Saturday, April 30, 2016

An Economic Explanation For the Evolution Of Intelligence

Comment on: Evolution Q&A: Why did only humans become intelligent? by Greg Stevens


You really did the theory of evolution justice!   I, on the other hand, really suck at doing theories justice.  Watch...

So... humans are exceptionally intelligent.   What is exceptional intelligence good for?  It's good for solving exceptionally hard problems.   But why did early humans, out of all the animals, need to solve exceptionally hard problems?    It's because out of all the animals, early humans had the greatest ability to (simultaneously) allocate the widest variety of resources.   This exceptional ability was the result of having hands, arms and... walking upright.

With quadrupeds... all four limbs are primarily dedicated to allocating a single resource... the animal itself.   But this specialization is a continuum that ranges from horses to raccoons to chimps.    Horses obviously have four legs.   All their limbs are quite specialized to allocating only the horse itself.  None of the horse's limbs are remotely capable of allocating other resources.    What about raccoons?  Do they have four legs?   Well, their front limbs are reasonably capable of allocating other resources.   Chimps definitely do not have four legs.   They have two legs and feet and two arms and hands.  They are quite capable of allocating other resources with their arms and hands.

As front limbs become less dedicated to only allocating the animal itself and more generalized to  allocating other resources... there's an increase in the total variety of resources that can be (simultaneously) allocated.  This creates a more difficult/complex allocation problem.... which requires more brain power/storage to optimally solve.   Well... a distinct advantage is given to exceptionally intelligent individuals.

Since you're fond of using lions as an example... let's compare them to zebras.  It would seem that the front limbs of the lion aren't as specialized to self-allocation as the front limbs of the zebra are.  Lions certainly use their front limbs to allocate themselves... but they also use their front limbs to allocate their prey.   But perhaps the biggest difference is that the mouths of lions are quite capable of carrying/allocating resources (food, cubs, other?).  Do zebras use their mouths to carry anything?   Not so much?  Therefore, lions are faced with more complex (allocation) problems than zebras.... and we should suspect that lions are more intelligent as a result.

So.... for lack of a better word... more "resourceful" body types put greater selection pressure on intelligence.   Humans are the most intelligent animals because our body types are the most "resourceful".


See also: video clips of animals carrying things


I really like this theory! It’s very thoughtful and interesting.

One question I have: how can this approach explain why octopods don’t have as advanced symbol manipulation and culture as humans. Surely more of their bodies is able to allocate resources more flexibly and in a greater number of ways, yes? - Greg Stevens


I'm hardly an octopod expert. When I googled "octopus carrying" I found this picture of a mom with 8 arms. According to the allocation theory she must be a lot more intelligent than us! Also found this cartoon of an octopus carrying different things. There seems to be a bit of disparity between fiction and reality though. I only managed to find this video of an octopus carrying a coconut. I added it to my playlist of different animals carrying things.

According to Wikipedia... octopuses are "highly" intelligent. But why aren't they even more intelligent? One explanation might be that they die after reproduction. No matter how exceptionally intelligent an individual is... it's not going to exert significantly more influence on the gene pool than any other individuals.

With early humans... exceptionally intelligent individuals were more likely to optimally solve complex carrying problems... which meant that they were more likely to live to produce many more offspring than other individuals. This shifted the gene pool in a more intelligent direction. With modern humans though it's a different story. Survival/reproduction is far less dependent on successfully solving complex carrying problems. Therefore, exceptionally intelligent individuals are not going to shift the gene pool in a more intelligent direction.

We've reached peak intelligence! Of course this might change if we start seriously colonizing space.

With octopuses there's also the issue that they don't seem to have 100% control over their limbs! We have far less "carrying parts"... but we do have 100% control over them.

Perhaps another issue is that carrying things in water is easier than carrying things on land. This means that there's less of an energy cost when the wrong things are carried in water. Of course in both land and water the opportunity cost is equally high when the wrong things are carried.

Also, octopuses don't have a very distinct division of labor between carrying limbs and locomotion limbs. As the saying goes, a jack of all trades is a master of none. As humans we have legs for walking and arms/hands for carrying. So we maximize two factors... distance and difference. We can carry the widest variety of different resources over the greatest distances. I'd bet that any aliens that visited our planet would have, or used to have, a similarly distinct division of limb labor.

Friday, April 29, 2016

Does Greg Stevens Have An Issue With Trading?

Comment on: Democracy 2.0: technology can improve how we elect leaders by Greg Stevens


The thing is, "importance" can only be accurately measured by personal sacrifice.   In other words... preference intensity is a function of willingness to pay (WTP).   So from my perspective... the only way to "fix" voting is to replace it with spending.

Ideally it would be a "blind" and one shot deal.  Let's take prohibition for example and keep it simple with only two participants... you and I.  You're for prohibition and I'm against.  After we both finish spending our money on our preferred options... the results would be revealed...

Your WTP: $120
My WTP: $20

You won!   Prohibition would be enforced.  Since I lost I would get my $20 dollars back.  Plus, I would get your $120 dollars as well!  And it's not a shabby consolation prize.... given that I would have been willing to accept a minimum of $21 dollars.

Let's throw Jeffery into the mix on my side...

Your WTP: $120
My WTP: $20
His WTP: $10

You would still win but now the consolation prize would be proportionally distributed between Jeffrey and myself.   I would get 2/3rds ($80) and Jeffrey would get 1/3rd ($40).

You would essentially be paying Jeffrey and myself to not drink alcohol for an entire year.   You would get our abstinence and we would get your money.    The outcome would be mutually beneficial.  If it wasn't, then next year we'd adjust our WTPs accordingly.

So replacing voting with spending would facilitate trading.   It would really be no different than you paying Jeffrey and I to pull your weeds or paint your house.  Which means that if you have an issue with this proposal... you have an issue with trading.   Personally, I'm pretty sure we're better off with more, rather than less, trading.  This is because trading is a form of communication.   So is voting.... but trading is an infinitely more accurate form of communication.   More accurate communication allows society members to more quickly adjust/adapt to rapidly changing circumstances/conditions.


Follow up comment...


Let's keep it simple stupid again and imagine a two good economy.  The private sector produces food and the public sector produces defense.   In the private sector you decide that you want more food... so you spend your money accordingly.   But then you vote for more defense.   Except, more defense means less food.    

In this scenario.... does it matter how much, or how little, money you have?  Nope.   What matters is that voting makes it extremely likely that you're going to inadvertently shoot yourself in the foot.   If we reasonably assume that you truly wanted more food... then by voting for more defense you inadvertently subverted your own will.  

Of course, in a two good scenario you really wouldn't spend more money on food and then turn around and vote for more defense.  This is because it would be a no-brainer that more defense would mean less food.   Everybody would clearly see the trade-off between defense and food.  Everybody would clearly see that allocating more land to defense would mean allocating less land to farming.  Everybody would clearly understand that more "Einsteins" solving defense related problems would mean less "Einsteins" solving food related problems.    Everybody would clearly see defense and food competing for limited resources.  This clarity would guarantee that nobody would inadvertently subvert their own will.

Our economy produces a lot more than two goods.   But adding more goods to both sides (sectors) of the equation really doesn't eliminate the fact that there are always trade-offs.   It just guarantees that voters will not be able to clearly see these trade-offs... which guarantees that voters will regularly and inadvertently subvert their own will.

No country is ever going to truly thrive when all of its citizens regularly shoot their own feet.

So if you're rich and I'm poor... it's not about you having more political sway than I would have.  It's about ensuring that neither of us inadvertently overrides our own spending decisions.


Follow up comment...


PropA = replace voting with spending (yes/no issues)
PropB = give people the option to directly allocate their taxes (more/less issues)

Deciding whether prohibition should be enforced is a yes/no issue. So we would use PropA to decide it. If proponents spend more than opponents... then PropB would be used to decide how much money should be spent on prohibition.

