3 ms·

> And if you didn't buy the iPod yourself, their bad listing might not even be selling for them. i don't follow your leap from the first part of that statement

by exit 13y ago

> And if you didn't buy the iPod yourself, their bad listing might not even be selling for them. i don't follow your leap from the first part of that statement to the last. it's completely at odds with admitting that austenallred could have disseminated what they discovered and improved some peoples financial decisions. instead he was rewarded for exploiting an asymmetry of knowledge. i think the root of this is that some people deeply want life to be a winner take all game.

NhanH 13y ago
>i don't follow your leap from the first part of that statement to the last. To address this one specifically, on average, in the long run, if the sellers' listings could have been found/ bought, then the opportunity to do the arbitrage wouldn't have been there in the first place. To put it another way: the assumption would be that he could do the arbitrage because the deal otherwise would be very hard to find. >instead he was rewarded for exploiting an asymmetry of knowledge. We are always rewarded for asymmetry of knowledge - it's called comparative advantage in econ, I think. Everyone of us here has a job because there are not enough people to do whatever we're doing (grossly generalized, but I'm just trying to make a point). If we have 6 billions Donald Knuth alive on earth, I'd say a lot of us would be in trouble from a career prospective. And I don't think it's a "winner take all" situation, more of a "we care about different stuffs in life" one. Financial decisions, despite its importance, isn't something that most people would strive to the perfect at. We don't always optimize for each and every single financial decisions (or any type of decision) in life. And as for the part where he could have help the sellers or the buyers. Well, for once, if he didn't care about the profit, he might not have acquired the knowledge. Additionally, the question wasn't whether he could disseminate the knowledge, but whether he ought to do so. Let's say if the first time he saw it, he contact and let the seller know, and then that's about it. Why would he have any incentive (or obligation) to search for the other seller and let them know? On a side note, there is the famous essay by Singer - "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" which argues that it's immoral if you're not spending every single effort you can to help the less fortunate (paraphrase by me). I certainly deeply admire anyone who strive to do so, but I can't really say I could do so.

by exit 13y ago

NhanH 13y ago

>i don't follow your leap from the first part of that statement to the last. To address this one specifically, on average, in the long run, if the sellers' listings could have been found/ bought, then the opportunity to do the arbitrage wouldn't have been there in the first place. To put it another way: the assumption would be that he could do the arbitrage because the deal otherwise would be very hard to find. >instead he was rewarded for exploiting an asymmetry of knowledge. We are always rewarded for asymmetry of knowledge - it's called comparative advantage in econ, I think. Everyone of us here has a job because there are not enough people to do whatever we're doing (grossly generalized, but I'm just trying to make a point). If we have 6 billions Donald Knuth alive on earth, I'd say a lot of us would be in trouble from a career prospective. And I don't think it's a "winner take all" situation, more of a "we care about different stuffs in life" one. Financial decisions, despite its importance, isn't something that most people would strive to the perfect at. We don't always optimize for each and every single financial decisions (or any type of decision) in life. And as for the part where he could have help the sellers or the buyers. Well, for once, if he didn't care about the profit, he might not have acquired the knowledge. Additionally, the question wasn't whether he could disseminate the knowledge, but whether he ought to do so. Let's say if the first time he saw it, he contact and let the seller know, and then that's about it. Why would he have any incentive (or obligation) to search for the other seller and let them know? On a side note, there is the famous essay by Singer - "Famine, Affluence, and Morality" which argues that it's immoral if you're not spending every single effort you can to help the less fortunate (paraphrase by me). I certainly deeply admire anyone who strive to do so, but I can't really say I could do so.