What does everybody think about QV? I think it’s better than regular voting, but not as good as spending.
At a dog show the dogs are judged by a small handful of experts. Alternatively the dogs could be ranked by everybody voting. A third method would involve the dogs being ranked by donations. All the money could be given to the Humane Society, for example.
ranking by committee = socialism
ranking by voting = democracy
ranking by spending = market
Each ranking system is very different, so each one would rank the dogs very differently.
Of course the dogs could also be ranked by QV… and the ranking would fall somewhere in between the democratic ranking and the market ranking.
A dog show can be used to safely test and compare different allocation systems, yet… this has never been done. Does this blow your mind? It sure blows my mind.
How much do you think this experiment would cost? I’m guessing that it would be a lot less expensive than the upcoming conference.
Admittedly, perhaps the results would be a bit ambiguous. Like, here are the top-ranked dogs for each system…
market: golden retriever
Well, if you think that poodles are truly the best dog, then you’d join team QV. Or perhaps before doing so you’d want to see more evidence.
The same experiment could be conducted with countless things… movies, restaurants, books, economists, scholarly papers… threads in this forum.
So why aren’t these experiments being conducted? Why do we endlessly debate different economic systems rather than simply and safely test them?