Here I’ll give my perspective on Steemit as I work towards connecting what I know from ecology, which I study for my day job, with what I’ve learned through my hobby of studying economics.
Competition and Cooperation
Competition gets most of the attention in discussions of economics. So here I’ll concentrate on cooperation, which deserves more attention. Voluntary cooperation is absolutely essential for producing goods and services in such abundance as we enjoy in the modern world. Leonard E. Read’s “I, pencil” is a great essay, and here’s a video based on it:
Many discussions of economics bemoan the unequal distribution of income and wealth, and frame the discussion in terms of competition for limited resources. However, in the physical world as in the Steemit economy, the availability of resources is not at all constant. Trade, which is just voluntary exchange of goods and services, along with the exchange of knowledge, make more goods and services available. Many natural resources, for example rare earth metals used in electronics, which are highly valued only in modern times, were unknown and useless to our ancestors, even though they were present in their natural state.
We humans can access and make more efficient use of many natural resources today because for so long we have cooperated through trade and by exchanging knowledge. More immediately, to the extent that goods and services are freely exchanged in a market economy, the market prices convey information to both the producers and consumers. This allows those who produce to decide what, how and when to produce in order to satisfy the desires of their customers, the consumers. In the absence of market prices, which is to say in the absence of the voluntary cooperation that is free trade, it is impossible to allocate resources to efficiently satisfy the demands of many individuals having diverse desires. If you want to read more, please look up The Socialist Calculation Problem, as addressed nearly a century ago by Ludwig von Mises in his 1922 essay Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis , and expounded upon further by Friedrich Hayek, with his concept of Spontaneous Order, in Socialism, The Fatal Conceit
Steem rewards are created by the voluntary actions of Steemers up-voting content created by others. This promotes that content, and encourages the production of more like it, just as market prices signal entrepreneurs about what to produce.
Complementarity, and why Diversity tends to enhance Productivity
Modern humans thrive by specialisation. The division of labor is analogous to what ecologists call niche complementarity, where species with different specialties (niches or functional traits, as ecologists call them) do better under different conditions. Thus, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. That is, the whole community is far more productive than it would be if every member were alike, even if they all were just like the single most productive member of the community.
Ecological complementarity is the idea that species having different functionality will fair better under different environmental conditions, such as occur over the seasonal cycle or in different local habitats. The following article draws some interesting, and to me quite convincing, conclusions from a meta-analysis of the results of many experiments that examined biodiversity-productivity relationships in plant ecosystems: Impacts of plant diversity on biomass production increase through time because of species complementarity, by Bradley J. Cardinale et al. (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, vol. 104, 2011). From their abstract:
Previously, a positive net effect of diversity that is no greater than the most productive species has been interpreted as evidence for selection effects, which occur when diversity maximizes the chance that highly productive species will be included in and ultimately dominate the biomass of polycultures. Contrary to this, we show that although productive species do indeed contribute to diversity effects, these contributions are equaled or exceeded by species complementarity, where biomass is augmented by biological processes that involve multiple species. Importantly, both the net effect of diversity and the probability of polycultures being more productive than their most productive species increases through time, because the magnitude of complementarity increases as experiments are run longer.
Competition, Cooperation and Complementarity on Steemit
Here the ‘Selection Effect’ is obvious. Steem production increases as the system rewards those who produce the most valued content, which makes Whales bigger. This tends to enhance overall productivity. Yes, we all compete for up-votes from others, especially Whales, whose time and attention spans are limited. However, I suspect that complementarity may in the long run be even more important, as the above article found for plants.
The less obvious ‘Complementarity Effect’ occurs here on Steemit when specialised content gets promoted by up-votes from others, who have Steem Power because their own quite different content was appreciated by still others, and so on. This creates opportunity, while enhancing productivity. As a counter-example, consider how much slower Steemit would grow if only those who gained Steem Power by posting on a certain topic (tag) were allowed to vote on other posts tagged with that topic. That would make it extremely difficult for new topics to gain wider appeal. Steemit overall becomes more productive through the interactions of many Steemers, each specialising to match their own interests and skills, while also interacting with others.
Furthermore, the mere exchange of ideas inspires the creation of new content. The power of such cultural transfer of knowledge was recognised long ago (see, for example, Hayek’s discussion of the history of this concept in Socialism).
Here’s looking forward to more Cooperation and Complementarity, enriching Steemit content and broadening the overall appeal of Steemit!
S. Lan Smith
Kamakura, Japan
August 22, 2016
Greetings! This article has been featured in Lost Content Digest, Issue #5. The author will receive a share of all SBD proceeds from the LCD issue.
I enjoyed reading this post, and believe diversity broadens choice and hence knowledge. ^_^
Thanks.
Indeed, cooperation is much more efficient than a polarized model of competition that results in a lack of concern and consideration for others, focusing solely on ourselves and what we can get out of it, what we can do to maximize out win while the other loses. Win-win synergetic models are more effective, and competition does not have to be removed, it is merely not used as a more extreme way of living.
In permaculture, there are polyculture models, such as "guilding", where plants are matched up according to the benefits they reciprocate to each other, while overly competing or detrimental processes like toxins, or other aspects, are recognized as harmful and not included with plants that are most affected by these negative outcomes.
Competition and cooperation go together. You need competition as well to causally balance out that which is ineffective or wasteful. The Free-Market is such a system when it is allowed to operate without intervention (government, statism, etc.) to restrict the causal corrective measures.
