That makes it sound like you didn't grasp a word of the nonzero sum mechanic.

What I said has nothing to do with the non-zero sum mechanic, so I don’t see any basis for making such a judgement.

As you said, the non-zero sum mechanic involves “working together”. But exchange is not “working together”. Exchange is simply exchange.

If non-zero sum applies to exchange at all, it can only be subjective. The things being exchanged have no intrinsic value. All “value” is subjective. Which means that the sum itself must be subjective.

Now if you’re simply saying that two people working together can achieve more than a single person could by himself, I would agree wholeheartedly.

No, that's not it at all.

Well let's look at farming. Historically a single family has been capable of running some portion of land all on their own but it's a lot of work. For the most part they produced enough food for themselves with maybe some excess that they could sell but not very much.

Fast forward to when people started buying refrigerators and washing machines and you should be able to understand why the women started having enough time to make clothing to sell. Because of an exchange they were able to spend less than -all day long- working on homemaking and the value of that is higher production with which they could make more exchanges.

By making more frequent exchanges it is not just a flat exchange of things with the only differences in perceived value. A tool I have a thousand of it obviously not as valuable to me as it is to someone without any but that's because it improves their condition in a way that it does not improve mine.

Services are also a great kind of exchange in that not only do people not have to accumulate tools they use infrequently but that experts in the use of the tools do the work even faster which gives everyone more time to do things.

Our exchanges have nothing to do with equal material value and are everything about personal value. Five pounds of wheat may very well be worth having someone's fingernails groomed but the objective value there is very different. One day worth of custodial work worth drinks, snacks, and a movie? Well, that deal is probably a little unbalanced but people seem pretty aware that the cost of the ticket is lower than it would be because the food is more expensive and if they don't have enough excess production they just forgo those comforts while they watch the main event.

But if we scale up and look at exchanges between rival groups there's something that both parties gain that neither would have been able to give away. Exchanges between these groups can lead to more prolonged cooperation.

It's not just A working with B get more done than A working alone. It's that they get more than A working alone plus B working alone, and it's not just subjective.

I think the stipulated “fast forward” excludes the critical factor.

There are two parts to this. The “work” performed in creating the product that is exchanged, and the exchange itself.

The product itself (or the “work” itself in the case of a service) is what is being exchanged. But neither the work itself, not the exchange, creates value. The “work” simply created more product, not more value. And the exchange does not create more value. It simply allows the parties involved in the exchange to obtain something they think is more valuable that what they currently have.

But the value itself is determined by an individual (subjective) assessment of the potential for enhancing the wellbeing of the individual doing the assessment.

Is a washing machine more valuable than a rock, a stream, and a cake of soap? Well, to a person with no electricity, it’s not.

I don’t disagree with that. But what exactly is that something? It is nothing more than subjectively determined value.

I don’t see that. Can you give an example of such a situation and indicate exactly what the “more” is in the example (other than the subjectively determined value)?

Lloyd DeMuse (psychologist) claims that the origins of war and violence lie in child abuse. Here is an interview he did on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sjcq0Ce93NA&feature=sub

Psychologists claim all kinds of claims with no proof or evidence .
I believe that any society is better off without psychologists .
Also the word " abuse " is different from one nation to another .
In Vietnam, China.....etc you can beat your child and it is no abuse and no legal consequences while in the West it is a court case .

Personally, I think that child abuse and war both stem from a common cause. I don't think that either one causes the other. Both are examples of using violence to force another to bend to one's will. The difference is only a matter of degree.

The something you're asking about was "more prolonged cooperation." You know, like what I wrote right after the sentence you asked that about. Social connections would be another way of saying it.

I really really dislike your definition of value here.
"When there is an unequal exchange the consequences will always show up sooner or later." By what criteria is it unequal? Value is subjective so that would barely ever be the same on both sides. Physical material is obviously not going to be equal because we're basing these trades on our subjective perception of value. Even the work in producing things is unequal in too many ways to even go into.

Without there being a time when it is equal there's not really any connection in what you said. "When the moon goes around the Earth Jupiter is BIG."

Heh, I just realized I'm letting something else make me act harsher about this.
Still, what are you ever saying?

IMO, psychology can be useful for people with real problems, but it has been used for lots of bad things.

By whatever criteria is being used to determine value. The equality of the exchange is determined by comparing the relative values of the things being exchanged.

Ok. So give me a definition you do like. And if I like your definition, maybe we can proceed from there.

The neo cons are still powerful and deciding major policies .
Humans were NOT born with violence and the proof we have people who love peace, justice, fairness and being a law abiding citizen .
For every act of vilence there is a goal : the war in Iraq for oil and other agenda, home invasion for money to buy drugs, rapes for sexual and power gratifications........etc .
So I believe that every human can be a pacifist and a peace lover .

Double Post

I consider social connections to be a product of working together. And the value of that product is, like any other value, subjective.

Well of course time is a factor. There must be some point in time where a value judgement is made. But that judgement could happen at any time.

And there is no intrinsic requirement for anything to ever be or ever have been equal. "Without the moon going around the Earth, Jupiter can’t be BIG."

You need to stop plucking out single sentences from what I'm saying because the ones after them explain what I'm saying to the conclusion of the idea and I don't think anybody wants to read run on sentences like this one just because I'm tired of being misquoted.

So, the trade can only be measured in value. Value is subjective and everyone values things they don't have more than things they have a lot of.
So does this or does this not mean that no exchange is ever equal?


So value of what person A is giving away and value of what person B is giving away added together are less than what they have afterwards because they also got the value of social connection.
Exchange is not just A+B=B+A. Exchanging A and B is worth more than that, thus nonzero.
Are you saying something different and if so what?

Well of course time is a factor. There must be some point in time where a value judgement is made. But that judgement could happen at any time.

And there is no intrinsic requirement for anything to ever be or ever have been equal. "Without the moon going around the Earth, Jupiter can’t be BIG."

I'm glad that you said the opposite in a way that you can see it's ridiculous because "when trade is equal there are no consequences." You get the reference don't you?

* DITTO * I wish "Klatu & Gort" would fly in and set things right!
The Day The Earth Stood Still sounds good to me!

... forgot " GREED " ...# 1 on the list

Sorry, but if you think I need to do anything, you are mistaken. And I have never “misquoted”. Everything I’ve quoted has been exactly what you said. And the reason I “pluck out single sentences” is for the exact same reason you do. You said “the ones after them explain what you’re saying”. Well I’m simply doing the same thing. Everything after the “plucked out sentence" is explaining what I’m saying, just as it is for you – as you stated.

Oh yes, I get the reference. What I think is ridiculous is that you seem to be arguing against your own illogical conclusion based on that reference.

Let me put it this way.

The social connection itself is not being exchanged.

It is act of exchanging that produces the social connection.

So all I’m trying to do is point out the difference between the items being exchanged, which are the product of separate individual work, and the social connection, which is a product of the exchange itself.

Well the implied part of that was "if you want me to continue talking to you in a civil manner." I do not tolerate quote mining for very long.

...but if the sentences I have just said explain what you are saying then why are you saying it? I just got done explaining it.
If you were agreeing with that could make sense but you're asking questions which indicates you think there are unanswered problems.

No, keep the chronological order in mind. You said the sentence we've been altering first and then I showed you another sentence using the same structure.
The thing about pointing out why mine was nonsensical was exactly why your first one was. Parts of what you're saying don't seem consistent and if you aren't going to retract some of your statements you should at least admit that some did not convey what you were saying as well as intended.

And again I don't see how this fits with your mention of unequal exchanges that sparked most of this tussle. I'm not inserting my own meanings on to what you've said and saying that doesn't make sense- I'm showing a dozen different trains of though and showing how one thing or another derails each one.

Right now I think the most likely one you were going for would be that unfair exchanges come back to haunt us. Is this close?

i'm continually amused that you invite other's views on YOUR topic in YOUR op that begins YOUR thread with these questions of YOUR'S:



and then caustically disuade posters from giving you what you asked for, their views and opinions on the issue, with such absurdities as:



perhaps when you begin future threads you'll require that all replies must coincide with what YOU believe. might save you from some anguish.

Really ?.
Instead of you, you, and you just follow logic and go after the ideas..... .