Dutch Auction for the Right to Reproduce

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
21

Ah, I see what you’re saying Pav, I think this was a comprehension failure on my part. To simplify further, just so I’m sure: If there only 5 bonds being sold, and the top 5 wealthiest people have $10m, $9m, $8m, $7m, and $6m, respectively, no one will buy for more than $6,000,000.01 because they can still guarantee they’ll get a bond at that price. Is that the idea?

I can see a few problems with this. First, where the bonds are transferrable, the there might be speculative value in buying at a higher price. So if the wealthiest person can buy multiple bonds at a higher price, they could hold them in anticipation that people will be able to buy at a higher price later. For example, if the bonds are expected to maintain their value and other assets are expected to have negative return, the bonds could act as a hedge.

Second, as I mentioned in my reply to Tab, people may pool their resources to buy bonds, so several people whose net resources are blow the current price could buy one bond together (e.g. parents and granparents on behalf of their child).

Third, in practice there isn’t full transparency between buyers, so buyers can estimate how much others have to spend, but they can’t know and will sometimes rationally overpay when they’re uncertain about what other people can/will pay.

Fourth, I don’t see any cost to starting the bidding too high. If you start it too low, you leave money on the table, because people that would have purchased at a higher price instead purchase at a lower price.

I agree with your final point, that adding in all the realistic considerations complicates the question a lot. But dutch auctions are used in the real world to do things like IPOs, we could probably find a rich literature on how those sales behave in practice – do you think that the reproduction bond auction would function the same way? My gut reaction is yes, but I could also see it being sufficiently different. I’ll try to find some case studies.

22

Yes. And, even if you change the one at the top to 20M, everyone below would still have first right of refusal before he could buy a second bond at x price. And again:

1.) If with an eye towards resale, I don’t think they would but it for more than they think they could eventually resell it.

AND:

2.) They would still be inclined to get it for the lowest price they can, which for the richest person, would be less than literally all of his wealth. And on down.

I agree that they might for, “A higher price,” but not, “The highest possible price.” The highest price that I would be willing to pay would be such that, at worst, I could at least theoretically resell it right now for the same price. Would you buy a stock that is guaranteed to drop in value 20% (for example) as soon as you buy it with the hopes that it eventually exceeds what you paid?

That’s very true, but I think this gets too far into the weeds for the purpose of a thought experiment. It also results in the possibility for buying a particular bond for more than any individual actually has unto himself.

True, but I think that the initial Government function and rationale behind it ought be transparent.

I guess my focus is on something at least approaching fairness? If each individual wanted to buy one bond during the first round, they could, but it would cost the poorest of those individuals literally all of his money.

Sweet! I would definitely be willing to do so, but it would be on the backburner behind a lot of other stuff I have going right now.

23

Another thing that I didn’t think of earlier and would like to add is that you would REALLY maximize profits by only auctioning one bond at a time whilst not telling the public how many bonds there will be.

I don’t have too many hard principles. I could probably fit them all on a notebook page. But, the above notion violates so many of them for so many different reasons that I would still be typing next Thursday.

Also:

1.) The Government officials (more than zero, anyway) would know how many total bonds will be offered, so that affords an advantage akin to insider trading.

OR:

2.) The Government officials are not permitted to purchase any of the bonds, (except on resale) but I doubt they would agree to that. Besides, they could still use the insider info to influence the actions of others.

So, the whole thing should be transparent in every way possible. I guess my idea was to strike a balance between revenue generation and fairness, I admit, it does not perfectly maximize revenues.

24

Also, I’m assuming there would have to be some regulations as to who or what could participate in the auction and to whom the bonds could be sold consequently - nationality-wise, otherwise some outside body, with an eye to controlling the population of a country involved in this birth-bond process, could effectively buy ‘generations’ of its (yet to be) populace, especially if the exchange rates were low as the price of the bonds would always be tied to the currency of the country issuing them, and the average incomes of its populace. This would effectively give rich nations a fair degree of control over the birth rates of poor nations, and leverage over the governments involved.

In fact, have we not simply created a counter-currency…? Its worth based on probably the most valuable asset imaginable - a human life…?

“2 packs of Marlboro please.”
“Sure that’ll be 80trillion euromarkdollars.”
“Tch, this economy lol - Have you got change for a baby…?”

