3 ms·
Yes, the incentives this sets up could be bad for subsequent rounds; that is absolutely a real problem, as I mentioned. But this passage seemed to be suggesting
by Sniffnoy 9y ago
Yes, the incentives this sets up could be bad for subsequent rounds; that is absolutely a real problem, as I mentioned. But this passage seemed to be suggesting that trading, in and of itself, harmed students who were not involved in the trade, and that's not correct.
Notice it explicitly says:
> This would give them better chances. At the expense of students that don’t (or can’t) trade.
But in fact those students are unaffected.
In subsequent years, as you say, it is a problem. But I don't see how to read that part as anything other than denying that when just restricted to that year it is a Pareto-improvement.
You may say "well that's a self-evidently stupid claim; of course they're not making that claim, because that would be stupid". But there's a lot of people out there who really seem to believe in a zero-sum world, and are convinced that when anyone's position improves, that means that everyone else has been harmed. That Pareto improvements are fundamentally impossible. There are absolutely people out there who would make that claim.
- cortesoft 9y agoThis IS a zero sum game, though. There are only x number of spots at each school. I agree that the wording of 'at the expense of' is a bit misleading, but I don't think it is categorically incorrect. The idea of fairness can, by certain definitions, even encompass pareto-superiour situation, if the improvements are not distributed fairly. I gave this example in another comment: Lets say I have a cookie, and there are 10 kids in front of me who like cookies. If I give any kid a cookie for any reason, it doesn't HARM the kids who don't get a cookie; they are no better or worse off than if the cookie never existed. However, suppose I decide to give the cookie to the tallest kid - even though none of the other kids are harmed, this is still not a 'fair' situation. You can do no harm and still be unfair. Whether that is bad or not is subjective, but it is still unfair (in the sense that every kid has an equal chance at the cookie). Of course, whether being absolutely fair is worth foregoing pareto-superiour improvements is a moral argument, and there is no objectivly correct answer to that.
- Sniffnoy 9y agoI'm afraid the beginning of your comment contradicts your earlier statements. Earlier you agreed that in that restricted situation, it is in fact a Pareto improvement. However, now you are saying it is a zero-sum game. There are no Pareto improvements in a zero-sum game! The rest of your comment just returns to the claim that the whole thing is unfair even though nobody is harmed. But that's not the part I'm claiming is wrong! The part I'm pointing out as a "straight-up error" is the part where it denies that (in the restricted context of a single year where people didn't know that trading would be possible) is indeed a Pareto-improvement. I'm not making any argument as to the broader fairness. I'm not sure we really disagree on much here.
- cortesoft 9y agoFair enough, I should probably have said 'seemingly pareto-superior' or 'pareto-superior depending on your definition of fairness'.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]