No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game · HackerPapers discussions

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by ceejayoz

Tue, 13 Aug 2024 15:50:52 GMT

> Their actual mathematical conclusions are what matters... OK, what in https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798 concludes cartel-like things that arise naturally can't be regulated?

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by EGreg

Fri, 05 Mar 2021 19:10:55 GMT

Pump = buy a lot of something so the price goes up. Let's say $2 billion of it <wait for more people to buy it as a result of the price movement, and news, etc.> Dump = sell at the higher prices and match the increased demand This is whats being advocated by market analysts, and it would be considered "fine": https://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/21/03... If companies don't collude but do it in a sequence, then when does it become ok? As a different example, in 2014 employees alleged that Silicon Valley companies colluded to depress their wages, by acting like a cartel…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by EGreg

Wed, 02 Aug 2017 16:01:45 GMT

I am currently talking with Warren Mosler about implementing Unconditional Basic Income in local communities (Hi @sama! :) Cartels is the main danger with unconditional basic income. If you make sure everyone can eat, you create a moral hazard, where the insured are not sensitive to price anymore. Having said that, we already have means-tested welfare and food stamps, and cartels of fruit stores don't spontaneously appear everywhere. However, they may appear in food deserts and other places where there aren't a lot of participants. Competition is the only factor I can think of to combat this.…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by jsprogrammer

Sun, 25 Sep 2016 21:11:38 GMT

Things get bad even before extractors enter the picture [0]; just a disadvantage in strategy update rate will result in the formation of cartel structures. The economy will function as long as there are sufficient physical resources and human will. Finance cannot kill it. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by jsprogrammer

Sun, 24 Jan 2016 21:59:35 GMT

Be sure to check out a similar simulation, "No need for conspiracy: Self-organizined cartel formation in a modified trust game" (0). (0) http://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.3798v3

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by jsprogrammer

Thu, 23 Jul 2015 19:01:24 GMT

Pretty close to what was found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.3798 It also sounds fairly intuitive when you verbalize it: the faster you can update your (presumably sound) strategy to new information, the "better" you are likely to do compared to someone who responds to changing information at a slower rate.

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by jsprogrammer

Thu, 19 Feb 2015 07:59:59 GMT

Ok, well now we've gone from two ill-defined terms to a handful of ill-defined terms: "economic market or system", "prices based on competition", "private businesses", "control", "government", "market economy", "supply and demand", "little". I don't think these definitions are that rigorous or well-founded, however I will accept that they represent a colloquial understanding of the terms however "incorrect" they may be. I say "incorrect" because I'm not sure you could use those definitions to point to real-life instances of what my understanding (and what I believe is implied in this…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by EGreg

Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:38:12 GMT

Well let's take this context of married women for example. The reality is that there are many men who do not have any qualms about "trying to seduce" a married woman. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKfMqwSMI4U (I just had to link this :-) These men do not "respect" the institution of marriage or the religious views on adultery etc. There are entire forums on the internet devoted to "how to get a girl in a relationship" with "boyfriend destroyer routines" or whatever. The idea is that an institution employing experts with lots of experience in poaching employees, is going to have an unequal…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

No need for conspiracy: Self-organized cartel formation in a modified trust game — mentioned by eternalban

Sun, 22 Jan 2012 03:16:01 GMT

I agree with your general critique, but these guys have a structural problem in their model: Their description of their model[1]: Our model is defined as follows. We consider a population of N agents, where each agent has two simultaneous roles: donator (e.g. a buyer) and rewarder (e.g. a seller). This simply does not correspond to the reality: we have locally interacting agents (gas-station owner, vehicle owner) that exist in a (relatively) 'flat'/'simultaneous' information space (e.g. the news of troubles in oil region x) and the fact that one set of agents (e.g. gas-station owners) are…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.