25

Just an aside. The organ transplant business is already thriving big time, there are increasing cases in the former third world countries of human trafficking , that actually show internet images of children found with major organs ripped out, going for millions of local currency, where the buyers are obviously well heeld.
Could some of this dirty business be helped by the buying and selling of
certificates and bonds to buy rights to procreate?
Would / could black markets rig underground criminal business and find a ways to short circuit similar business practices as well ? Would the two types of businesses compete or form a single entity? The myriad combination of such industries could, after all be modified .
This is not too futuristic, because the former kind already exists with a ready made structure and practice.
So the second kind of trading may cause competitiveness to increase crime.

The transplant business does impact population control in a big way, since killing the younger , when organs become unavailable, correspondingly reduce population, as well. Euthanasia killing or mercy killing wood also be a way, by liberalizing the illness qualifications, and lowering the ages prescription.

I think these methods added to the others above mentioned will last well into the present century, without the need of government intercession.

But just a guess.

26

Re. Birth-to-order for organ harvesting.

I think a birth-bond system here would help prevent or at least put an obstacle in the way of the black market organ business. A birth bond would effectively increase the value of a child to a prospective mother.

Worst-case scenario - producing children premeditatively for organ harvesting as a ‘family business’. The overheads just went up.

Kidnapping children off the streets - when each child becomes an expensive investment to a family, that child will be better protected, and thus less easy to kidnap.

In short, a birthbond system would combat the organ-harvesters or at least drive them elsewhere. If world-wide, the average ‘price’ of a child were to be driven up beyond the cost of producing a replacement organ by other viable means, then the black market organ business would shut down.

27

Tabula Rasa
forwarding a message from an old friend…to Istanbul?

Don’t understand…but he said you would.

28

The first thing to say is that I completely agree with the first paragraph and have nothing to add. I suppose the only exception would be if it were stipulated that bonds could only be purchased using currency xxxxxxx, worldwide, but the notion that all countries would agree to that (or would even all agree to doing this) is so far-fetched as to be beyond reasonable consideration, imo.

However, I do disagree with the notion of a, “Counter-currency,” at least, to the extent that it actually means anything. If we accept that the barter system was simply a means of exchange that was replaced by a more efficient one (i.e. currency), but that the barter system is still (or can be) used to a limited extent, then these bonds don’t do what you are saying anymore than anything else does. In other words, the bond is just an instrument, and unless it is stipulated that money can be the only means of transferring a bond from one person to another (which, if stipulated, causes the whole, ‘group pool for one’ concept to immediately fail because there is no legal means to give the bond to the one) then the bond does not necessarily have to be exchanged for currency, or really for anything at all.

That’s not to say that currency would not be the most likely method of exchange, it probably would, just that it doesn’t have to be.

So, in my view, you can call a car a, “Counter currency,” if you intend to trade the car for currency, or you could not call the car a currency, “Item for sale,” but calling the bond a currency doesn’t make it any different than transferring ownership of a car.

I also don’t think it’s a counter-currency because actual currency would be the most likely method of exchange. If someone in Europe wanted to offer me Euros for my car (or bond), and I was willing to accept them, then I don’t think that sufficient to make the car a currency:

Common U.S. Currency:

$100 bill—$50 bill—$20 bill—$10 bill—$5 bill—$1 bill—Quarters—Dimes—Nickels—Pennies

So, I would argue that another characteristic of a currency ought be its reducibility to smaller components. The bonds would be irreducible, similarly, you wouldn’t cut a car in half and expect to be able to sell each half for the same (combined) amount for which you could have sold the entire car.

29

Pav wrote:

Yeah, ok, was a verrry early morning post, counter currency is pushing it a bit. Savings bond maybe. :smiley:

Erm, nope, I don’t understand either tbh. :-k ‘tabula rasa’ was my old old handle, so that dates it a bit I guess.

30

Savings bond could work.

If it helps, Future Man (as far as a search goes) is the only user that has ever said, “Zoink,” at the same time that you were known as Tabula Rasa. However, I do know that there are lost posts, a good many of them, for whatever reason. It also doesn’t appear that he was speaking to you in that thread.

EDIT: I think you were just throwing up a softball to get me back in practice. We’ll call it that. I appreciate it, I can use any help I can get. :sunglasses:

31

Eh, lotta water under bridges, etc. I liked futureman, cheers for investigating anyway. Must be that chest of cursed spanish dubloons I buried under the blue mosque or something. And the illuminati ofc., always the illuminati.