Good post.
Thanks. I think that as long as the competition is free and non-violent, it's perfectly natural and overall more productive for individuals to pursue their own self-interest. Those who succeed by cooperating will succeed much better than those who try go get ahead by harming others.
It's really neat how you juxtaposed economics and ecology! However, there are a few issues. You say that resources can't be efficiently allocated without prices... but then go on to praise Steem.... where we "up-vote" content.
A computer has a price tag. And a price tag is a value signal. Disaster relief, on the other hand, does not have a price tag. The Red Cross doesn't sell boxes of disaster relief with price tags on them. It's entirely up to you to decide how much, or little, money you donate to the Red Cross. Although I'm sure there's some lower limit. Even though the Red Cross doesn't have price tags... it does have a value signal. The amount of money that you decide to donate to the Red Cross helps to create its value signal. The more money that people donate to the Red Cross... the brighter its value signal.
But with Steem... we're not talking about spending... or donating... we're talking about voting. I clicked the "up-vote" button for your story.... and what happened? Was money withdrawn from my digital wallet and deposited into yours? If so, how much money did I spend and why call it voting? Why not call it spending? But if it truly is spending... then why can't I decide how much I spend on your story? Right now I don't have the option to "up-vote" your story again. If I click the same button it will remove my "vote".
So as far as economics is concerned... Steem is a super hot mess. Why in the world would anybody want to combine voting and spending?
If we actually are creating value signals here on Steem... then they will be really inaccurate. Which means that resources will be inefficiently allocated. People will waste their talent and creativity writing about less valuable topics.
The efficient allocation of resources depends on accurate value signals. And accurate value signals can only be created when the amount of money that people spend accurately communicates/reflects their true valuation.
Regarding diversity... humans are naturally super diverse. Which means that demand is naturally diverse. We can see this in the diversity of the supply in the private sector. Diversity is a wonderful thing because it helps humanity hedge its bets against constantly changing circumstances.
The problem is that we don't see the same amount of diversity in the public sector. Which is only logical because we don't have a market in the public sector. We have a command economy in the public sector. We could easily create a market in the public sector simply by allowing people to choose where their taxes go (pragmatarianism). We'd have a market in the private sector and a market in the public sector. Whichever market created the most accurate value signals would win.
Thanks.
You raise a valid point. Indeed, the Steemit system of voting and rewards does not constrain the consumers' expression of their preferences as much as a true market economy in which currency (or real money, but that's so rare these days) is the medium of exchange. This of course means that signals conveyed by voting on Steemit will have more noise than the signals conveyed in a free market economy.
Still, the value of a vote depends on how much Steem Power the voter holds, and frequent posting or voting temporarily reduces the potency of ones votes. In any case I think its interesting that Steemit at least rewards the posting of content valued by other participants, more so than for example Facebook, where the only rewards are comments, likes and shares (popularity).
The more popular a Facebook post is, the more "likes" it will receive. So we can quickly discern how popular a post is simply by looking at the number of times it has been "liked". What if Facebook gave more weight to the "likes" of the people whose posts were the most popular (received the most "likes)?
Elizabeth Warren is a congressperson. Why? Because she received more votes than her opponent. In other words, Warren is a congressperson because she was more popular then her opponent. And because Warren was more popular than her opponent... the weight of her vote in the public sector is far greater than the weight of our votes in the public sector. We don't have votes in the public sector.
Warren was rewarded for her popularity. The size of her reward (power in the public sector) provides an incentive for people to be just as popular as Warren.
What about Steem? Does Steem incentivize the creation of valuable content? Or does it incentivize the creation of popular content? I don't know how it can possibly incentivize the creation of valuable content. The only way to do so would be to allow people to spend their money on content. We don't have that option. Therefore, Steem incentivizes the creation of popular content. Because... there's a shortage of popular content? That's the problem with society? The problem with society is that "politicians" (broadly speaking) need even more power and influence?
There's nothing inherently wrong with votes or "likes". The issue is when we can't compare the popular answer with the valuable answer. When we can't see the valuable answer... then society is guided by the popular answer. I don't want society guided in the most popular direction. I want it guided in the most valuable direction.
I certainly want the politicians to have less power, not more. Steemit, by providing a free and decentralized forum, will I think do more good than harm, maybe even a great deal of good.
Individuals do routinely pay to publish and advertise, which does effectively promote ideas and products. As far as I'm concerned that is as it should be.
I'm with Hayek in disliking the term 'society'.
You can dislike the Steemit system as much as you please. I only wonder why you bother to participate if you find it so undesirable. Why not start a service selling space for publications an ads?
I really don't see how Steem is more likely to do good than any other similar website.
Why did Hayek dislike the term 'society'? Which term did he prefer?
Well... I'm just disgruntled with Steem because I got tricked... The Economics Of Steemit. I was hoping that it was fundamentally different from all the other places where I write stuff... but it really isn't. It's just another popularity contest. You have to dig and dig and dig to find valuable content.
Your story wasn't bad... but you're definitely not striking at the root of the problem. Which is a shame because you seem bright enough. The root of the problem is that people don't understand the importance of accurate value signals. Mark Perry recently posted a decent article about the importance of accurate value signals. Just now I posted a blog entry trying to persuade a respected journalist about the importance of accurate value signals.