With both proposals, the more money you have.... the more potential influence you'll have. The influence is only "potential" because, even if you have a billion dollars, it doesn't guarantee that you'll care one way or another about prohibition.

In your simple scenario... the two billionaires agreed on (and equally valued) every issue and the eight poor people agreed on every issue. Was this the case with prohibition? Or with marijuana? Or with gay marriage? Or even with the tax rate?

Here's kinda how I see your concern...

Gates: Hey Epi, I'll pay you $100,000 to quit drinking alcohol for a year!
Me: Wow! Why? Wait, never mind... it's a deal!
You: Woah woah woah. I forbid this trade!
Gates and me: Why?
You: Because Gates is so rich and you're so poor!
Me: So... he shouldn't be allowed to give me some of his money?

Let's compare it to the current system...

Majority: Hey Epi, we aren't going to even pay you one penny to quit drinking alcohol for a year!
Me: So you're going to screw me without even buying me a cheap dinner first?
Majority: Yup
Me: That sucks
You: Not really. It's only fair that the majority gets what it wants without having to pay for it. It's only fair that they screw you without compensating you at all. Our country thrives because of, rather than despite, tyranny of the majority.

Let's say that Gates offered to buy my old sneakers for $100,000 dollars. Would you forbid this trade from taking place because Gates is so much richer than I am? Let's say that Gates offers me $10 million dollars to sleep with him. Would you also forbid this trade for the same reason? Because... you don't want me to be exploited?

So the next time you're about to buy a computer, or buy a coffee from Starbucks, or buy anything on Amazon.... you would want me to forbid you from doing so? Because you, and the country, would be better off if you could only trade with people who have the same amount of money as you?

The challenge is to come up with a coherent story. My attempt at a coherent story is that trade facilitates accurate communication.... and accurate communication allows societies to rapidly adapt to constantly changing conditions/circumstances.

We both agree that progress depends on difference. Well... we both agree that this is true as far as evolution is concerned. But I perceive that this is also true as far as societies are concerned. Difference is expressed through trade. Blocking trade blocks difference.... which blocks progress.

If you and I had the option to choose where our taxes go... would we put the same exact public goods in our "shopping carts"? No, of course not. This is simply because we are different people. And I'm pretty sure that this difference is the source of all progress.


Follow up comment...


Right now alcohol is legal.  It's legal for people to make, sell and buy alcohol.   But let's say that mothers against drunk driving somehow managed to convince lots of people that alcohol should be illegal.

With the current system... it would be put to a vote.  People would go to voting booths and cast a vote either for, or against, prohibition.   The votes would be counted and whichever side received the most votes would win.   If the mothers against drunk driving won... then alcohol would be illegal.  Everybody who wanted to drink alcohol would be screwed.  They would be forced to do something that they didn't want to do... and they would receive absolutely NO compensation for their inconvenience.

With PropA.... people wouldn't go to voting booths.... they would go to spending booths.  They would spend their WTP on alcohol being legal or legal for one year.    Do you drink alcohol?  I do.  But I don't drink it very often... maybe once a month.  How much benefit do I derive from alcohol in one year?   It's hard to say.  Maybe $100 dollars?   So this would be my WTP.  This is how much I would spend for alcohol to remain legal.  How much would you honestly spend?

Let's say that the people who supported prohibition spent more money than the people who opposed prohibition.   What would happen?   I'd definitely get my $100 dollars back.  Plus, I would also receive my compensation.  My compensation would be proportioned according to the amount that I spent.   If my $100 dollars was 0.00001% of the total spent against prohibition... then my compensation would be 0.00001% of the total spent for prohibition.     If the other side spent $500 million... then my compensation would be $500 dollars.

So alcohol would be illegal... and I would still be thrown in jail and/or fined if I got caught selling, or buying or making it.  BUT, at least with this system I would be COMPENSATED for the inconvenience of having to sacrifice alcohol for one year.  I would receive $500 dollars for something that is only worth $100 dollars to me.   With the current system... there's absolutely no compensation.

