When Markets Price Blindly: AIM's Revolutionary Economic Insight
Standard economic theory assumes markets efficiently aggregate "preferences" into prices. But AIM reveals a critical blind spot: markets cannot separately price appetitive needs (A), intrinsic values (I), and mimetic wants (M).When this tri-source distinction disappears, pricing defaults to the only observable signal—mimetic visibility (M).
This creates systematic market failures with profound implications for policy, inequality, and economic design.
The Pricing Blind Spot Mechanism
Appetitive needs (A)
Private, variable, and non-observable at market scale
Intrinsic preferences (I)
Internal, personal, and resist public display
Mimetic signals (M)
Public, observable, and easily transmitted
Result: When markets cannot distinguish A from I, they use M as a proxy. This isn't efficient—it's structurally blind.
Key Economic Phenomena Explained
Housing as Status vs. Shelter
Markets cannot separately price:
Healthcare: Necessity vs. Prestige
Education: Learning vs. Credentials
Why This Is Different from Existing Economic Theory
Existing Theories
- Behavioral Economics: People have biases and social preferences
- Veblen/Luxury Goods Theory: Some goods are bought for status
- Status Goods Literature: Status signaling explains luxury consumption
AIM's Revolutionary View
- Markets structurally cannot see A vs I, so they price M by default
- When pricing goes blind to A/I, ALL goods drift toward M-pricing
- The signaling problem is deeper—it affects necessities when markets can't observe need
Novel Predictions That Differentiate AIM
1. Predict when products become status goods
When observability increases (social media, public display), demand shifts from stable/persistent (I) to volatile/trend-sensitive (M)
2. Predict market failures in essentials
Markets fail for A-goods when M-signaling is possible (cannot separate "housing as shelter" from "housing as status")
3. Predict bubble formation
Asset bubbles form when: high M-visibility + low I/A functional value + mimetic cascade triggers
4. Predict pricing divergence
Same functional good commands different prices based on observability context (private vs public purchase)
Policy Implications
If markets are structurally blind to A vs I needs:
- Cannot rely on market pricing alone for essentials (housing, healthcare, basic education)
- Must design "blind" purchasing systems for A-goods (anonymous, non-status-signaling)
- Credential inflation is predictable and preventable (reduce M-visibility of credentials)
- Inequality feels unfair when attributable to M rather than I (explains political economy tensions)
This isn't market failure in the traditional sense—it's measurement failure. Markets efficiently price what they can observe. When they can't observe A vs I, they default to M. The solution isn't "more market" or "less market"—it's designing institutions that preserve A/I/M differentiation.
Novel Testable Predictions
Prediction 1: I-to-M Drift in Product Categories Over Time
What AIM Uniquely Predicts: When a product category transitions from private use (high-I) to public visibility (high-M), demand patterns will shift from stable & persistent to volatile & trend-sensitive, with different consumer segments sorting into opposite trajectories.
Why This Is Novel: Existing theories can't predict WHEN products become status goods. AIM predicts visibility/observability drives the transition.
Required: Product analytics data + social media monitoring
Status: Seeking tech company partnership
Falsification: If both groups show identical retention curves, I vs M classification fails
Prediction 2: Mimetic Contagion Requires Observation of GOAL-DIRECTED Action
What AIM Uniquely Predicts: Mimetic transmission requires observing someone reaching for/pursuing an object, not just owning it. Static ownership displays will produce weaker mimetic effects than dynamic pursuit displays.
Why This Is Novel: AIM grounds this in mirror neuron activity responding to goal-directed actions. Predicts that different content formats have different mimetic potency.
Required: E-commerce platform or influencer partnership
Status: Protocol ready for testing
Falsification: If no difference, or if static images perform better, mirror-neuron mechanism is wrong
Prediction 3: Appetite Deficits Amplify Mimetic Susceptibility
What AIM Uniquely Predicts: When appetites are dysregulated (hunger, sleep deprivation, fatigue), mimetic desire's weight (wₘ) increases relative to intrinsic motivation (wᵢ), making people MORE susceptible to social influence and LESS capable of autonomous choice.
Why This Is Novel: Existing theories treat physiological states and social influence as separate. AIM predicts they INTERACT through the common-currency system.
Required: Lab setting, 100+ participants
Status: Ready for lab implementation
Falsification: If appetite state doesn't affect conformity, wₐ-wₘ interaction fails
Status Goods & Mimetic Desire
Luxury goods, positional consumption, and status signaling as manifestations of mimetic desire. Explains why some goods become more valuable as they become more exclusive.
Entrepreneurship & Intrinsic Motivation
How intrinsic motivation drives innovation and entrepreneurial activity, and why extrinsic rewards can undermine creative problem-solving.
Basic Needs & Market Demand
How physiological needs create inelastic demand for essential goods and services, and the economic implications of unmet appetitive needs.
Market Bubbles & Herding
How mimetic desire creates herding behavior in financial markets, leading to bubbles and subsequent crashes when mimetic momentum reverses.
Specific Research Questions AIM Enables
Price Elasticity by Motivation Source
Research Question: Does price elasticity differ systematically for A-driven vs I-driven vs M-driven demand?
Testable prediction: A-goods show inelastic demand curves; M-goods show elastic demand with visibility
Test design: Manipulate observability of purchase and measure price sensitivity
Innovation and Intrinsic Motivation
Research Question: Do firms with higher I-weight in workforce (measured via work preference surveys) show greater innovation output?
Testable prediction: I-driven work environments produce more novel solutions than M-driven (status tournament) environments
Test design: Compare patent quality/novelty across firms with different motivational climates
Market Design to Reduce Mimetic Rivalry
Research Question: Can "blind" purchasing systems (hidden from social observation) reduce M-inflation for essential goods?
