I suppose I meant "Pareto-suboptimal".

How does that make sense? You are correct that under sufficiently generous Coasian assumptions, any attempt at predation will be negotiated into a zero-sum transfer, thus avoiding a negative-sum conflict. But that is still a violation of Pareto optimality, which requires that nobody ends up worse off.


I don't understand your comment. There can be many Pareto optimal outcomes. For example, "Alice gives Bob a million dollars" is Pareto optimal, even though it makes Alice worse off than the other Pareto optimal outcome where everyone keeps their money.

Open Thread, April 2011

by ata 1 min read2nd Apr 2011111 comments


It seems we have agreed that open threads will continue but that they will go in the Discussion section, so here's this month's thread.