Right now I would be fined/jailed if I got caught with marijuana and/or prostitutes.  Why?  Because the majority feels it's their duty to impose their morals on me.   But it doesn't even cost them a dime to do so.   With PropA... it would be an entirely different story.   Maybe, when confronted with the opportunity costs of their morals, they would decide that they had more valuable things to spend their own money on.   If not, then at least they would put their money where their morals are.   All this money would end up in the pockets of people who had different morals.

As I've tried to explain... the underlying goal here is clarity.   Prostitution is currently illegal... so I guess that the majority opposes it.   But I don't know HOW MUCH they oppose it.   Just like I don't know HOW MUCH my side supports the legality of prostitution.   PropA would facilitate a nationwide trade.  This trade would clarify the issue.  Each side would know just how important the issue was to the other side.   Our differences would be made crystal clear.    This essential information would allow everybody to make infinitely more informed decisions.

When everybody's valuations are far more accessible... then everybody's decisions will be far more valuable.

Right now my valuation of your blog entries is NOT accessible.  I sure did enjoy your blog entry on evolution.   It was great!   Just telling you this though isn't the same thing as giving you my money to communicate my valuation of your blog entry.   I haven't given you any money for that blog entry.    Does this make me a free-rider?   Not in this case!  In this case I haven't given you any money for that blog entry because your blog doesn't facilitate micropayments.   So this is an example of the forced-free-rider problem.

If your blog facilitated micropayments... then valuing your entries was as easy as "liking" them.  As a result, all your readers' valuations would be far more accessible.  This means that you, and everybody else, would be able to make far more valuable decisions.

Same concept if you and others could valuate the comments on your blog entries.

This concept is the idea of not underestimating the fact that nobody is a mind-reader.


Follow up comment...


I’m glad that you were willing to spend more time thinking about it!

I haven’t run across this specific idea before… but I don’t want to take credit for it because it’s entirely possible that someone else has already developed it.

Perhaps the credit for the general idea should be given to Ronald Coase. Here are some excerpts from his paper… “The Problem of Social Cost”…

“If we are to discuss the problem in terms of causation, both parties cause the damage. If we are to attain on optimum allocation of resources, it is therefore desirable that both parties should take the harmful effect (the nuisance) into account in deciding on their course of action. It is one of the beauties of a smoothly operating pricing system that, as has already been explained, the fall in the value of production due to the harmful effect would be a cost for both parties.”

“It is all a question of weighing up the gains that would accrue from eliminating these harmful effects against the gains that accrue from allowing them to continue.”

“The problem which we face in dealing with actions which have harmful effects is not simply one of restraining those responsible for them. What has to be decided is whether the gain from preventing the harm is greater than the loss which would be suffered elsewhere as a result of stopping the action which produces the harm.”

“Economists who study problems of the firm habitually use an opportunity cost approach and compare the receipts obtained from a given combination of factors with alternative business arrangements. It would seem desirable to use a similar approach when dealing with questions of economic policy and to compare the total product yielded by alternative social arrangements. In this article, the analysis has been confined, as is usual in this part of economics, to comparisons of the value of production, as measured by the market. But it is, of course, desirable that the choice between different social arrangements for the solution of economic problems should be carried out in broader terms than this and that the total effect of these arrangements in all spheres of life should be taken into account.”

Vote selling/buying is a related concept. A different variety of this concept has recently been proposed and discussed… “quadratic voting”.

Saturday, April 16, 2016

The Freedom To Easily Exit From Absurd Traditions

Comment on: Tradition, Authority, and Reason by Adam Gurri


To be honest, this was the last thing I read before I fell asleep last night and I'm not exactly sure whether or not I unearthed your point.

From my perspective, there's nothing inherently wrong with traditions.  The only issue is how easy it is to exit from nonsensical traditions.  Easy exit facilitates evolution.  Hard exit fosters stagnation.

Adam Smith provides the best example that I can think of...

