The market economy and reputation

In market conditions, the larger the firm, the more profitable for it is to take care of its reputation. One-day firms, in particular, can only be small. It turns out that it is often beneficial for small firms to merge into large ones, but in practice this rarely happens for a number of reasons. However, there is another way: a large aggregator firm that provides quality control of the work of many small firms, providing them with a collective reputation. An example of such an aggregator is Uber, which has brought together small taxi drivers, providing them with a kind of collective reputation.   I believe it would be a great good if there were Uber analogues for nannies, housekeepers, repairmen, electricians, etc. Such a company would take a share of the earnings of these nannies and housekeepers, and in return, check the quality of their work, and fire those who did not perform well. There is a kind of paradox here - it is beneficial for an individual nanny to have her work checked with the possibility of dismissal in case of poor quality of work, since those nannies who pass the selection will have a good reputation, and this is very beneficial for them. As an example, I can cite ordinary taxi services: if there are many complaints about a driver, the service fires him, despite the fact that he brought it money.   If there is an analogue of Uber for nannies, it will solve the problem of fertility in Western countries, as well as the problem of “Idiocracy”, since people will be able to combine education, career, and childbirth (parents will outsource parenting to a good nanny).   Further, I propose a new concept: “socially useful commercial advertisement”. This is a commercial advertisement that is useful and beneficial for three parties: the advertiser, the media that hosts it, and the end consumer. The principle of this advertisement is essentially based on the same “taxi principle” described above - to terminate the contract with unscrupulous advertisers for the sake of collective reputation.   Suppose there is a firm that makes cereal breads; these breads are good for health, and the company knows about it. Further, this company offers some media to place an advertisement, and offers to conduct a study (expertise) on the impact of these breads on health. Because expertise is expensive, the firm also pays relatively large sums of money for it. Here again the mentioned principle comes up - not always “those who pay the piper call the tune”. For the media, if it is large enough, reputation is more important than this money, therefore it is interested in conducting an honest examination; in other words, money is received for the examination, but not for its result. And this is already beneficial to end consumers.   It can be assumed that many bloggers ask themselves similar questions when they advertise. Obviously, it is more profitable for a blogger to advertise a relatively high-quality product than a low-quality one.

Friendship vs sectarianism

I have developed a rather nuanced view of friendship. On the one hand, qualities such as honesty, kindness, and adequacy help make and maintain friendships. However, there is an opposing trend: educated and intelligent people are, on average, lonelier than others. Arthur Schopenhauer (2000) wrote about this phenomenon.

Friendship requires common interests. For many, these interests might include football, beer gatherings, or fishing. However, such activities are often not appealing to more intelligent individuals.

Sectarians, on the other hand, do not typically suffer from a lack of communication. People join sects not necessarily because their faith makes them happy, but for more practical reasons—sects provide a sense of community and connections. In a sect, one can find a spouse, rent or lease an apartment, etc. The necessity of having unusual beliefs to join a sect seems to make these individuals more successful and adaptable within that context.

The general idea of this post can be summarized as follows: for friendship, people need common goals and hobbies. The lower a person's level of critical thinking, the easier it is for them to adopt various misguided goals or trivial hobbies, which help them bond with like-minded individuals.

Schopenhauer wrote:

"Nothing betrays less knowledge of humanity than to suppose that, if a man has a great many friends, it is a proof of merit and intrinsic value: as though men gave their friendship according to value and merit! As though they were not, rather, just like dogs, which love the person that pats them and gives them bits of meat, and never trouble themselves about anything else! The man who understands how to pat his fellows best, though they be the nastiest brutes—that’s the man who has many friends.

“It is the converse that is true. Men of great intellectual worth, or, still more, men of genius, can have only very few friends; for their clear eye soon discovers all defects, and their sense of rectitude is always being outraged afresh by the extent and the horror of them.

“A man can be himself only so long as he is alone; and if he does not love solitude, he will not love freedom; for it is only when he is alone that he is really free.

“To live alone is the fate of all great souls."

How to improve the democracy

I am a supporter of democracy, but with one important caveat: I am not satisfied with the lack of efficiency in modern Western democracies. Western countries now face too many problems, and local politicians generally do not even try to address them.

I would like more people to discuss this question: is it possible to improve modern democracy? The main goal is to build social and political institutions so that smart people frequently come to power in a democracy.

I believe it is essential to introduce laws that help people with limited political experience come to power. Firstly, the state must support "technical ministers": individuals who have the knowledge to function as ministers but are not overly motivated to become politicians themselves. A lottery system could be effective for this: suppose the state randomly selects 300 people, provides them with resources, and allows them to elect the most competent individuals among them to become the ministers.

Another idea is the implementation of participatory budgeting: a system in which citizens vote online on how to allocate budget funds. With such a system, ministers would be able to secure funding for their departments through the participatory budgeting portal, making them less dependent on the president or prime minister and more accountable to the population. Consequently, it would become less common for the president to alienate an outstanding minister as a potential competitor.

