3 ms·
This example system starts falling apart as the amounts shift. If one party has 5999, and the other 1 dollar, is that type of split still fair? It would never
by silisili 5y ago
This example system starts falling apart as the amounts shift. If one party has 5999, and the other 1 dollar, is that type of split still fair? It would never benefit anyone to be the higher of the contributors, a system of everyone looking for suckers.
- beowulfey 5y agoNo, of course not. That's why I pointed out that at the end of the day it comes down to what seems fair, and what the two parties are willing to negotiate.
- hansvm 5y agoIf there really were a contrived scenario where exactly two people are allowed to contribute, the full 6k does need to be provided, and one person has no means to exceed 5999 then the split is still fair in some sense (and is the only "fair" allocation in the sense described by Shapley -- efficient, symmetric, and linear). What you're seeing in this hyperbolic "counter-example" is that the assumptions of that model don't hold; the person providing 1 rather than 5999 is probably very replaceable and would be willing to settle for much less profit due to market forces, the person providing 5999 probably has the means to at least temporarily acquire another 1, the deal probably wouldn't fall through in the first place if it were for slightly less than 6k, and so on.