4 ms·
No, the reasons explained are perfectly valid. Another way to think about it is: you are risking losing the more expensive tie (50%) and your potential gain is
by emmett 17y ago
No, the reasons explained are perfectly valid.
Another way to think about it is: you are risking losing the more expensive tie (50%) and your potential gain is a more expensive tie (50%). Those are obviously of equal and opposite value.
- CWuestefeld 17y agoThe prices of the ties are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how much each party to the transaction values those ties. Imagine that instead of ties, the other guy has a share of GM stock that he bought two years ago for $40. And I've got my wedding ring, which cost roughly the same. By your logic, getting the GM stock would double my aggregate value, and I should be able to shrug off the loss of my ring. But in the real world, the GM stock has little to no value (due to its depreciation), while the ring has huge value to me (sentimental or not, it's still value). The same things that make that true, also make things that had widely differing purchase prices provide equal value (what economists call utility) to someone.
- roundsquare 17y agoWow, you are really nitpicking here. For the paradox, its assumed that value = price. Yes, in reality, thats not true, but thats not the point. If you don't like ties as an example, feel free to use the original envelope with money or think of some other item where value = price (or is directly proportional to it). In fact, as long as I can say each person might value the other person's tie more than his own, the paradox holds.