Tuesday assorted links

1. Vitalik on quadratic voting.

2. The erupting NZ volcano is privately owned.

3. New Keller Scholl and Robin Hanson paper on whether there was an automation revolution.

4. Marriage Story is an excellent film on many levels, including but not only L.A. vs. NYC, furthermore it offers running commentary on Bergman’s Scenes from a Marriage (my favorite movie ever?) and the Bergman/Ullmann story itself.

5. Was there a consistent Axial Age? (no)

6. Secret ballot for me but not for thee?

Comments

My favorite scene from a marriage/divorce was Alan Napier clubbing the hot but crazy Geraldine Fitzgerald over the head with a statuette of the goddess Kwan Yin -- in Jean Negulesco's Three Strangers

Or was it Sydney Greenstreet? Now I recall Napier finds the body when he drops by to shoot her.

Peak MR, right here.

Markets in everything - does owning a volcano make you liable for harmful effects when it erupts?

it depends on the deal he has with the government to keep it open as a reserve.

in the usa, typically if the owner was deriving lease income in particular as a paid tourist attraction, then hell yes he’s in big time lawsuit land now

New Zealand law doesn't allow suites for personal injuries.
https://www.wilsonharle.com/legal-information/nz-legal-guides/new-zealand-legal-environment

I scaled an active volcano in a recent vacation in Chile. As you would expect, I signed a waiver of liability with the tour guide company beforehand, and I imagine the owner of a volcano would have trekkers do the same. As for people who make the choice to live near an active volcano, privately owned or not, those people should assume the entire risk.

A waiver of liability is worth less then a Venezuelan dollar.

Surely The War of the Roses
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098621/
is a good representation of the fact that divorce is not something that is managed well by the politicians or lawyers. Public comments after press articles on big cases are usually from people critical of their management.

3. New Keller Scholl and Robin Hanson paper on whether there was an automation revolution.
----
Some folk wisdom is wrong. The bots will love us, we eat dirt and self manufacture and self train our hand eye with jump shots, ready made slaves. What's not to like if you are some bot stuck in a charge field?

2. The erupting NZ volcano is privately owned.
---
Small, volatile market.

!
Would have said LOL , but for the tragic circumstances.

The only revolution in automation is when robots get paid wages and become consumers.

Otherwise, economies being zero sum, robots will only cut GDP (measured in dollars) while quantities increase, unless government doubles down on the GOP economic policy of government putting ever more money in consumer pockets in its ongoing war on FDR and Keynes economic policies of paying workers 100% of revenue, eliminating all (economic) profit.

Trump lays bare the GOP economic theory: the Fed prints money which funds consuming more in dollars than paid to produce and then getting a government debt bailout under the Constitution by government technocrats (bankruptcy judges).

No conservative argues businesses should be the only ones putting money in consumer pockets as Keynes argued. Basically, conservatives keep saying paying workers to work costs too much, and those high costs destroy wealth, which kills jobs. Unless businesses are siphoning off 10% of GDP to create wealth by inflating asset prices, they will go bankrupt.

But robots replacing all workers would mean businesses siphon off 100% of GDP so government would need to put 100% of the money in consumer pockets to keep the economy going. The GOP will balk at that.

FDR and Keynes economic policies of paying workers 100% of revenue, eliminating all (economic) profit.

I don't think that was a policy ever advocated or pursued by either man, at any time.

It's mulp. His data isn't congruent with our universe.

6. Democrats favor secret ballots in Mexico because otherwise they fear employers will be able to intimidate workers but oppose them in the U.S. because they can see that secret elections have prevented unions from effectively intimidating workers (unions can twist arms to get cards signed but they can't make sure those pressured into signing cards will vote the 'right' way in a secret ballot).

Secret ballots are the morally correct approach and I applaud Democrats for being correct this time on the matter.

