>>(My book The Transparent Society is about the accountability side of
the

>>equation.  More than enough people keep talking about the morality
side.)

>

> Your book talks about how to detect malicious actions, but I doubt
that

>preventing all malicious actions would redirect more than 20% of
current

>relative-wealth-seeking behavior towards absolute-wealth-producing
behavior.

> For example, Robin has mentioned (http://hanson.gmu.edu/showcare.ps)

>evidence that paying more for medical care doesn't improve health. It

>seems likely that one of the reasons for this is that when faced with

>unclear information about whether to perform an operation or to trust

>the human body's naturally evolved healing abilities, doctors will be

>too likely to claim that their medical skills are needed. It seems

>unlikely that increased surveillence (or even mind reading) will
detect

>many cases where a doctor advocates unneeded surgery, because doctors

>are rarely aware of how much their desire to seem important is
biasing

>their medical decisions. What we need is better analysis of
information

>that is already somewhat available, and acquisition of data that is
not

>currently available to anyone.


I believe you leave out the essential aspect of transparency as the
essential ingredient in any market.


<smaller>  Four great social innovations have fostered our
unprecedented wealth and freedom: <italic>science, justice, democracy &
free markets. </italic>Each of these "<italic>accountability arenas"
</italic> functions well only when all players get relatively fair
access to information.  But cheating is always a problem because, while
criticism is the best antidote to error, most humans, especially the
mighty, try  to avoid it.    


This applies to all four arenas.  Leaders of past civilizations evaded
criticism by crushing free speech and public access to information. As
a result, these elites stayed in power... and made horrific blunders in
statecraft. 


As for markets for goods, services and ideas, knowledge is the
lubricant that makes them work.  Even the example you give above, of
self-deceiving doctors, is applicable, since a translucent system makes
it easier to get 2nd or competing opinions, especially from MD's who
hate the one you just talked to.


db
</smaller>