4 ms·

First consider that students switching schools also can’t be sure their choice is better (what if there’s a bully who will make their life horrible in their pre

First consider that students switching schools also can’t be sure their choice is better (what if there’s a bully who will make their life horrible in their preferred school?). So even your premise that “trade is not valid if both parts know they’re getting a good deal” (which makes little if any sense) does not apply here. You follow with angry anti-market rethoric but you never explain how a number of people trading places in schools, according to their own interest, makes anything worse for those not involved in an exchange.

danharaj 8y ago
> So even your premise that “trade is not valid if both parts know they’re getting a good deal” (which makes little if any sense) does not apply here. Your assertion that trade always implies that both parties are better off is just wrong, that's my only point. That you build an ideology around that premise is none of my business; I didn't propose any normative philosophy about trade. > You follow with angry anti-market rethoric but you never explain how a number of people trading places in schools, according to their own interest, makes anything worse for those not involved in an exchange. I just pointed out that the premise to your reasoning did not really hold. If the premise doesn't hold then your position might be justified, but it hasn't been justified. If you can't entertain the possibility that you're wrong, then I don't know what to say; perhaps peruse the other lines of reasoning that were considered in this submission's comments? P.S. just because i'm dismissive doesn't mean i'm angry
- andrenth 8y ago
  > Your assertion that trade always implies that both parties are better off is just wrong I have never made such an assertion, I've only said that in this specific instance free trade would have made both parties come out better off (which is indisputable -- both students would then be in their preferred school!), and that the judge's rationalization for forbidding students to swap their lottery results can be extrapolated as an anti-free trade argument. We can discuss whether free trade always leads to better outcomes if you want, but that is not the point I am making in this thread. But in this instance it clearly does. On the other hand you never explain WHY you think what I'm saying is wrong. You mentioned local optima, but the exchange pushes the end result towards the global optimum! What does exchange have to be "aware of all the interested parties involved"? If it is consensual and mutually beneficial to the parties involved, why do other parties even matter? You said my premise doesn't hold, but you never explained why do you think so. I can't accept that just because you say so. Explain to me what is wrong in this reasoning: 1) We got each other's preferred school; 2) We swap schools; 3) Now two students are happier than they were before; the rest remains the same as they were. 4) Repeat this process for more pairs of students and each time two people will emerge happier than they were before the exchange. How does that not lead to a better global outcome?

danharaj 8y ago

> So even your premise that “trade is not valid if both parts know they’re getting a good deal” (which makes little if any sense) does not apply here. Your assertion that trade always implies that both parties are better off is just wrong, that's my only point. That you build an ideology around that premise is none of my business; I didn't propose any normative philosophy about trade. > You follow with angry anti-market rethoric but you never explain how a number of people trading places in schools, according to their own interest, makes anything worse for those not involved in an exchange. I just pointed out that the premise to your reasoning did not really hold. If the premise doesn't hold then your position might be justified, but it hasn't been justified. If you can't entertain the possibility that you're wrong, then I don't know what to say; perhaps peruse the other lines of reasoning that were considered in this submission's comments? P.S. just because i'm dismissive doesn't mean i'm angry

andrenth 8y ago
> Your assertion that trade always implies that both parties are better off is just wrong I have never made such an assertion, I've only said that in this specific instance free trade would have made both parties come out better off (which is indisputable -- both students would then be in their preferred school!), and that the judge's rationalization for forbidding students to swap their lottery results can be extrapolated as an anti-free trade argument. We can discuss whether free trade always leads to better outcomes if you want, but that is not the point I am making in this thread. But in this instance it clearly does. On the other hand you never explain WHY you think what I'm saying is wrong. You mentioned local optima, but the exchange pushes the end result towards the global optimum! What does exchange have to be "aware of all the interested parties involved"? If it is consensual and mutually beneficial to the parties involved, why do other parties even matter? You said my premise doesn't hold, but you never explained why do you think so. I can't accept that just because you say so. Explain to me what is wrong in this reasoning: 1) We got each other's preferred school; 2) We swap schools; 3) Now two students are happier than they were before; the rest remains the same as they were. 4) Repeat this process for more pairs of students and each time two people will emerge happier than they were before the exchange. How does that not lead to a better global outcome?