But if politics had never called in the aid of religion, had the conquering party never adopted the tenets of one sect more than those of another, when it had gained the victory, it would probably have dealt equally and impartially with all the different sects, and have allowed every man to chuse his own priest and his own religion as he thought proper. There would in this case, no doubt, have been a great multitude of religious sects. Almost every different congregation might probably have made a little sect by itself, or have entertained some peculiar tenets of its own. Each teacher would no doubt have felt himself under the necessity of making the utmost exertion, and of using every art both to preserve and to increase the number of his disciples. But as every other teacher would have felt himself under the same necessity, the success of no one teacher, or sect of teachers, could have been very great. The interested and active zeal of religious teachers can be dangerous and troublesome only where there is, either but one sect tolerated in the society, or where the whole of a large society is divided into two or three great sects; the teachers of each acting by concert, and under a regular discipline and subordination. But that zeal must be altogether innocent where the society is divided into two or three hundred, or perhaps into as many thousand small sects, of which no one could be considerable enough to disturb the public tranquillity. The teachers of each sect, seeing themselves surrounded on all sides with more adversaries than friends, would be obliged to learn that candour and moderation which is so seldom to be found among the teachers of those great sects, whose tenets, being supported by the civil magistrate, are held in veneration by almost all the inhabitants of extensive kingdoms and empires, and who therefore see nothing round them but followers, disciples, and humble admirers. The teachers of each little sect, finding themselves almost alone, would be obliged to respect those of almost every other sect, and the concessions which they would mutually find it both convenient and agreeable to make to one another, might in time probably reduce the doctrine of the greater part of them to that pure and rational religion, free from every mixture of absurdity, imposture, and fanaticism, such as wise men have in all ages of the world wished to see established; but such as positive law has perhaps never yet established, and probably never will establish in any country: because, with regard to religion, positive law always has been, and probably always will be, more or less influenced by popular superstition and enthusiasm.

Right now it's "our" tradition to allow representatives to spend our taxes for us.  But I think this tradition is entirely absurd and extremely harmful.  Unfortunately, it's not easy for me, or anyone else, to exit from this absurd tradition.

And maybe I'm not correctly understanding or seeing the true importance of this tradition.  Yes, for sure, this is entirely possible.  But who's going to argue that fallibilism is a one way street?   If we gave people the option to exit from this tradition then we'd see how many other people are in the same boat as me.  If there are only a few other people in the same boat then this theoretically important tradition isn't going to be harmed.  If there are lots of other people in the same boat then the nation would have a vigorous debate about whether this tradition's importance is real or imagined.  Immense amounts of information would be exchanged and, as a result, our citizens would be that much more informed about the importance, or lack thereof, of this prominent tradition.

The fact of the matter is that we don't have impersonal shoppers in the private sector.  Nobody in their right mind is going to voluntarily give their hard-earned money to somebody in exchange for goods or services that really don't match their preferences.  So I'm pretty sure that the only reason that this absurd and detrimental tradition continues to exist in the public sector is because exiting from it isn't easy.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Markets: The Freedom To Reallocate Your Brainpower

Reply to reply: MMT = Moronic Monetary Theory


So what????? we might not have enough defense to defend ourselves and we'd get killed! Do you understand that living is important? - James972

Of course I understand that living is important. You understand this as well. But what you don't understand is that our standard of living depends on how well our country utilizes all its brainpower.

Right now you think it's a good idea to prevent taxpayers from having the option to choose where their taxes go. This means that you think it's a good idea to prevent nearly all of our country's brainpower from being applied to public goods. You don't understand that blocking nearly all of our country's brainpower from the public sector is just as detrimental as it would be to block nearly all of our country's brainpower from the private sector.

Imagine that everybody on this forum was stranded on an island. Let's say that somehow you had the power to enslave all of us. If you did so, would your standard of living be better or worse? Of course it would be worse! Because by enslaving all of us you would essentially be wasting all of our brainpower. All of our significant activities would only reflect your brainpower. Our island society would only fully utilize one person's brain... your own. Maybe you would be fully utilizing our labor... but our brainpower, which is infinitely more valuable, would be entirely wasted. Our standard of living would reflect this.

