The first time I tried to change a flat tire, I didn’t know what to do, so I googled it. A fairly straightforward manual popped up, and I read through it, sometimes double backing to repeat a step. I think I ended up putting a minor dent in the body with the jack, but I did it. The tire got changed.
In this example I didn’t need an experienced person to take time out of their day to teach me how to change the tire, just time for me to read the article. But this is a relatively simple exercise. More complex topics might still be better taught via in person instruction, like Algebra 2 or Theory of Econometrics.
For as much as I’d like to create a dynamic textbook, which would basically just be a series of interactive dashboards to teach material, the disadvantage here would be that although there is interaction, it is difficult to have specific questions answered. That can easily be done instead through a conversation.
If complexity was a spectrum, from baking a cake as a paragraph, to an algebra problem a YouTube video, and learning stochastic optimization a series of lectures (or Uptown Frunk article!) there might be some supply of experts in the topic (of varying degrees of proficiency) and a demand for the knowledge. And where supply meets demand is where economics can help!
There are various examples in which economic theory helps to allocate scarce resources via matching programs, auctions, or voluntary standards in a coordination game theory type games. So why not coordinate a supply of experts with demand for information?
This is kind of already what Google does. When I need an additional explanation on a topic I can usually find an article or YouTube video to walk through it. But taking a look at that transaction afterwards, one might ask who has generated value? Surely the demand side is better off now equipped with knowledge they didn’t have before, the intermediary who sells ads on top of the information definitely is better off because the advertisers are paying them to display the ads, and the supply side is left giving out essentially free content. Generating content is difficult, just ask your local TikTok influencer or economics microblogger- it’s a lot of work and thought! I suspect this is a partial reason for the outrage at Elon Musk to charge $8 a month for a blue checkmark on Twitter- why pay to do work to generate content?
The hope on the supply side is that eventually the work will translate into profits… somehow. Either through an independent ad deal, book sales, or increased notoriety. They say talk is cheap, but it is also valuable! So why not instead of letting the intermediary (Google) generate massive profits and hope that you end up with some of the residuals, directly reward the experts who help you answer your question?
I’m imagining something like Reddit, where information is shared freely, and rewards are dispersed to helpful agents. These rewards would be small in monetary terms, such that the cost to give is very small (fraction of a cent) but the cost to receive sums to a large amount when accounting for the thousands of potential views.
A problem here would be the need for evergreen information. This might be solved by a time limit per post, but would take some work to figure out the details.
If something more specific were needed, I would imagine you could add tags to a question you have and eventually you are matched to an expert in that field. Or search through previously answered questions. This happens to me a lot with coding and Stack Overflow. I would likely not be able to code anything without Googling my bug and finding a similar post.
I’m cringing while writing this but I will say with quiet emphasis that… the blockchain could help here. It could track and assign value to users who answer questions on the supply side, and charge answer seekers on the demand side via micro-transactions.
I know it is bold of me to make a claim that crypto can be valuable in the midst of one of the largest crypto firms, FTX, becoming insolvent likely due to highly illegal market manipulation and sending the market into a downward spiral. But, the recent destruction of value in crypto markets is a good reminder that
1. There is currently no underlying value.
When a major player such as FTX becomes insolvent there is not a cash flow equation to fall back on for the stock price (this is how prices are generated, market cap divided by shares outstanding)- so yes there will be large swings in volatility.
2. The current price can be thought of as a present discounted expectation of future value.
Which I suspect is the reason why when a positive inflation reading came back this week (7.7% year over year increase rather than expected 7.9%) we saw positive jumps in crypto markets despite the pending bankruptcy of FTX.
Thinking of cryptocurrencies as expectations of future values aligns with a lower inflation level because it suggests the Fed would not need to increase interest rates as much as if there were a higher inflation level reading. Higher interest rates decrease the present value of future income, as it is the cost of borrowing. If it is more costly to borrow now, the value of the future income decreases.
Back to the example at hand, supply of information is difficult to come by because communicating effectively is difficult. This is why experience is valuable, even though virtually all of human knowledge exists online. So a platform that connects experts to information seekers is valuable, and may even look a lot like colleges and universities.
But if there wasn’t an information vetting process would misinformation spread on such a platform and potentially be rewarded through increased viewership?
Maybe. But I think it’s worthwhile to ask if that matters. Is thinking a wrong answer is correct better than not knowing the answer?
How would you monetize it? Now a days we have too much? You can learn Ochem on YouTube, get your homework answered on chegg, and quiz’s answered on quizlet. Why would one centralized location be better/ more efficient to the average person?