All of Thomas Sepulchre's Comments + Replies

3tkgilbert2moAgent-agnostic is meant to refer to multi-agent settings in which major decisions responsible for path-dependent behaviors are better explained through reference to roles (e.g. producer-consumer relationships in a market) than to particular agents. In other words, we are looking at processes in which it makes more sense to look to the structure of the market as a whole (are there monopolies or not, where does regulation fit in, is there likely to be regulatory capture, do unions exist) than to look at what particular firms may or may not do as a sufficient explanation for multipolar failure.
Comparative advantage and when to blow up your island

The ZOPA issue you raise actually disappears when the trade involves a lot of players, not only two.

Let's say we have N players. The first consequence would be the existence of a unique price. A lot of mechanisms can lead to a unique price, you could spy on your neighbors to see if they get a better deal than you do, or you could just have a price in mind which gets updated each time you get a deal or you don't - If I get a deal, that's suspicious, my price wasn't good enough, I'll update it. If I don't, I was too greedy, I&ap... (read more)

1fraidykluofficer.com8moThat's not true if one of the players has a monopoly. A monopoly will extract as much as it can, delivering as little as possible. It will be able to charge different prices from different customers. In a free and unregulated market, the monopoly can award you ("prime" customer!) or punish you -- it is the lawmaker, juror and executioner. This scenario is not supported by reality. What we see, in practice, is that free, unregulated market will create monopolies. As small companies compete, you naturally get market leaders. As these companies get larger they become more efficient at producing goods and services. They invest in mass production techniques in order to produce goods more cheaply than their competitors. They buy raw materials at cheaper prices because they buy in bulk. They expand specialization amongst their workforce. The bigger they get, the easier it is to make money. Smaller companies cannot compete. When two market leaders merge they achieve massive economies of scale. This forces others to merge in order to compete, leading to ever greater concentration. Monopolies often buy their rivals. The only solution to this is to admit that we need regulation and laws. There is no such thing as "free and unregulated" market. An unregulated market will not be free.
[not ongoing] Thoughts on Proportional voting methods
NESS answers the question of who shares responsibility, but it doesn't answer that of how much responsibility they have. For instance, imagine that a group of people made stone soup with 1 stone, 1 pot, water, fire, and ingredients; and that in order to be a soup, it needed a pot, water, and at least 3 ingredients. NESS tells us that the person who brought the stone was not responsible for the soup, and that everyone else was; but how do we divide responsibility among the others? Simple symmetry shows that each ingredient gets the same responsibility,
... (read more)
4Jameson Quinn1yI rewrote the article to incorporate your contribution. I think you'd be interested to read what I added afterwards discussing this idea.
4Jameson Quinn1yNice. Thank you!!! This corresponds to the Shapley-Shubik index. I had previously discounted this idea but after your comment I took another look and I think it's the right answer. So I'm sincerely grateful to you for this comment.