, right?

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.

 

[Xerographica]

But that's exactly what you are supporting here. Gates has more money, so his preferences are treated as far more important than mine.

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. With voting... the intensities of both your preferences are disregarded. Again, supporting voting because Gates has more money than you do is the epitome of cutting your nose to spite your face.

And to be clear... Gates and you aren't the only people in the country. Obviously I'm not going to make lists of millions and millions of people and their valuations of Law A and Law B. So I can't really show you the enormity of all the information that voting throws into the garbage. But in order to effectively evaluate voting... you have to fully consider and appreciate all the information that it throws away.

Voting, for the most part, is easy. Do you like something... yes/no. Do you want something... yes/no. Spending wouldn't be nearly so easy because you'd have to quantify your desire. How much do you want something? How much are you willing to pay? And in doing so, you automatically consider the alternative uses of your money. That's where the magic is. That's where all the economic goodness is. That's the only way to ensure that society's limited resources are put to their most valuable uses.

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.

When it comes to revealing preferences there are two methods...

1. stated preference aka contingent valuation (surveys, voting, polls, Facebook "Likes")
2. demonstrated preference (willingness to pay (WTP))

Find some strong support for the accuracy and reliability of the stated preference method and then explain why, if the evidence is truly so strong... we don't use this method for everything.

Let me try and put this as accessibly as possible.

Right now you expect congress to make public goods choices with due consideration for my well-being. My well-being? In the private sector I have to spend so much time and energy going around telling producers what works for my well-being. I shop and shop and shop. For example, I go to the store and buy some artichokes. In doing so I tell Frank the farmer, “Hey! You correctly guessed that my well-being depends on artichokes! Thanks! Good lookin’ out! Here’s some money! Keep up the good work!”

Yet here you are telling me that congress can know what works for my well-being despite the fact that I’ve never once in my life shopped in the public sector. It boggles my mind. It blows my mind. It bears repeating with emphasis… congress can know what works for my well-being despite the fact that I’ve never once in my life shopped in the public sector.

If you genuinely believe that congress can know what works for our well-being despite the fact that we’ve never shopped in the public sector… then please, for goodness sake… don’t hide your brilliant light under a bushel. Please create a thread here there and everywhere and say, “Hey folks! Shopping is entirely unnecessary! It’s a complete waste of our limited time and energy to use our cash to communicate what works for our well-being! We can just give all our money to congress and they’ll spend it to ensure that the supply maximizes our well-being!”

 

[Xerographica]

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.

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?

If the truth is so easy to discern than we really don't need twelve people to do so. And if the truth is not so easy to discern... then why limit the discovery process to twelve people? Hide one Easter Egg in Central Park. If you want it to be found sooner rather than later... then don't limit participation.

So juries should be totally inclusive. However, then there's the issue of voting. Voting would essentially allow haters to incarcerate somebody for free. Should this person go to jail... yes/no. It's a relatively easy decision. It doesn't require much brainpower. All it requires is your opinion. It would require far more brainpower to determine how much, exactly, you want the person to go to jail. That's something that you would have to seriously think about. When it comes to something as serious as people losing their freedom... and certainly when it comes to people losing their lives... we want to maximize the number people who seriously think about the decision. We want people seriously considering what they are truly willing to give up in order to send somebody to jail.

Consider a situation where everybody is of the opinion that somebody is guilty but nobody is willing to give up anything to send him to jail. Why send somebody to jail when there's absolutely no demand to do so? Why have a law that there's absolutely no demand for? Some doctor helps a terminally ill cancer patient end her life. Is the doctor guilty? Sure. So people are going to dig deep into their pockets to send his ass to jail? I really don't think so. Instead, I see people who've watched their loves ones suffer being willing to dig deep into their pockets to keep the doctor out of jail. And people will clearly see that there's no real demand for the law and it will be trashed. We will no longer waste society's limited resources on frivolous cases. This will free up massive amounts of resources for far more important things.

Intensity of preference is always better, right?

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.

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.

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.

 

[Deuce]

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.

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.

 

[Deuce]

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.

If law and order becomes a market it literally becomes legal for the wealthy to murder someone.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

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.

