MODERATOR: Bill P.
:
bob hintz 2011.05.19
When we are thinking about trade, it is important to notice that both agents must have more of something than he needs and that the surplus items of one must be different from the surplus items of the other so that one's own surplus has less value to its owner than the other's surplus and vise versa.
Why is that important?
Best,
Bill P.
bob hintz 2011.05.19
Trade is mutually beneficial when each participant believes that what they received had more value for themselves than they gave. If we are imagining primitive folks who interact with each other, but basically are taking care of their own and their family members needs, they might notice differences in the quality of each other’s products, i.e., spears, pots, items of apparel, etc. If A would really like one of B’s cool spears and never seems to be able to make that he likes as well, he might propose a trade. (His own efforts to make a spear has failed to produce a perception that matches his reference and he is attempting an alternative means of controlling his perception.) If A makes nice pots and offers one in exchange, B might consider it, if he has an extra spear (not nearly as valuable to him as the one he uses everyday) and believes that the pot would be appreciated at home (his kids are embarrassed the crude pots at home when their friends come over). If his own pots are just as good or he only has the one spear, he is unlikely to accept the deal.
The same would be true if A went one direction and B went another and each found lots of one kind of berry. If A has lots of blueberries and B has lots of strawberries, they might each be happier with some of each. The berries that I don’t have are more valuable then some of the berries that I have a lot of.
bob
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:
MODERATOR: Bill P.
:
bob hintz 2011.05.19
When we are thinking about trade, it is important to notice that both agents must have more of something than he needs and that the surplus items of one must be different from the surplus items of the other so that one’s own surplus has less value to its owner than the other’s surplus and vise versa.
Why is that important?
Best,
Bill P.
MOD: 1. You said that this is important. Why is it important that
both believe they have received more than they gave?
Bill P.
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM, > Bill Powers > powers_w@frontier.net > wrote:
MODERATOR (previously): Bill P.
:
bob hintz 2011.05.19When we are thinking about trade, it is important to notice that both
agents must have more of something than he needs and that the surplus
items of one must be different from the surplus items of the other so
that one’s own surplus has less value to its owner than the other’s
surplus and vise versa.Why is that important?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.19
BH: Trade is mutually beneficial when each participant believes that what
they received had more value for themselves than they
gave.
bob hintz 2011.05.20
I am positing that trade is voluntary on the part of both participants. If either party is unsatisfied with the agreement, there would be no trade. I am thinking in terms of anticipated use value of items between two producer/consumers (p/c) who are not part of a single family within a single community.
Division of labor within a family results in sharing which I think is quite different from trading. If A brings home berries, everyone in the family gets berries. If there are more berries than mother, father, children and grandparents and whoever else is considered part of the family can eat, the excess berries may be given to someone else in the community. If no one wants them, they will simply rot. Communities might also be organized in terms of sharing. The spear maker might know that 3 young men will be coming of age this fall and as part of the ritual need a spear. Perhaps he teaches them how to make their own or perhaps he makes one for each. Either way the community will not be making any more than someone or the collectivity as a whole anticipates will be needed. If someone loses a spear, it will be replaced, but producing a large surplus serves no purpose.
I suspect that trade occurs between members of different communities, as there is less likely to be a significant network of relationships surrounding the interaction of two such participants. In this case each might need to be able to prevent the other from simply taking what might be desired, as robbery might be an option between strangers. Some form of communication would also be required, probably sign language.
Question for moderator - I am partly responding to Adam’s project, should I be inserting separate comments in that thread? I have also downloaded the LCS3 programs and can run them in XP when I boot up in that OS. I am particularly interested in the crowd program and hope to use it to explore predator/prey relations in a demonstration.
bob
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:51 AM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 4:59 PM, > > Bill Powers > > powers_w@frontier.net > > wrote:
MODERATOR (previously): Bill P.
:
bob hintz 2011.05.19When we are thinking about trade, it is important to notice that both
agents must have more of something than he needs and that the surplus
items of one must be different from the surplus items of the other so
that one’s own surplus has less value to its owner than the other’s
surplus and vise versa.Why is that important?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.19
BH: Trade is mutually beneficial when each participant believes that what
they received had more value for themselves than they
gave.MOD: 1. You said that this is important. Why is it important that
both believe they have received more than they gave?Bill P.
MODERATOR (previously): Bill P.
:
bob hintz 2011.05.19
When we are thinking about trade, it is important to notice that both
agents must have more of something than he needs and that the surplus
items of one must be different from the surplus items of the other so
that one’s own surplus has less value to its owner than the other’s
surplus and vise versa.MODERATOR: Why is that important?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.19
BH: Trade is mutually beneficial when each participant believes that
what they received had more value for themselves than they
gave.MOD: 1. You said that this is important. Why is it important
that both believe they have received more than they gave?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.20
I am positing that trade is
voluntary on the part of both participants. If either party is
unsatisfied with the agreement, there would be no trade. I am
thinking in terms of anticipated use value of items between two
producer/consumers (p/c) who are not part of a single family within a
single community.
MODERATOR:
I don’t see the connection between your answer and my question. What does
satisfaction with the trade have to do with both participants believing
they have received more than they gave? Are you saying that the only
basis for satisfaction is receiving more than is given? Please
explain.
Best,
Bill P.
At 09:18 PM 5/20/2011 +0000, you wrote:
bob hintz 2011.05.21
Are you saying that the only
basis for satisfaction is receiving more than is given? Please
explain.
Yes. If I do not perceive the value of what I am receiving as being more than the value of what I am giving up, I will not be willing to engage in the trade.
If A has more X than he needs but less Y than he might want and B has more Y than he needs and less X than he might want, both can benefit from an exchange as each will be nearer their optimum for both X and Y. If either is already satisfied with their current amounts of X and Y, they could only reduce their overall satisfaction by giving or receiving any amount of either X or Y. If B is satisfied with his current quantities, A would need to find someone else to trade with, unless he discovers that there is some quantity of Z that B is interested in acquiring. If A has a surplus of Z, he might be able to propose a trade that B would be interested in. This could happen if B perceives a reduction in the error of Z offsets the increase in the error of Y, such that overall satisfaction would be improved at least a little. If A wants more Y than B is willing to give up, B will not participate in the exchange. I am assuming that X, Y and Z have a “use” value, which contributes to a concept of how much of any one of them would be absolutely necessary, how much feels good, and how much extra would be a problem. If I have too much of something, it would have no “use” value, but might have some “trade” value, if someone else I knew did not have enough of it and did have more of something that I did not have enough of. If I have too much of something, I might be willing to trade some of it for almost anything at all just to get rid of it, rather than simply throwing it away.
Money is a special category in that it has no “use” value, only “trade” value.
bob
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 3:24 AM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:
At 09:18 PM 5/20/2011 +0000, you > wrote:
MODERATOR (previously): Bill P.
:
bob hintz 2011.05.19
When we are thinking about trade, it is important to notice that both
agents must have more of something than he needs and that the surplus
items of one must be different from the surplus items of the other so
that one’s own surplus has less value to its owner than the other’s
surplus and vise versa.
MODERATOR: Why is that important?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.19
BH: Trade is mutually beneficial when each participant believes that
what they received had more value for themselves than they
gave.
MOD: 1. You said that this is important. Why is it important
that both believe they have received more than they gave?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.20
I am positing that trade is
voluntary on the part of both participants. If either party is
unsatisfied with the agreement, there would be no trade. I am
thinking in terms of anticipated use value of items between two
producer/consumers (p/c) who are not part of a single family within a
single community.
MODERATOR:
I don’t see the connection between your answer and my question. What does
satisfaction with the trade have to do with both participants believing
they have received more than they gave? Are you saying that the only
basis for satisfaction is receiving more than is given? Please
explain.Best,
Bill P.
MODERATOR previously:
Are you saying that the only basis for satisfaction is receiving more than is given? Please explain.
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.21
Yes. If I do not perceive the value of what I am receiving as being more than the value of what I am giving up, I will not be willing to engage in the trade.
MODERATOR:
What if you consider only correcting an error between what you have and what you want to have? If you have the means of correcting the error, do you always pause to judge whether using that means is going to cause some other error? When you step on the brakes to stop your car, do you calculate the gain from stopping for a red light and compare it with with the cost of the wear on the brake pads? You could, of course, treat this as making a trade, but would you? More to the point, DO you do this every time you hit the brakes?
I am trying to raise the question of the difference between an actual trade and a trade that is considered such only as a theoretical generalization, which returns us to the question I asked Martin Taylor:
Are the definitions of trade being used in this discussion intended to be objective -- that is, to have meaning independent of the perceptions and intentions of the individuals doing the trading?
Since this is a PCT discussion list, I would expect to see answers relating to PCT.
Best,
Bill P.
bob hintz 2011.05.21
I don’t think about anything when I see a red light and have plenty of time to stop. It is simply part of driving. However, when I see a yellow light and am close enough to the intersection that stopping might be difficult, I do have to make a decision. Either I step on the gas pedal harder and try to get past the intersection before the light is red or I step on the brake hard and attempt to stop before I reach the intersection. If I don’t change my behavior at all, I will certainly “run” a red light and might get a traffic ticket. I have a preference (reference) for avoiding traffic tickets. If I slam on my brakes the car behind me might ram into my rear end. I also have a preference (reference) for avoiding this outcome. If the car next to me hits the gas that might influence me to do the same, even though I might have been able to stop. At the moment of that decision, I assume that my brain is monitoring at least this many variables and doing some kind of risk assessment. Which ever change in my behavior occurs will be the best option (most satisfactory option) given the options that I perceive in the situation at that moment. Risk assessment might involve tradeoffs, but I wouldn’t consider this a matter of trade.
I think of trade as an interpersonal process. I also think of buying and selling as different from trade. If I want a milk shake and I don’t want to make it myself and I have sufficient money and I know where I can find someone who will make a milk shake and sell it to me for less money than I currently have in my possession at the time of the transaction and I am able to get to the place where that person is, and he is open for business and has the necessary ingredients and energy, etc. etc., I will be able to buy a milk shake. Lots of knowledge is required to control that variable, as well as the cooperation of other people.
bob
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:
MODERATOR previously:
Are you saying that the only basis for satisfaction is receiving more than is given? Please explain.
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.21
Yes. If I do not perceive the value of what I am receiving as being more than the value of what I am giving up, I will not be willing to engage in the trade.
MODERATOR:
What if you consider only correcting an error between what you have and what you want to have? If you have the means of correcting the error, do you always pause to judge whether using that means is going to cause some other error? When you step on the brakes to stop your car, do you calculate the gain from stopping for a red light and compare it with with the cost of the wear on the brake pads? You could, of course, treat this as making a trade, but would you? More to the point, DO you do this every time you hit the brakes?
I am trying to raise the question of the difference between an actual trade and a trade that is considered such only as a theoretical generalization, which returns us to the question I asked Martin Taylor:
Are the definitions of trade being used in this discussion intended to be objective – that is, to have meaning independent of the perceptions and intentions of the individuals doing the trading?
Since this is a PCT discussion list, I would expect to see answers relating to PCT.
Best,
Bill P.
MODERATOR:
What if you consider only correcting an error between what you have
and what you want to have? If you have the means of correcting the error,
do you always pause to judge whether using that means is going to cause
some other error? When you step on the brakes to stop your car, do you
calculate the gain from stopping for a red light and compare it with with
the cost of the wear on the brake pads? You could, of course, treat this
as making a trade, but would you? More to the point, DO you do this every
time you hit the brakes?
ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.21
I don’t think about anything
when I see a red light and have plenty of time to stop. It is
simply part of driving. However, when I see a yellow light and am
close enough to the intersection that stopping might be difficult, I do
have to make a decision. Either I step on the gas pedal harder and
try to get past the intersection before the light is red or I step on the
brake hard and attempt to stop before I reach the intersection. If
I don’t change my behavior at all, I will certainly “run” a red
light and might get a traffic ticket. I have a preference
(reference) for avoiding traffic tickets. If I slam on my brakes
the car behind me might ram into my rear end. I also have a
preference (reference) for avoiding this outcome. If the car next to me
hits the gas that might influence me to do the same, even though I might
have been able to stop. At the moment of that decision, I assume
that my brain is monitoring at least this many variables and doing some
kind of risk assessment. Which ever chach ever change in my
behavior occurs will be the best option (most satisfactory option) given
the options that I perceive in the situation at that moment. Risk
assessment might involve tradeoffs, but I wouldn’t consider this a matter
of trade.
MODERATOR:
Do you observe this monitoring and risk assessment going on? If not, how
would you go about verifying that it happens?
What you describe as a decision seems to involve a conflict, one side of
which requires stepping on the brake and the other side of which requires
stepping on the accelerator. You describe one way to avoid trying to
satisfy these contradictory reference conditions: don’t change your
behavior at all.
But that brings up a higher-level conflict, because you also don’t want
to run a red light and get a ticket (or, I assume, hit someone with your
car). So again the goals are in direct conflict: do nothing, do
something. Do I understand correctly the situation you describe?
I think of trade as an
interpersonal process. I also think of buying and selling as
different from trade. If I want a milk shake and I don’t want to
make it myself and I have sufficient money and I know where I can find
someone who will make a milk shake and sell it to me for less money than
I currently have in my possession at the time of the transaction and I am
able to get to the place where that person is, and he is open for
business and has the necessary ingredients and energy, etc. etc., I will
be able to buy a milk shake. Lots of knowledge is required to
control that variable, as well as the cooperation of other
people.
Again, at the time this happens, are you actually aware of using all this
knowledge, or is this a retrospective reconstruction of what must have
happened? The point of this question is to establish the origin of the
statements – are they reports of things observed, or processes imagined
but not observed?
Best,
Bill P.
bob hintz 2011.05.22
I would guess that decisions are only made (consciously at any rate) when one has no obvious best option. If I am hungry (error signal for inadequate nutrition) and food is known to be to right, I don’t have to make a decision, I simply organize my output to reduce my error. If I don’t know where to find food, then I have to make a decision. If I can see two different fast food places about equal distance from my current location and I like them both about equally, I will have to make a decision. I may focus on remembering what I did the last time I was in this situation. If I ate at McDonald’s yesterday, maybe that will be a reason to chose Burger King today. If I can’t remember, maybe I’ll flip a coin. When there is no hurry, I can certainly observe myself weighing different variables. In the yellow light situation, I am only assuming that some part of my brain is processing information.
I suspect that habits, skills, knowledge, etc. are the result of past learning (trial and error, instruction, imitation, etc.). We are not self conscious current skills are adequate to deal with current situations. Have you considered that there might be a self control system that examines and alters the control system that is the self (unself-conscious) that controls routine variables.
bob
On May 23, 2011 12:02pm, Bill Powers powers_w@frontier.net wrote:
MODERATOR:
What if you consider only correcting an error between what you have
and what you want to have? If you have the means of correcting the error,
do you always pause to judge whether using that means is going to cause
some other error? When you step on the brakes to stop your car, do you
calculate the gain from stopping for a red light and compare it with with
the cost of the wear on the brake pads? You could, of course, treat this
as making a trade, but would you? More to the point, DO you do this every
time you hit the brakes?ANSWER: bob hintz 2011.05.21
I don’t think about anything
when I see a red light and have plenty of time to stop. It is
simply part of driving. However, when I see a yellow light and am
close enough to the intersection that stopping might be difficult, I do
have to make a decision. Either I step on the gas pedal harder and
try to get past the intersection before the light is red or I step on the
brake hard and attempt to stop before I reach the intersection. If
I don’t change my behavior at all, I will certainly “run” a red
light and might get a traffic ticket. I have a preference
(reference) for avoiding traffic tickets. If I slam on my brakes
the car behind me might ram into my rear end. I also have a
preference (reference) for avoiding this outcome. If the car next to me
hits the gas that might influence me to do the same, even though I might
have been able to stop. At the moment of that decision, I assume
that my brain is monitoring at least this many variables and doing some
kind of risk assessment. Which ever chach ever change in my
behavior occurs will be the best option (most satisfactory option) given
the options that I perceive in the situation at that moment. Risk
assessment might involve tradeoffs, but I wouldn’t consider this a matter
of trade.MODERATOR:
Do you observe this monitoring and risk assessment going on? If not, how
would you go about verifying that it happens?What you describe as a decision seems to involve a conflict, one side of
which requires stepping on the brake and the other side of which requires
stepping on the accelerator. You describe one way to avoid trying to
satisfy these contradictory reference conditions: don’t change your
behavior at all.But that brings up a higher-level conflict, because you also don’t want
to run a red light and get a ticket (or, I assume, hit someone with your
car). So again the goals are in direct conflict: do nothing, do
something. Do I understand correctly the situation you describe?I think of trade as an
interpersonal process. I also think of buying and selling as
different from trade. If I want a milk shake and I don’t want to
make it myself and I have sufficient money and I know where I can find
someone who will make a milk shake and sell it to me for less money than
I currently have in my possession at the time of the transaction and I am
able to get to the place where that person is, and he is open for
business and has the necessary ingredients and energy, etc. etc., I will
be able to buy a milk shake. Lots of knowledge is required to
control that variable, as well as the cooperation of other
people.Again, at the time this happens, are you actually aware of using all this
knowledge, or is this a retrospective reconstruction of what must have
happened? The point of this question is to establish the origin of the
statements – are they reports of things observed, or processes imagined
but not observed?Best,
Bill P.
[From Bill Powers (2011.05.23.1420 MDT)]
Doffing the Moderator Hat for now:
bob hintz 2011.05.22
BH: I would guess that decisions are only made (consciously at any rate) when one has no obvious best option. If I am hungry (error signal for inadequate nutrition) and food is known to be to right, I don't have to make a decision, I simply organize my output to reduce my error. If I don't know where to find food, then I have to make a decision. If I can see two different fast food places about equal distance from my current location and I like them both about equally, I will have to make a decision. I may focus on remembering what I did the last time I was in this situation. If I ate at McDonald's yesterday, maybe that will be a reason to chose Burger King today. If I can't remember, maybe I'll flip a coin. When there is no hurry, I can certainly observe myself weighing different variables. In the yellow light situation, I am only assuming that some part of my brain is processing information.
BP: We see these things much the same way. I'm pretty sure that what we call decision-making comes into play only when there is a conflict. With regard to trades, my questions were intended to raise the point that coming out ahead in the trade might well be a goal for some people, without being a goal for everyone, or a goal for anyone all of the time.
An economic model can contain a population of people who use trading as a means of being better off. It would be interesting to see the consequences when only a small fraction of the individuals in a model have that goal, while other have different goals. It would also be interesting to see what happens in a model if everyone adopts that goal. What happens when everyone obeys the logic of "The more you have, the more you want"?
BH: Have you considered that there might be a self control system that examines and alters the control system that is the self (unself-conscious) that controls routine variables.
I assume that selves are products of reorganization -- all but the "Observer self." So all systems are subject to reorganization, always.
Best,
Bill P.