Additionally, participatory budgeting could create a financial incentive for parties to promote capable leaders. Suppose a party aims to identify and support individuals with exceptional qualities who could become good leaders. If this party succeeds in electing such an individual as president, it could receive rewards through participatory budgeting: the more popular the president becomes, the more the party earns. Thus, promoting outstanding individuals could become a viable business for party members.

If significant financial resources help politicians come to power, participatory budgeting could turn this to society's benefit: a good politician would be able to earn substantial money through popularity and real achievements (albeit with a time delay—first spending, then earning).

In other words, we sugges the idea of appointing some ministers via online voting rather than by the president or prime minister. While inappropriate for areas requiring unified command, like the military, this approach could be suitable for many other domains, especially those involving information dissemination (education).

The political system must enable celebrities or famous scientists to enter politics. They should be able to initiate online voting via the participatory budgeting system, allowing the population to decide whether to allocate state funds for their political training. If these celebrities are popular and intelligent enough to win such votes, they will gain political experience and eventually be able to win regular elections.

Additionally, the constitution should mandate that all ministers maintain personal blogs to share information, assisting new politicians in governing if they come to power.

The idea of "technical ministers" could be implemented at any time with some adjustments. For example, a person could announce their candidacy for mayor, stating that, due to their lack of expertise in areas like housing and public utilities or city transport, they will consult with an experienced individual. The mayor would simply sign decrees suggested by this consultant, and the mayor's salary would go to the consultant. This arrangement would grant the mayor political status and the ability to initiate referendums.

In Russia, we see that independent mayors and governors are often imprisoned by Putin because they become his competitors. I suspect a similar problem exists in Western society, albeit in a more subtle form: an argument for this is that mayors and governors in the USA do not have judicial immunity, unlike deputies. In my opinion, this is fundamentally wrong.

Why Democracy Matters: Lessons from History

I live in Russia, and many people around me call themselves opponents of democracy. Their logic is simple—they believe they live well enough now without democracy. I will demonstrate the flaws in this reasoning.

Currently, there are quite prosperous monarchical countries such as Jordan, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. However, these modern monarchies are very different from ancient monarchies characterized by Eastern despotism. In today's world, monarchies neighboring democracies must maintain relatively good governance, or they risk being overthrown. In civilizations unfamiliar with democracy, the oppression of the lower classes by the upper classes was really severe.

When an authoritarian state, such as a monarchy, borders a democratic country, its authorities fear revolution and thus cannot exploit the population excessively. They understand that if their citizens live worse than those in neighboring democracy, a revolution may occur, leading to a shift towards democratic governance. In this way, democracies exert an "ennobling" effect on neighboring authoritarian regimes. Despite this influence, these authoritarian countries often pose a military threat to democracies.

For instance, ancient Macedonia was more civilized than ancient Persia, even though both were monarchies. This difference can be attributed to Macedonia's proximity to Greece and the democratic traditions of the latter.

Another historical example is Germany in the first half of the 20th century. Although Germany was an authoritarian state neighboring democratic France and England, the latter countries exerted an "ennobling" influence on it. Due to the English and French revolutions, 20th-century Germany did not have serfdom or other remnants of the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, Germany still posed a military threat to England and France.

Similarly, the medieval confrontation between Muscovy and the Novgorod Republic illustrates my point. While the Novgorod Republic existed, peasants in both Novgorod and Muscovy were relatively free. However, after Moscow conquered Novgorod, the gradual enslavement of peasants began, reaching its peak under Peter the Great.

If democracy is discredited worldwide, the world risks regressing into a new Middle Ages, which is a deeply concerning prospect. This scenario becomes more likely if Russia defeats Ukraine in the current conflict.

Why people do not change their views

When people engage in self-education, they tend to select sources of information that align with their existing worldview. An atheist, for instance, reads books about evolution, while a believer reads about Christian wonders. Similarly, those who support the Democrats consume Democratic media, and those who support the Republicans consume Republican media. Information that does not fit their worldview causes them cognitive dissonance—unpleasant feelings they wish to avoid. To escape these feelings, they usually deny the information, label it as fake or manipulated, or simply forget it.

I believe that education can make a person more dogmatic because the modern education system only provides knowledge that fits into a pre-established narrative. 

We can say that a person's worldview is often shaped by the first books they read or other initial sources of information they encounter.

There is an interesting observation that believers are less likely to read the Bible than atheists. Atheists consider the Bible a set of fairy tales, so reading it does not cause them cognitive dissonance. Believers, however, encounter facts in the Bible that do not fit their worldview, causing cognitive dissonance and leading them to stop reading.

This phenomenon has intensified in recent years. Previously, people watched the news to get new information. Now, they watch the news to confirm their existing views. This problem is related to the filter bubble (Filter Bubble).

A smart person is one who is not afraid of cognitive dissonance and is ready to endure it until a new understanding emerges at a deeper level of knowledge. A foolish person, on the other hand, believes they understand almost everything.