Economic predicates

Our ratings system is presumed to start with questions that can be answered through a numerical rating. “Is X a real person” might be answered with a 0.7, indicating their belief that there is a 70% probability that the person in question is real. We have constructed a Bayesian math framework to encapsulate this numerically.

Let’s suppose we are trying to ascertain X’s need for a claimed item (in the SRBE/CRBE economy). For the question “Does X need the claimed item?” we could also answer it probabilistically. But there is another interpretation which is clear when we reframe the question as “How much does X need the claimed item?”. The two questions ask for different things.

The first asks us, in essence, to answer Yes or No and then assign a level of confidence to the answer. Answering 50% is to say I don’t know (0% confidence). Answering 70% is to say Yes with a confidence of 40%. Answering 20% is to say No with a confidence of 60%.

For the second question, let’s assume the scale is 0-1. This would mean 0.5 (50%) would represent someone who has an “average” need for the item. Clearly, we would need to define what the scale really means but let’s say it corresponds to a standard distribution with a mean at 0.5. A 0 would represent someone with no need for the item. A 1 would represent someone who has a maximum need for the item.

Although the first question is a predicate, the second question seems to be more useful in a ratings context. The first question provides a confidence which is really just an error estimation. Error will occur, of course, but it seems we should be placing the error around the second question. That is, people could answer the “how much” question with an interval representing where they think the error lies (eg 0.7 +- 0.1, so an interval of 0.6-0.8).

The need rating should probably start with the claimant. A statement of need and corresponding numerical score could then set the stage for further ratings by community members. These, in turn, should probably start by providing a brief statement of how they are qualified to know someone else’s need (eg He’s my neighbor and I’ve known him for 20 years). A member rating of someone’s need without such a statement should probably be rejected unless it is clear from prior ratings that they have an ongoing relationship.

We presume here that items are “needed”. But need is a sliding scale as well. We absolutely need food, clothing, and shelter. But do we really need a car? Well, probably in the US most people can make a reasonable argument for a car due to how we’ve designed our urban environment. But our need for cars is certainly less than that for food. The same is true for all manner of goods/services we think we need. Even goods classified as needs, such as food, often have a large hedonic component built into them (eg chocolate cake) and create a claim which is essentially outside the bounds of basic needs. In the US, “necessary” foods are sometimes labeled for compliance with government food aid programs (eg WIC).

It will be important for our system to rate the necessity of items in relation to basic needs (eg food). Then, when claims are made, equitable distribution can be prioritized for those items classified closer to the basic need level. The concept, loosely stated, is that everyone gets to eat before anyone gets more.