4 ms·
If you only have a single issue being discussed, that discussion is, almost by definition, a zero-sum game. Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the pr
by matt4077 9y ago
If you only have a single issue being discussed, that discussion is, almost by definition, a zero-sum game.
Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the price can change. Your win is the vendor's loss, and vice versa.
If you allow other issues to be added, you create potential for win-win tradeoffs.
Example: "I can't give you these apples for less than I pay, nonnono, my dear friend. But I'll give you this wonderful watermelon on top, for free".
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- UncleEntity 9y ago> Example: you want to buy 10 apples, and only the price can change. Your win is the vendor's loss, and vice versa. That doesn't even make sense, if the vendor values what you are paying above owning 10 apples and you value 10 apples over the price the vendor is willing to sell for you both win. --edit-- That's actually how market prices are determined at the fundamental level.
- benchaney 9y agoThe is a difference between the trade being zero sum, and the negotiation being zero sum. In the apple example, the trade is not zero sum, but the negotiation is. If I negotiate to spend less money for the same amount of apples, then the seller has lost as much as I gained. The caveat being that even in this simplified apple example there are multiple dimensions to negotiate on. I could buy more apples at a lower cost per apple, which may very well be benefit both parties.
- UncleEntity 9y ago> If I negotiate to spend less money for the same amount of apples, then the seller has lost as much as I gained. That assumes that apples have an intrinsic value above and beyond the value placed upon them by the two trading parties. Marginal utility and all that...
- benchaney 9y agoNo it doesn’t. All it assumes is that both parties prefer having more money to having less money.
- freeone3000 9y agoWhile the parent's example shows a misunderstanding of economics, it's more accurate in the realm of politics, where positional compromise on a number of issues is impossible. For instance, one can require or not require voter ID, but one cannot require half an ID card. So, in a functional political system, one may trade the undesirable qualities of voter identification for free state IDs, or extended poll hours, or a PSA ad buy regarding registration, or a new bridge. Horse trading allows compromise on issues where a halfway point doesn't exist.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- jtuente 9y agoTo flip that around, if an issue is so politically unsavory that it could not pass on its own, then should it pass at all?