1. Vitalik on quadratic voting.
---

Alice and Bob showed up to fund an article they want written. Consider a modification, Alice and Bob buy the supply of articles on a semi-regular basis, and there are more than one supplier of these articles. This is the interest case, a real live start up opportunity.

Alice and Bob can see an ongoing histogram of probability, to some bounded uncertainty. Alice, in this case, knows a typical, but uncertain budget. If she can dent the current histogram because her value on the article is greater than uncertainty, she will make her typical purchase.
Ditto for Bob.

Suppliers can see that histogram and as well the system males the supplier histogram available, and suppliers make similar calculations.

We are dealing with semit-repeatable sequences. This is a homework, can we construct the typical trade generator and show that Bob and Alice are effectively quantizing the bets to a specific integer precision, the precision of he bounded uncertainty.

The answer should be: Alice generally buys two article for every one that Bob buys. Both Bob, Alice and the delivery network will see any shorter path (an arbitrage) that is greater than the uncertainty of sharing the queue to make the bets. Under the quaqntixed system, any imbalance between the supply and demand causes a 'article sale' and buyers will jump in the sort queue and balance restored. All the network queues should have balanced congestion, within the inherent error bounds.

We sought kingship, delights, and pleasures for the sake of those assembled to abandon their lives and fortune in battle - arjuna

1. I tend to assume "friends of the blog" are, almost ipso facto, "overrated".

Quadratic voting always seem to result in some power broker (the guy who controls the schedule, the guy who defines what constitutes separate projects, the guy who hands out identities) ending up in a position of trust, which absent some sort of cultural, religious, or moral constraint should promptly result in either skewed voting power or reversion to some form of vastly disproportionate power distribution.

For instance, what, exactly, stops from billing my commons project of "giving food to an individual whose user name starts with S" and then a separate one "giving cash aid to an individual whose user name starts with S" and so on? If we all contribute to the kitty, my singleton "contributions" to each gets some degree of match from the kitty.

Frankly, even with the world's best secret vote, I suspect that we would shortly see very strong bloc voting and horse trading. After all if the pro-lifers really want backing they might be willing to sell out to the socialists on a wealth tax or to the stoners on drug liberalization. Quadratic voting would seem to massively reward stable tactical coalitions of minority interests much more than the current system. I mean it is not like people, even actual prisoners, have all that much trouble escaping bad equilibria in real life. If blocs defect too often, then retribution will certainly come.

I suspect that any time quadratic voting is actually useful, you could get better results by just doing a straw poll for broad outlines and using the high cooperation norms of anyone willing to not subvert the quadratic vote through strategic voting.

"Quadratic voting always seem to result in some power broker ending up in a position of trust,"

I don't think we've seen enough cases of quadratic voting to really know much. It certainly would give far more influence to the single dominant issue voter.

2: The punchline here is that words "privately owned" only appear in the headline and the opening sentence, and then are never mentioned again... it is never mentioned that is unusual or noteworthy.... it is never mentioned that this has any bearing on anything.... and then there about a dozen paragraphs about the dead people.... and Tyler's takeaway is "LOOK EVERYONE THIS ISLAND IS PRIVATELY OWNED."

the lack of oversight and ambiguous chain of command just became very very important

There are how many comments on this blog yet there is so little intellectual content. I'm seen sharper insights in the comments section of TMZ.

ooh i bet tmz is kinda fun. is that where the gawker people went? i should check it out

#2 The Bourgeoisie strike again. Surely the capitalists will think twice before professing the efficiency of free markets...

The mistake is to suggest that capitalism works for everything. It does work for things like washing machines or computers, and it fuels technological advance. It fails abysmally for things like pharmaceuticals or services like medicine or law.
There is an article somewhere on the net that suggests technological progress should be stopped in order to solve the problem of inequality. Unfortunately I have lost the reference. (I don't think it is a good idea, but it does make a point.)

I asked someone who had been to White Island about ten years ago whether she was asked to sign a waiver, and she said she was. All I can say is that in terms of geological time she was bloody lucky!

Comments for this post are closed