Way up above, Gil wrote,"Our models may say that these things have less economic value..." But aren't most innovations the result of letting people play with resources? Beyond completely original ideas, money can buy time to think about relationships, for example, which may in turn reduce the cost of violence in society. Don't we generally want people to have control of their resources so they can make use of their local knowledge including their knowledge of what is needed to help themselves learn? Doesn't knowledge have a large economic effect?

Without coercion some valuable projects would not get done. However, in Michael's scheme 49 percent may not think the goal in question has as much value as other possibilities. Of those who wish to contribute, some will find themselves voting to spend more than they would want because only one amount can be chosen for everyone. For them, the excess is money they would otherwise have better uses for but need to contribute to get the project to go through.

In Gil's scheme, if no one pays unless everyone puts up their money, nobody may lose resources they can see a better use for. Can we know for any ordinary project how the sums would work out?