Those are pretty silly posts. The thread topic isn't about Marx. Do you also write answers like that when doing a math test? "I refuse to answer this geometry question. Real objects have imperfections. Perfect cubes do not exist, you platonist crypto-fascist!" I assume by SNLT you mean socially necessary labor time. Things that have no labor time whatsoever entering their production do exist, since things that aren't produced by humans do exist. And whether we like it or not, in current society pieces of nature are privately owned and traded.
I award you zero points.
Wyatt Reyes
The answer to the question is that such an algorithm is impossible to construct. A follow-up question is what approximate formulas exist, e.g. criteria 2, 3, 4 are satisfied, but trade only happens with some probability, what is that probability? Or: 1, 2, 4 are satisfied, can the deduction/subsidy be limited to a certain amount?
Nathan Hill
Method which satisfies 2, 3, 4, but only a weaker version of the first demand: There is an Agency C that recommends a price, and trade only happens when A>=C>=B, at the price set by C.
Jace Rodriguez
Method which satisfies 1, 2, and 4, kinda: Trade happens when A>=B, A pays an amount equal to B's minimum selling price, and there is a subsidy added to it so B receives an amount equal to A's maximum. The reason I wrote kinda: This is only strategy-free for A and B acting as individuals, if they collude A can make the subsidy going to B fantastically big.
Can this be combined with the version with the agency to get something sensible?
Caleb Russell
Replying to myself again. It doesn't seem that the method with the price-suggesting agency and the method with the subsidy can be combined into something useful. A trivial combination of the two methods doesn't work. That is, suppose we take the agency price as the binding price if A>=C>=B and otherwise go with the subsidy method, that breaks the strategy-freeness that either component has when being the sole method.
Example: Suppose with honest inputs the pattern is A>C>B, with the values 7, 5, 3, respectively. So the price paid is 5. If the potential buyer dishonestly states a value of 4, he pays only 3 instead of 5. Likewise, if the situation differs from the honest one in that it's the potential seller who is dishonest by stating a value of 6, he gets 7 instead of 5. (Of course, there is some limit to how much potential buyer and seller can game the system. If both make these dishonest statements, the trade doesn't happen.)
Man, I should have posted this to /liberty/ instead, winning over hundreds of people to the cause of anarcho-hoxhaism.
Anthony Phillips
Is there a method that satisfies 1, 3, 4?
Eli Jackson
The first three are easy. They just pick a value half-way between the two points and trade at that value.
The hard part is discouraging dishonesty. It might be possible to use something like the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester to exploit quantum mechanics in order to semi-destructively test for dishonesty through quantum torture.
Lincoln Turner
Yes, in this case you throw requirement 4 out the window and it turns from a math/logic problem into a sociological issue of whether or not people lie to get more benefit for them.
Dont say its a puzzle when its not a puzzle but more of a social issue than a math/logic puzzle.
Im not a market socialist though. The trick to using markets to your advantage in socialism is to not allow this kind of interaction to occur. These interactions presume a subjective theory of value (which we all know is false). Imo, you should use a simulated market so you can remove the profit incentive of the selling party and the buying party either has the choice to buy or not buy, but no option to bargain.
But to come back to your revised question, you are basically asking us to create a lie detector, which is not within the realm of our reach yet. My first solution still conforms to the original 4 requirements. If you meant #4 differently you should have worded it better. Maybe you meant: But right now, the first 2 are actually requirements while 3 and 4 are formulated as given conditions. This is because you use "There is x" rather than "The must not be".
Joseph James
Honesty is not treated as a given . The puzzle says: and then lists the four requirements. There are already two anti-lie methods mentioned in this thread, one where dishonesty doesn't pay in general and one where dishonesty doesn't pay unless A and B conspire together. Stop right there, revisionist -_-
Landon Kelly
Have you not heard about my special snowflake simulated market yet?
