Organizations That Are Less Accommodating

Here's an e-mail that I just sent to http://www.moralmarkets.org/

**************************

Greetings,

I recently searched Google for "what markets are good for" and found this post...

http://blog.acton.org/archives/93307-what-good-markets-are-good-for.html

That post linked me to your website.  Please compare your homepage to this page...

http://classtopia.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_22.html

Both pages contain numerous links... but the difference is that the order (relative importance) of the links on their page is determined by the Invisible Hand (IH).

Why aren't the links on your page ordered by the IH?  Why is your website the rule rather than the exception?

http://www.learnliberty.org/
https://fee.org/
https://www.cato.org/
https://www.adamsmith.org/
http://www.heritage.org/
https://mises.org/
https://liberty.me/
http://oll.libertyfund.org/
http://reason.org/
http://reason.com/

All of these organizations preach about markets, but none of them is a market.  They all supply countless products but they don't give their donors/subscribers the freedom to determine the order of the products.

If you truly want to understand markets, then allow donors to determine the order your products.   Give your donors the freedom to specifically and substantially participate in the prioritization process.  The experience of your organization practicing what it preaches will accurately inform your preaching.

Here's my theory.  Actually knowing the value of your products will make it easier to supply more valuable products.  As the value of your products increases so will donations.  Earning more money will empower you to compete more resources away from less beneficial organizations.  It will be a virtuous cycle of value creation.  Sooner rather than later everybody will finally understand what markets are good for.

Consider this passage from Deirdre McCloskey's book... "The Applied Theory Of Price"

Geoffrey Hellman wrote for the New Yorker magazine for a long time and had incessant quarrels with its editor, Harold Ross, about how little Ross paid a man of Hellman’s seniority. Ross insisted that he paid what each piece of writing was worth: 

“You say that you have been here eighteen years and are not treated better than a good writer a couple of years out of college would be, so far as pay for individual articles is concerned… My firm viewpoint is that we ought to pay what a piece is worth, regardless of age, race, color, creed, financial status or any other consideration. I don’t know how, in an enterprise of this sort, one in my position can take into consideration anything beyond the actual value of the things.”

One person (the editor) determined what the products (articles) were worth.  One person can certainly know how much an article is worth to him... but unless he's a mind-reader he really can't "divine" how much an article is worth to me.

Does it matter how much an article is worth to me?  Does it matter how relevant my idea is to your reality?

Your organization uses its resources.  But its resources are actually society's resources.  All resources are society's resources.  Society's resources are limited.  So if you want to use more of society's resources, then give society the wonderful and beautiful and precious opportunity to supply your organization with specific and substantial feedback on how you are using its limited resources.  If you allow society to substantially participate then I'm guessing that society will be happy to empower you to take resources away from organizations that don't allow society to substantially participate.

Let me conclude with this rather racy but really relevant passage...

Creating a fulfilling relationship with a cold, silent piece of silicone takes such imaginative effort that sex dolls will always be a minority taste. But a relationship with a robot that moves and speaks, with artificial intelligence so it can talk to you and learn what you want it to be and do, is a far more marketable proposition. - Jenny Kleeman, The race to build the world’s first sex robot 

It's far more marketable to be really responsive to the priorities of your supporters.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

**************************

I really wasn't happy with this sentence...

If you allow society to substantially participate then I'm guessing that society will be happy to empower you to take resources away from organizations that don't allow society to substantially participate.

Ughh.  After I sent the e-mail I found the right word...

If you allow society to substantially participate then I'm guessing that it will be happy to empower you to take resources away from organizations that are far less accommodating.  

Accommodating!!!  

My life can be defined in terms of my consistent failure to find the right words.  The right words are incredibly elusive.  So when I do manage to find one then it feels like some sort of small but significant victory.  Honestly it's the main reason that I'm publicly sharing this e-mail.  Now bring on the accolades and the parades!  Accommodate the heck out of me!!!