Just had an idea for a thought experiment. I'd like to hear anyone's answers, but I'm especially interested in how @freemo answers:
Let's say the presidential election was framed as a stock market. The market itself (equivalent to NYSE or NASDAQ) is America. The stocks are the presidential candidates.
In this experiment, each American has a net worth of $1000 and they have to spend it "voting" for presidential stocks during the election year. They can vote early in the year, or wait and see how others invest and vote later. They can split the $1000 between as many candidates as they want, or put it all on one.
After the election happens, they receive 10% of what they invested in the winning candidate each month (so if they put it all on the winner, they're made whole in 10 months). After the election, the winner's stock becomes the premier stock of the entire market and drives the market valuation based on the President's performance, paying dividends to every American when it does well.
In this scenario, you have two (potentially) competing motivations: enriching yourself and enriching the market (America).
So, the two questions that arise are:
1) Do you invest early, based on just your morals/politics, or do you wait and see how others invest first?
2) How do you divide up your $1,000?
🇳🇱
@LouisIngenthron can you sell your stock for other stock at any point, or once you buy stock are you required to keep said stock forever?
@LouisIngenthron then i would t buy any stock. Id spend my $1000 on o women and drugs and let the whole place burn lol... in all seriousness though let me consider. I have some concerns with setup (as i dont think its a fair analogy) but i will be happy to answer according to the premise once ive considered it.
@freemo Ah, but part of the premise is that you *have* to spend it all by the end of the election.
I didn't give an "or else" on that, but let's just say that if you don't spend it, you lose it all.
@freemo (and would have to live only on the dividends of whoever got elected, which would suck, and I guess kind of also be the welfare of this analogy? Idk, I'm probably pushing the metaphor way too far, lol)
@LouisIngenthron I have other issues with the setup, i dont think its a great metaphore. But like i said ill play by the rules anyway.
@freemo Yeah, totally, for one, it definitely doesn't come close to reflecting how unbalanced the playing field is in real life. But still a good way to explore deeper motivations.
@LouisIngenthron many nonlinear effects arent represented, as well as other effects... but an anology will always have compromises. Some are just too big a difference to work... but like i said lets play anyway ;)
@LouisIngenthron If i thought things were doomed id probably not spend it at all then... that said ill try to give a more serious answer after some reflection
@freemo That would be quite a nihilistic take.
@LouisIngenthron when you feel there is no hope nihlism tends to be where you wind up. Its why so many dont vote now.
@freemo Yeah, the apathy of insurmountable odds is real, no doubt.
But, I believe it's impossible to truly reduce harm without a little bit of faith, and that's a good enough reason in and of itself to try to push through the apathy.
Even if my actions only help to make things get worse a little slower, that's still better than nothing.
@freemo Votes are final.