Of course you object to slavery. But you object to it for moral reasons rather than for economic reasons. If you actually understood why slavery is economically stupid then you would understand why it's also economically stupid to prevent people from having the option to directly allocate their taxes.

I'm guessing that you support democracy. But are you seriously under the impression that voting fully utilizes everybody's brainpower? Do you think it takes just as much brainpower for you to decide who to vote for as it would take for you to decide how to spend your tax dollars?

To be clear... you can't utilize more than 100% of your brainpower. If you had the option to directly allocate your taxes... obviously you wouldn't be required to use 200% of your brainpower. You would simply have the option to decide how you wanted to allocate your brainpower between the private sector and the public sector. If you didn't want to allocate any of your brainpower to the public sector... then you would simply continue to allow congress to spend 100% of your taxes for you. If nobody chose the option to directly allocate any of their taxes... then the public sector wouldn't gain any brainpower.

Perhaps the closest real world situation occurred in 1978. This is when Deng Xiaoping began to gradually give foreigners the option to shop in China. Prior to 1978... nobody, not even the Chinese, had the option to shop in China. Right now, thanks to Deng Xiaoping, you have the option to shop in China's private sector. Right now you have the freedom to decide how you want to allocate your brainpower between our private sector and their private sector. We all have this same freedom. Do you think we benefit from having this freedom? I sure think so. Even though I don't allocate much, if any, of my own brainpower to shopping in China... my standard of living has definitely improved as a result of all the people who have allocated significant amounts of their brainpower to shopping in China.

Here we are allocating our brainpower to this forum. Are we better off as a result of having this option to do so? I sure think so.

The thing is... this website...

1. doesn't have a market
2. isn't a market

This website doesn't have a market because you don't have the option to spend your money on the threads and posts that you value. In other words, this website doesn't have a market because it doesn't facilitate micropayments. Should this website facilitate micropayments? Yes? No? Right now you don't have the option to spend your money on your preferred answer. Therefore, this website is not a market.

This website would be infinitely better if it had a market and it was a market. Why? Because it would be infinitely better at utilizing all our brainpower. But it's not entirely problematic that this website doesn't have a market and it isn't a market. Because, as soon as somebody does create a website that has a market and/or is a market... then we are entirely free to leave this website and participate on the website that does a better job of utilizing the brainpower of all its members.

The fact that this website is in a market means that we are entirely free to reallocate our brainpower as soon as we deem it beneficial to do so.   If you understand the benefit of people being free to reallocate their brainpower... then you should be able to understand the benefit of giving people the option to reallocate their brainpower to the public sector.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Modern Monetary Theory Is Moronic

Forum thread: MMT = Moronic Monetary Theory


MMT is incredibly moronic.

Imagine that it's Trump versus Clinton. Let's say that Trump loses the election by 125 electoral votes. But what are electoral votes? They are simply electronic numbers... they aren't by any means real. Therefore... we could simply give Trump more electoral votes than Clinton and voila! Trump would be our next president! Yay for fiat votes! Yay for subverting the will of the people!!!

The point of voting is to figure out who should have more influence. And the incredibly obvious thing about influence is that it is mutually exclusive. This is painfully obvious. It's stupidly obvious. Influence is a zero-sum game? Yes... DUH.

Let's say that all the MMT members of this forum decide to dollar vote for me. We'll pretend that there are 10 MMT members and each one of them paypals me $1000 dollars. That's a lot of dollar votes! I would gain $10,000 dollars worth of influence. But, because influence is a zero-sum game... it was only possible for me to gain this influence because each one of these 10 members was willing to voluntarily give up a $1000 dollars worth of influence. My gain was their loss. Their loss was my gain. This is how influence works.

Now let's apply this incredibly obvious concept to our entire economy. But, let's keep it simple stupid and say that our entire economy only produces two goods...

