|
Post by oliver on Feb 24, 2019 15:28:29 GMT
Ok. So Option 2 involves uncertainty due to the delay, and the reason that there is a delay is because from the moment that Amos accepts the banknote, he still has to spend that banknote. And something could happen in between that prevents that, or makes it difficult. Say prices change, or there is a shortage of goods for him to purchase. What if Amos gives Daniel a banana, and Daniel gives Amos an orange. But Amos hates oranges. But he takes it anyways because he thinks he can trade it on for an apple, which he likes? Is that 1 or 2? As in the above example (banknotes for a banana) Amos will have to deal with the uncertainty of not being sure if he can on-sell the orange for an apple. It's 1. Apart from the fact that I'd question Amos' intelligence, clearly someone does like eating oranges. And that wouldn't change if all farmers suddenly stopped growing oranges. In fact, that would likely make his orange a lot more valuable.
|
|
|
Post by Antti Jokinen on Feb 25, 2019 8:19:18 GMT
Amos meets Daniel. Amos gives Daniel a banana. If Daniel is giving a good in return, and the intrinsic values of both goods seem to more or less match, then we are probably witnessing barter. Both parties are at the same time buyers and sellers. If this is not the case, so that one of the goods is generally recognized as inferior when it comes to intrinsic value, or, even more so, if there is no good at all delivered by one of the parties, then we must be witnessing delayed barter. JP, the above is from my first post. If the the value of the orange more or less matched the value of the banana, then it would be, using a term I suggested earlier, "two-step barter" from Amos' perspective. Not delayed barter, because the first transaction already was clearly barter, exchanging goods for goods with similar intrinsic value. So the existence of uncertainty is not a defining property of delayed barter. It cannot be, as we can find uncertainty pretty much everywhere (the quality of the goods which might be hard to assess without consuming them, etc). Hypothetically, the orange could be inedible, like a tin of mackerel out of date, and Amos would know this. In other words, Amos would accept that the intrinsic value of the orange is inferior to the banana. If so, the odds are that we are witnessing delayed barter. I like the way you are testing the axioms, not taking anything for granted.
|
|