If law and order becomes a market it literally becomes legal for the wealthy to murder someone.

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?

 

[Deuce]

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.

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.

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?

A million people each donate 50% of their disposable income, amounting to an average of $600 per person: 600 million total.
A thousand wealthy people donate 10% of their disposable income, amounting to an average of $1,000,000 per person: 1 billion total.

Your system treats those 1000 wealthy people as having a more intense preference, regardless of which side they vote for. In reality, the one million less wealthy people had far, far stronger interests. They donated half their disposable income, that shows an incredibly strong preference, wouldn't you say? And yet, your wealthy people only donated 10%. An interest, for sure, but hardly as strong as any individual on the other end of the income scale did.

This isn't a matter of opinion. This is math. Your system behaves as though wealthy people have stronger desires.

This isn't an "against." I'm pointing out that your system heavily tilts the preference comparison towards wealthy people because you assume absolute dollars accurately reflects intensity of preference. It doesn't. Percentage of income would do a better job than absolute dollars, but it still slants things because the wealthy have much larger portions of their income as disposable income.

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.

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?

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?

What, so juries aren't actually for sale? I thought this was a market.

Fun fact: socialism isn't communism, and our current system isn't communism. I never argued for getting rid of the wealthy. Once again you're just straight lying about my arguments. Once again you're an absolutist: I object to making laws literally for purchase, and you think that means I'm a communist.

 

[Xerographica]

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.

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. 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?

You don't even see the need for a coherent story so you're certainly not going to come up with one. You might spew some nonsense but even if you wanted to... you couldn't come up with a coherent story. There isn't one. If you were genuinely interested in the topic then you'd know this. You're really not genuinely interested in the topic. You've never seriously studied it. You're entirely clueless about what Nobel economists have written about the topic. So you have absolutely no clue that there isn't a coherent story that justifies having a market economy in the private sector and a command economy in the public sector. There's no sound or solid or logical or reasonable explanation or defense or justification for having a command economy, rather than a market economy, in the public sector.

And I could certainly cite my sources... but... again... you're not genuinely interested in the topic. So you're not going to genuinely care what reliable and credible sources have to say about the topic. You're just going to continue using your entirely stupid rich versus poor narrative to attack "my system" while conveniently neglecting the fact that right now, with "our system"... Bill Gates can buy a small island while poor families can barely afford a small apartment.

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...

society's resources: limited
society's wants: unlimited
therefore: earner valuation

... then there's probably nothing I can do or say to help you understand how and why markets work.

 

[Deuce]

Your oppose my system because people don't have equal wealth. Yet, you don't argue for getting rid of the wealthy.

Correct.

Why don't you argue for getting rid of the wealthy?

because that's dumb.

Why do you want our system to treat wealthy people as having a more intense preference?

I don't. Coasianism does that.
Voting does not, as you have pointed out.

Why do you want our system to behave as though wealthy people have stronger desires?

You want that. Aren't you reading?

Why do you want our system to heavily tilt the preference comparison towards the wealthy?

No, that's what coasianism does.

.. Bill Gates can buy a small island while poor families can barely afford a small apartment.

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.

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...

the current system is not a "command economy."

You said you were reading my posts carefully. Clearly that wasn't true. See, coasianism represents the rich more than the poor, and you're claiming that's what I want.

 

[Xerographica]

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?

 

[Deuce]

Why is it dumb? Why do you want Gates to have far more influence and power in the private sector than poor people?

Because communism sucks?

Private sector can and will be unequal. Public sector should be equal. That's the foundation of democracy.

Why do you refuse to acknowledge the mathematical fact that coasianism can easily reverse the intensity of preference you claim to want to measure?

 

[Xerographica]

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?

 

[Deuce]

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?

No, communism sucks because it eliminates many incentives to work hard or excel.

You are mistaken in your belief that our public sector cannot judge intensity of preference. You are also mistaken in your belief that coasianism would improve this flow of information. As I've already demonstrated, coasianism inherently amplifies intensity of preference for the rich and dampens intensity of preference for the poor. If intensity of preference is so critical, you should be trying to come up with a system that will accurately reflect it, right?