1. food (a private good)
2. defense (a public good)

The private sector produces food and the public sector produces defense. What would happen if we gave the defense producers more influence? Clearly this would mean that the food producers would have less influence. As a result, defense producers would be able to compete more of society's limited quantity of "Einsteins" away from food producers. More Einsteins solving defense related problems means less Einsteins solving food related problems. So we'd see more improvement/progress in the supply of defense and less improvement/progress in the supply of food.

If Forest Gump had been a real person then even he would have been able to understand this. His IQ was theoretically 75. Anybody who fails to understand how and why MMT is incredibly moronic must have an IQ that's lower than 75.

If you can understand how and why MMT would subvert the will of the people... then clearly your IQ is over 75. But is your IQ over 95? Let's find out.

In the private sector we all use our dollar votes to determine how influence should be distributed. And since your IQ is over 75... you understand that influence is a zero sum game. So what happens when, via democracy, we give people like Barak Obama and Elizabeth Warren more influence? It means that the people that we dollar voted for will have less influence.

If you can understand how and why democracy subverts the will of the people... then clearly your IQ is over 95.

Here are two ways that we can help prevent the will of the people from being subverted...

1. Replace voting with spending
2. Allow people to choose where their taxes go

Sacrifice As Communication

Reply to story: Network leadership by Esko Kilpi


What about sacrifice as communication? Your story doesn’t even acknowledge this major form of communication. Why is that? 

Maybe you think that sacrifice is a stupid way to communicate? If so, then it would be nice if you could share your thinking. 

Maybe you think that sacrifice is sometimes a stupid way to communicate… but othertimes it’s a smart way to communicate? If so, then it would be nice if you could share your rule.

Hayek certainly thought that sacrifice was a pretty smart way to communicate…

We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function — a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid. (Even when quoted prices have become quite rigid, however, the forces which would operate through changes in price still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract.) The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement. — Friedrich Hayek, The Use Of Knowledge In Society

About adjusting/adapting to changes…

Yes, change is the basic law of nature. But the changes wrought by the passage of time affects individuals and institutions in different ways. According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself. Applying this theoretical concept to us as individuals, we can state that the civilization that is able to survive is the one that is able to adapt to the changing physical, social, political, moral, and spiritual environment in which it finds itself. — Leon C. Megginson

Quickly adjusting/adapting to constantly changing circumstances/conditions depends on accurate and efficient communication. Your story is about individuals in a network communicating with each other. And it’s really amazing that you didn’t even acknowledge sacrifice as communication.

My thoughts, on the subject of sacrifice, in a nutshell…

With this in mind, if you write a substantial story about sacrifice as communication then I would be willing to paypal you $5 dollars. Does this seem like a small sacrifice? Well… how does it compare to what your other readers are willing to pay you for your stories? Maybe you don’t know how much your readers are willing to sacrifice for your stories? Maybe it doesn’t matter how much they are willing to sacrifice for your stories? 

See also:

Sunday, April 10, 2016

Daniel Alpert vs QIRE

As I wrote back then, a five-year $1.2 trillion public investment program in transportation, energy, communications, and water infrastructure would create an additional 5.5 million jobs or more in each year of the program—directly, through the projects themselves, and indirectly, through the multiplier effect on other sectors of the economy. With the American Society of Civil Engineers telling us that our present infrastructure backlog is nearly $2.5 trillion, projects will not be hard to find. And neither will labor. Adding 5.5 million workers (assuming all were new/returning entrants to the labor force) would barely restore the labor force participation rate back to the levels of 2010, still well below levels prior to the recession. - Daniel Alpert, GLUT: The U.S. Economy and the American Worker in the Age of Oversupply

Daniel Alpert thinks that we have economic problems.  And I definitely agree.  However, Alpert's solution is.... more government spending.  I have absolutely no problem with government spending.  But I definitely have a problem with government spending that breaks QIRE.

What does Alpert think about QIRE?  Does he think it's a good rule?  If so, then why does think it's a good rule?  Does he think that there are positive consequences when it's followed?  Does he think that there are negative consequences when it's broken?  If so, then how does he propose to ensure that his solution doesn't result in QIRE being broken even more than it's already being broken?