Instead of "first come, first served, while stocks last".
Ever since the news came out that the booking system was paralyzed because of too many people booking tickets, I began to worry about it.
Economists come out to "point out the maze", such as asking to do things according to market rules and solving them by raising prices. Now look at this.
When the announcement came out, I finally breathed a sigh of relief.
In fact, from the perspective of probability theory, drawing lots is a simple and fair way, which has also been proved by many mathematicians.
Safe. Draw lots to determine the qualifications of ticket buyers, so that the poor and the rich, the public and the elite have equal rights to watch the Olympic Games.
Therefore, opportunity is a fairly fair way of distribution.
From this, I have an association: relative to demand, resources are always in short supply. China has a population of 654.38+0.3 billion, and its per capita resources are in short supply.
The situation is particularly serious. Since drawing lots is a way to distribute resources fairly, why not promote it and do everything?
Is it possible to adopt this practice on a large scale?
Although there are various ways to allocate resources, if we summarize them carefully, there are actually three main ways: one is to divide them according to power.
Matching; First, according to market distribution; One is to allocate according to "luck", that is, draw lots.
Needless to say, distribution according to capital. People have long hated it and condemned it as a privilege. Although in real life,
Privilege still exists widely in life. It is also an important way of resource allocation, but it has long been lost in people's minds.
Any legitimacy. Moreover, in the long run, distribution according to work is a distributor that needs to be gradually restricted until it is cancelled.
Type, which should not and cannot be an option of allocation pattern design.
Distribution by market is much more advanced than distribution by power. As long as the market is open, we also admit that we have achieved distribution according to the market.
Equal opportunities. But the market also has an innate nature or defect, that is, it is too poor to love the rich, which creates opportunities.
Equality does not necessarily lead to equality of results. In a society with a small gap between the rich and the poor, most resources are allocated by the market.
There is nothing wrong, but if the gap between the rich and the poor in a society is large, it will produce serious inequality, which will not only affect the society.
It will be harmonious, but it is not sustainable.
In this way, lottery is an effective way to make up for the shortage of market distribution, and its greatest advantage is to make
Wealth elites and power elites cannot abuse their advantages and monopolize social resources. Therefore, for those who have little to do with people's livelihood
Resources that are directly controlled by the non-government and have sufficient sources may be mainly allocated by the market, such as luxury goods; not have
These characteristic resources, you can consider using lottery and market distribution, such as affordable housing, Olympic Games.
Tickets or something. The reason why this is a combination of lottery and market is because lottery only solves the problem of subscription qualification.
Question, if you finally buy it, you still have to pay.
Of course, drawing lots is just a fair form, and it can't take into account everyone's special situation. It can only be regarded as one kind.
"Sub-optimal means that there is only one way to truly solve this problem of fair distribution of resources, that is, on the one hand, sustainable development.
Productivity, increase the total amount of resources available for distribution, on the other hand, ensure that citizens enjoy real equal rights in economy and politics.