On 02/10/2019 11:04, John Rooke wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > thanks for your response. > > On 30/09/2019 10:44, Daniel Pocock wrote: >> I agree that was a very simplistic example, it was intended to get >> people thinking about the case of donating to not profits so please >> don't become too stressed about the simplicity of the example. > > My point was not so much about the simplicity of the example, but about > the problem of information in a market. Frankly, I know very little > about what goes on inside FSF, or FSFE and most of what I do know is > fragmentary and rumour based. Even if alternatives were suggested, how > would I know whether these were indeed better? How do we compare > organisations?
A good survival strategy in many uncertain situations is to assume worst case scenario, assume the organization is corrupt and a puppet for some corporation like Google. If you start from that point, you can then go looking for evidence that contradicts it. If you can't find any, you either keep your money or set up a new organization with people you do trust. Most regular cyclists live this way: assume every car door is about to open in your face unless proven otherwise. > To reiterate: > > Information is essential to markets. It is essential to all forms of > organisation, but whereas hierarchies minimise the need for the > distribution of information, markets maximise it. This is because they > are distributed forms of decision making, so ideally require complete > information at every decision making point. > > Of course, information is never in reality complete and distribution is > never perfect, but the extent to which efficient distribution is > achieved will determine the efficiency of the market. > > Thus, if you are serious about giving people a genuine choice in these > matters it will require a great deal of research and the establishment > of a trusted and trustworthy medium for disseminating it. > > So far, this list has shown little sign of developing in that direction, > but I live in hope. > You explain markets very well, thank you, it is a level of discussion that is often missing. Once again, I think this comes back to the idea I previously circulated about incorporating local groups. Local groups can have a finance meeting every 3 months, for example, where the members put in some money together and research the best way to invest or spend it. Is this perfect? Probably not. But it lifts the contributors above the worst case scenario I described above. Even if the level of local knowledge is only 1% better than knowledge about the central group, they gain an advantage and they are more likely to have the impact they hoped for. On that basis, people may actually contribute more in the long run. Regards, Daniel _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfellowship.eu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
