The Fairness Theorem - page 5
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
All of these problems are dealt with in the theories of price.
In short, there is the utility of a commodity and the use value of a commodity. Utility is a purely subjective concept, individual to each individual. It shows the degree of satisfaction or pleasantness that a particular person receives from the consumption of a particular good or service. If a shoe seller is not hungry now, then the usefulness of bread for him is lower than for a more hungry shoe seller.
But this does not mean that he is "selfish".
Since many people did not understand the meaning of the theorem, and others could not understand it because they are not competent in mathematics, we had to create a second edition, where the conclusions are presented in a form understandable even to those who are unfamiliar with mathematics.
ConclusionsIn the process of exchanging benefits, both material and spiritual (e.g. gratitude), three different situations may occur:
Altruism, when some part of the participants of the exchange of goods - altruists agree to give more goods in the exchange than to receive in return. In this case the value of the minimax is less than 0.
Rationalism when some part of the exchange participants - rationalists - agree to give as much goods as they get in return. In this case the value of the minimax is 0.
Egoism, when a part of the participants in the exchange of goods - egoists agree to receive more goods than to give in return. In this case the value of the minimax is greater than 0.
Since, according to the theorem, exchange of goods without coercion is possible only between:
Altruists and altruists.
Altruists and rationalists
Rationalists and rationalists
and impossible without coercion between any market participants and egoists.
Hence, rationalism, has nothing to do with egoism, but is merely the boundary between altruism and egoism.
In view of the above, at a minimum, rationalism and, at a maximum, altruism are necessary and sufficient conditions for reaching consensus on the will of the parties without coercion in terms of satisfying the needs of society for goods, i.e. the freedom to exercise the will of the members of society. Egoism is not an attribute of freedom, because in the presence of egoism it is impossible to satisfy the needs for goods between any individual egoist and any other members of society without coercion. To be more precise, it is impossible to satisfy the wills of any single egoist without forcibly violating the wills of any other individual.
Accordingly, only altruists and rationalists represent the free and just, i.e. libertarian part of society.
Moreover, according to the justice theorem, the higher the degree of altruism (the lower the value of the minimax in the payment matrix of the wills of the members of society), the freer and fairer the possibilities for exchange of goods between members of society. For in this case, the participants in the exchange of goods can collectively receive more than they are willing to give.
In connection with the above said, the final conclusion is that egoism is the cause of coercion in society, while coercion against the will of any members of society is the consequence of the realization of egoists' will, expressed in action. Accordingly, for society to become free and just, it is necessary and enough: to reveal egoistic wills of separate individuals (the justice theorem proves that this task is solvable) and to prevent any actions from the side of carriers of egoistic wills because any realization of egoistic wills will necessarily lead to a violent coercion against the wills of other members of society.
The text of the second edition is in the attached archive:
Eco where have you gone....I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm an Egoist.....Altruists and Rationalists Halt! Fear!
All of these problems are dealt with in the theories of price.
In short, there is utility and use value of goods. Utility is a purely subjective concept...
So far these very theories have yielded nothing but economic crises, as they are all just the subjective opinion of the authors of these very theories, but nothing more than that. Therefore we cannot regard these theories as the ultimate truth.
Moreover, there are as many theories as there are authors of price theories. And all the theories contradict other theories in one way or another.
Price is what is written on the price tag, not what the authors of the theories have made up. It is a purely objective notion, for knowing what is written on the price tag, anyone can easily calculate how much and what he can really get in exchange for a certain amount of something else. Another thing is that whoever knows the price can subjectively agree with the price or go to hell.
So far these very theories have yielded nothing but economic crises, as they are all just the subjective opinion of the authors of these very theories, but no more than that. Therefore these theories cannot be regarded as the ultimate truth.
Moreover, there are as many theories as there are authors of price theories. Moreover, all the theories contradict other theories in one way or another.
The price is what is written on the price tag, not what the authors of the theories made up. It is a purely objective notion, for knowing what is written on the price tag anyone can calculate how much and what he may really receive in exchange for a certain amount of something else. Another thing is that whoever knows the price can subjectively agree with the price or go to hell.
1. In a market economy crises are inevitable. In human physiology, crises are inevitable. In the evolution of man and all living things crises are inevitable.
2. A global crisis in economics does not mean bad. For individual individuals, yes. For the global economy - no.
3. how many and theories - sociology of knowledge
4. with monetary circulation - yes. But in the case of barter?
There are two buyers. One of them is willing to buy bread for 5 roubles, the other for 1 rouble. The seller sells the bread to the first one for 5 roubles, and then to the second one for 1 rouble. Which of them is the egoist, and which the altruist? Each of them "matched" the price.
Suppose the seller sells to both of them for 1 rouble. But the first was prepared to pay 5. So he is an altruist? But did he pay 1 ruble?
>
The mathematical proof of not only the possibility, but the necessity of a libertarian economy - a free market.
The theorem being constructive, it may be used as a mathematical basis for libertarian economic theories which do not contradict the conditions of necessity and sufficiency for a free market exchange mentioned in the theorem.
The theorem proves that not only material, but also spiritual values can be exchanged on the free market. For spiritual goods, just as for material goods, it is possible to calculate a fair price expressed in material units, e.g. precious metals.
The archive with the text of the theorem (second version) is attached to my post on page 4: https://c.mql5.com/mql4/forum/2013/08/FairTheorem_1.zip
That's why the USSR collapsed))
It is not fair to exchange products in the proportions that market participants want. This does not ensure competition and increased efficiency of production.
An example from your article:
X Y
commodity A -1 1
commodity B 2 -3
can be interpreted as X produces commodity A and needs 2 units of commodity B to do so, and Y produces commodity B. To produce 3 units of Y he needs 1 A.
Competition requires a universal commodity - money - and there has to be more than one producer of at least one of the commodities. For example, commodity B is produced by Y and Z, but Z is less efficient - to produce 3 units of B he needs 3 units of A. The equitable distribution would be such that the more efficient producer Y gets everything he needs for production, and Z gets the rest of the goods A for production. In reality this is realized through prices. Y will either be able to put a lower price on its product than competitor Z or pay monopolist X a higher price for its product A.
So far these very theories have yielded nothing but economic crises, as they are all just the subjective opinion of the authors of these very theories, but nothing more. Therefore these theories cannot be regarded as the ultimate truth.
Moreover, there are as many theories as there are authors of price theories. And all the theories contradict other theories in one way or another.
Price is what the price tag says, not what the authors of the theories say it is. It is a purely objective notion, for knowing what is written on the price tag, anyone can easily calculate how much and what he can really get in exchange for a certain amount of something else. Another thing is that whoever knows the price can subjectively agree with the price or go to hell.
Not Jura. First of all, zoom in on the view. What do you mean ? - nothing but economic crises .
Are we sitting in caves? And from a spark we make fire?
The history of human progress is the history of the market, even if humanity has not yet thought about it, has not yet begun to study the market.
There are many theorems, theories, etc. about the market. In fact they are always just views of what IS. And the MARKET does not care about them.
Money, by the way, is also evolving )
Warning! Hidden bitcoin advertising))
That's a poetic way to put it, huh? I'm jealous. Bitcoin advertising is evolving too...
;)