Home Page link

How much to charge?

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 1 of 2       1 2 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
How much to charge? Michael Bulatovich 05-22-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on May 22, 2007, 4:02 pm
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-E7F2-99DF-3824E0B1C2540D47



Posted by Warm Worm on May 23, 2007, 1:51 am
Thread:
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.architecture/browse_frm/thread/b24d8bbd0d9dfa4/ee57aca90d8bd718?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#ee57aca90d8bd718

Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>> Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for personal
nuclear proliferation.

>> "gruhn" wrote:
>> The sense of it is quite plain. It is recognized that you disagree.
>> How your disagreement is any sort of counter to his sense is not
>> evident.

Done wrote:
> He can't.
> You see, logic and emotion are not linked.

"Michael Bulatovich" wrote:
> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-E7F2-99DF-3...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

" The unique equilibrium for this game is a *Pareto-suboptimal*
solution-that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play
defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if
they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to
defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the
dilemma."

Don:
>> Well first you have to prove that WITHOUT gov't assistance any given
corporation can even run rampant.
>> I'm convinced it can't. Why? Because no corporation can force anyone to do
business with it and in a
>> free market competition will level the playing field.

Warm Worm:
> "In particular, it can be shown that, under certain idealised conditions, a
> system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome." ...
> "Pareto efficiency is a weak condition which does not require a 'just' or
> equitable distribution of wealth. An economy in which the wealthy hold the
> vast majority of resources can be Pareto efficient."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency

> "Pareto originally used this distribution to describe the allocation of
> wealth among individuals since it seemed to show rather well the way that a
> larger portion of the wealth of any society is owned by a smaller percentage
> of the people in that society. This idea is sometimes expressed more simply
> as the Pareto principle or the "80-20 rule" which says that 20% of the
> population owns 80% of the wealth."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution

> "Because no national economy in existence fully manifests the ideal of a
> free market as theorized by economists, some critics of the concept consider
> it to be a fantasy-outside of the bounds of reality in a complex system with
> opposing interests and different distributions of wealth."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Legal_tender_and_taxes_in_a_...

--
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.architecture/browse_frm/thread/7ea83cebedfa4095/7aec7b5331aa8983?lnk=st&q=pareto+group%3Aalt.architecture&rnum=1#7aec7b5331aa8983


Posted by Michael Bulatovich on May 23, 2007, 7:17 am

> Thread:
>
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.architecture/browse_frm/thread/b24d8bbd0d9dfa4/ee57aca90d8bd718?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#ee57aca90d8bd718
>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>> Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for
>>>> personal nuclear proliferation.
>
>>> "gruhn" wrote:
>>> The sense of it is quite plain. It is recognized that you disagree.
>>> How your disagreement is any sort of counter to his sense is not
>>> evident.
>
> Done wrote:
>> He can't.
>> You see, logic and emotion are not linked.
>
> "Michael Bulatovich" wrote:
>> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-E7F2-99DF-3...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
>
> " The unique equilibrium for this game is a *Pareto-suboptimal*
> solution-that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play
> defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if
> they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to
> defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the
> dilemma."
>
> Don:
>>> Well first you have to prove that WITHOUT gov't assistance any given
>>> corporation can even run rampant.
>>> I'm convinced it can't. Why? Because no corporation can force anyone to
>>> do business with it and in a
>>> free market competition will level the playing field.
>
> Warm Worm:
>> "In particular, it can be shown that, under certain idealised conditions,
>> a
>> system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome." ...
>> "Pareto efficiency is a weak condition which does not require a 'just' or
>> equitable distribution of wealth. An economy in which the wealthy hold
>> the
>> vast majority of resources can be Pareto efficient."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
>
>> "Pareto originally used this distribution to describe the allocation of
>> wealth among individuals since it seemed to show rather well the way that
>> a
>> larger portion of the wealth of any society is owned by a smaller
>> percentage
>> of the people in that society. This idea is sometimes expressed more
>> simply
>> as the Pareto principle or the "80-20 rule" which says that 20% of the
>> population owns 80% of the wealth."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
>
>> "Because no national economy in existence fully manifests the ideal of a
>> free market as theorized by economists, some critics of the concept
>> consider
>> it to be a fantasy-outside of the bounds of reality in a complex system
>> with
>> opposing interests and different distributions of wealth."
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Legal_tender_and_taxes_in_a_...
>
> --
>
http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.architecture/browse_frm/thread/7ea83cebedfa4095/7aec7b5331aa8983?lnk=st&q=pareto+group%3Aalt.architecture&rnum=1#7aec7b5331aa8983

Clever! You rightly point out the similarity of structure of the dilemma in
the endless gun thread, and the similarity of the prisoner's dilemma. The
logic is similar to the "tragedy of the commons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commons which I cited in that
thread.