Testable prediction: Anonymous purchasing for healthcare/housing should reduce status premium, improve A-access
Test design: Compare pricing in observable vs blind market mechanisms for same goods
Protecting Intrinsic Motivation in Economic Policy
Research Question: Do subsidy designs that emphasize autonomy (flexible use) vs control (specified use) produce different long-term behaviors?
Testable prediction: Autonomy-preserving subsidies maintain I-motivation; controlling subsidies shift to M-gaming
Test design: Randomized policy experiment with flexible vs rigid subsidy structures
Status Hierarchy Persistence
Research Question: Why do some status hierarchies persist despite economic changes? AIM predicts: When M-markers are visible and scarce, mimetic convergence creates self-reinforcing hierarchy
Testable prediction: Introducing multiple status dimensions (diversified recognition) reduces hierarchy rigidity
Test design: Organizational field studies with different status recognition systems
Entrepreneurship Success Factors
Research Question: Do founders with high I-motivation (measured pre-founding) show better long-term venture performance than M-motivated founders?
Testable prediction: I-driven founders persist through setbacks; M-driven founders exit when social proof weakens
Test design: Longitudinal study of entrepreneur motivation profiles and venture outcomes
Basic Needs and Market Participation
Research Question: Does ensuring A-sufficiency (housing, food security) increase market participation quality (better matching, more entrepreneurship)?
Testable prediction: A-deficit creates short-term thinking and reduces I-capacity for long-term market engagement
Test design: Universal basic services pilot with market participation tracking
Economic Policy Implications
Welfare Policy: Separating A from M
The Problem
Current welfare systems conflate appetitive provision (A) with status concerns (M), creating stigma that prevents A-access.
AIM-Informed Approach
- Universal basic services for A-goods: Housing, healthcare, nutrition provided universally (removes M-stigma)
- Separate delivery from status signaling: Anonymous access to A-essentials (no visible markers of recipient status)
- Preserve I-autonomy in delivery: Choice within A-provision (avoid paternalistic control that undermines I)
Test design: Compare welfare uptake and health outcomes between stigmatized means-tested programs vs universal anonymous provision
Innovation Policy: Protecting I-Space
The Problem
Innovation policy often emphasizes M-rewards (prizes, prestige, status) which can undermine I-motivation for long-term research.
AIM-Informed Approach
- Create protected I-spaces: Research funding with minimal reporting/visibility requirements
- Delay M-evaluation: Allow private exploration before public assessment (sequence matters)
- Diversify recognition dimensions: Prevent mimetic convergence on single "top researcher" metric
Test design: Compare innovation output from protected I-funding vs high-visibility competitive grants
Market Regulation: When Markets Go Blind
The Problem
Markets cannot price what they cannot observe. For A/I needs that lack visible signals, M-pricing dominates.
AIM-Informed Approach
- Identify "blind markets": Essential goods where A/I needs are private but M-signaling is possible (housing, healthcare, education)
- Design "visibility-reducing" mechanisms: Anonymous purchasing, blind bidding, private access for A-essentials
- Separate M-markets from A-markets: Allow status goods to exist separately from essential goods markets
Test design: Compare pricing and access in observable vs anonymous market structures for same essential goods
Example: Housing Policy
Current approach
Market pricing assumes "housing demand" is unitary
AIM diagnosis
Market cannot distinguish A (shelter need) from I (community preference) from M (location status)
AIM-informed intervention
- Universal basic housing (A-provision): Sufficient shelter for all, non-means-tested, anonymous access
- Neighborhood choice (I-protection): Options within sufficient housing to preserve autonomy
- Separate luxury market (M-containment): Allow status housing to exist without inflating A-essentials
Expected outcome: A-access improves, I-autonomy preserved, M-inflation contained to luxury segment
Example: Healthcare Policy
Current approach
Insurance-based system tries to price all healthcare uniformly
AIM diagnosis
Cannot distinguish A (life-sustaining care) from I (treatment preferences) from M (prestige providers)
AIM-informed intervention
- Universal A-care: Essential health services (insulin, emergency care) provided universally without status markers
- I-preserved choice: Options for treatment approach and provider relationships within essential care
- M-separated elective care: Concierge medicine, cosmetic procedures priced separately in transparent status market
Expected outcome: A-needs met regardless of means, I-autonomy preserved in treatment, M-inflation doesn't block A-access
When Markets Go Blind: AIM's Most Radical Economic Prediction
The Core Problem
Standard economic theory assumes prices reflect "preferences" without distinguishing between appetitive needs (A), intrinsic values (I), and mimetic wants (M).
AIM predicts this creates systematic market failures because:
- Prices cannot separately signal A vs I vs M value
- When blind to A/I distinction, markets use M (observability) as proxy
- This creates perverse pricing dynamics
Observable Manifestations
Housing Markets
Healthcare
Education
Why This Is Revolutionary
Existing Economic Theory Says: Markets efficiently aggregate preferences
AIM Says: Markets can only price observability. When A and I needs are private/invisible, markets price M-signals by default. This is not efficient—it's structurally blind.
Testable Predictions
1. Price-to-observability correlation
Products that transition from private (I) to public (M) use should show price inflation disconnected from functional value
2. Essential goods market failure
Markets systematically fail for A-goods when M-signaling is possible (luxury vs necessity healthcare)
3. Bubble prediction
Asset bubbles should correlate with high M-visibility + low I/A functional value (tulips, crypto, meme stocks)
Policy Implications
If validated, this means:
- Cannot rely on market pricing for A-essential goods (need regulation/subsidy)
- Must separate M-signaling from A/I provision (anonymous markets for essentials)
- Credential inflation is predictable (whenever education becomes visible status signal)
Interested in Economic Research?
We're seeking economists to test AIM predictions and explore applications in your field.
Contact Us to Collaborate