Posted by Warm Worm on May 24, 2007, 2:29 am
>
>
>
>
> > Thread:
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.architecture/browse_frm/thread/b24d...
>
> > Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> >>>> Only if you try to make sense of it. I gave up when he argued for
> >>>> personal nuclear proliferation.
>
> >>> "gruhn" wrote:
> >>> The sense of it is quite plain. It is recognized that you disagree.
> >>> How your disagreement is any sort of counter to his sense is not
> >>> evident.
>
> > Done wrote:
> >> He can't.
> >> You see, logic and emotion are not linked.
>
> > "Michael Bulatovich" wrote:
> >>http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-E7F2-99DF-3...
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
>
> > " The unique equilibrium for this game is a *Pareto-suboptimal*
> > solution-that is, rational choice leads the two players to both play
> > defect even though each player's individual reward would be greater if
> > they both played cooperate. In equilibrium, each prisoner chooses to
> > defect even though both would be better off by cooperating, hence the
> > dilemma."
>
> > Don:
> >>> Well first you have to prove that WITHOUT gov't assistance any given
> >>> corporation can even run rampant.
> >>> I'm convinced it can't. Why? Because no corporation can force anyone to
> >>> do business with it and in a
> >>> free market competition will level the playing field.
>
> > Warm Worm:
> >> "In particular, it can be shown that, under certain idealised conditions,
> >> a
> >> system of free markets will lead to a Pareto efficient outcome." ...
> >> "Pareto efficiency is a weak condition which does not require a 'just' or
> >> equitable distribution of wealth. An economy in which the wealthy hold
> >> the
> >> vast majority of resources can be Pareto efficient."
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_efficiency
>
> >> "Pareto originally used this distribution to describe the allocation of
> >> wealth among individuals since it seemed to show rather well the way that
> >> a
> >> larger portion of the wealth of any society is owned by a smaller
> >> percentage
> >> of the people in that society. This idea is sometimes expressed more
> >> simply
> >> as the Pareto principle or the "80-20 rule" which says that 20% of the
> >> population owns 80% of the wealth."
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_distribution
>
> >> "Because no national economy in existence fully manifests the ideal of a
> >> free market as theorized by economists, some critics of the concept
> >> consider
> >> it to be a fantasy-outside of the bounds of reality in a complex system
> >> with
> >> opposing interests and different distributions of wealth."
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Legal_tender_and_taxes_in_a_...
>
> > --
> >http://groups.google.ca/group/alt.architecture/browse_frm/thread/7ea8...
>
> Clever! You rightly point out the similarity of structure of the dilemma in
> the endless gun thread, and the similarity of the prisoner's dilemma. The
> logic is similar to the "tragedy of the commons"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_Commonswhich I cited in that
> thread.

Thanks for the snack. I'm just a button-pecking lab-pigeon prompted by
some stimuli. ;)
One great thing about the net is that a cross-reference is but a
fingertip away.


Posted by Kris Krieger on May 23, 2007, 5:00 pm

> http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=7750A576-E7F2-99DF-382
> 4E0B1C2540D47
>
>
>

"the game's logic dictates that 2 is the best option"

Why? Who decides that is the "rational" choice?

FIrstly, the situation is flawed because it assumes that both people will
have gone to the same appraiser, and wilol have done so at a certain ebb or
flow of the market. If the market is such that epople are paying top
dollar for the item, then the appriasal will be higher.

But, if Person 1 has the appraisal done during a strong market, and person
B has the appraisal done in the middle of an economic slump which creates a
slow/weak market, the appraisals will differ.

Which in turn brings into play the possibility that one person might
actually give what s/he considers to be an honest appraisal, simply because
there is no way of predicting with any certainty what the other person
would do.


IMO, (and FWLIW) the game's logic is flawed, because there is no info re:
the estimated proce of the item. The game asks for a choice based upon
nothing. IMO, that's just stupid.



Page 1 of 2       1 2 > last >>

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap