{"items": [{"author": "Robin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/667727102412?comment_id=667732616362", "anchor": "fb-667732616362", "service": "fb", "text": "In many cases it can be difficult to distinguish \"wouldn't otherwise have done X\" and \"is seriously considering doing X, but needs more motivation to do so\".
I wouldn't expect to perform moral trade with somebody unless I thought they would fulfill their side of the bargain. Therefore I wouldn't choose anybody unless I thought there were a significant chance that were going to do it.", "timestamp": "1405123505"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/667727102412?comment_id=667769851742", "anchor": "fb-667769851742", "service": "fb", "text": "Robin: \"In many cases it can be difficult to distinguish 'wouldn't otherwise have done X' and 'is seriously considering doing X, but needs more motivation to do so'.\"
Yes. These are hard to distinguish.
\"I wouldn't expect to perform moral trade with somebody unless I thought they would fulfill their side of the bargain.\"
I'm confused where you're going with this. It's important that you trust the person to do what they say, or have some way of following up, but because of questions of \"would they have done it otherwise?\" that's not enough.", "timestamp": "1405147867"}, {"author": "Robin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/667727102412?comment_id=667798938452", "anchor": "fb-667798938452", "service": "fb", "text": "If I wouldn't think my trading partner \"wouldn't have done it otherwise\" I won't trade with them. I don't think moral trade can be successful except in marginal cases where both parties are already nearly completely convinced of doing whatever altruistic thing they're traing.", "timestamp": "1405184480"}, {"author": "David German", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/111229345142780712481", "anchor": "gp-1405198982959", "service": "gp", "text": "I'm a little blurry on what this term means. \u00a0Early in your post, you talk about \"counterfactual trust\" in the vegetarian bargain, and you mean trust that the party going vegetarian has honestly disclosed their reservation price for doing so. \u00a0You then say:\n
\n
\n\"In fact, almost all cases of regular trade where counterfactual trust is a big consideration are cases of extortion.\"\n
\n
\nI find that surprising, because I'd say there are plenty of positive-sum trades where there are a range of prices that would work for both parties. \u00a0Neither party discloses a reservation price, so they negotiate. \u00a0Hiring employees, buying houses, and buying cars come to mind as examples.\n
\n
\nNegotiation is necessary in those cases because the markets are illiquid and low-information, but most possible trades still happen at some price. \u00a0I'm not sure why purchasing people's vegetarianism would be different or more problematic, aside from the contractual/verification challenges (which you and I agree are a separate issue). \u00a0\n
\n
\nLater in the post, though, you talk about a different kind of counterfactual claim: if you don't donate $X to cause Y, bad thing Z will happen. \u00a0This has nothing to do with anyone's reservation price - it's just a statement about the dynamics of the world that may or may not be true, and may or may not be testable.\n
\n
\nSo, what do these two things have to do with each other, such that it's useful to have an umbrella term for them? \u00a0(I didn't listen to the talk, so apologies if the answer is in there.)", "timestamp": 1405198982}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1405215058037", "service": "gp", "text": "It sounded like the issue with going vegetarian is lack of trust that the \"reservation price\" is not zero. I think you could view it like an ordinary negotiation, but with much, much less information about the other party's reservation price. (When you're buying a car, the uncertainty is probably under 20%)", "timestamp": 1405215058}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/103013777355236494008", "anchor": "gp-1405260099947", "service": "gp", "text": "I don't think it's just about reservation prices. \u00a0If I'm trying to sell you a car, I argue that the car is worth a lot, you argue that it's not worth much, and if there's overlap in the prices we're ok with then we probably agree on something. \u00a0What's different in, for example, the vegetarian case is that I may or may not have something to sell. \u00a0If I think you'll pay me not to eat meat I might start eating more of it. \u00a0Or if I learn that (a) you think simulating video game characters is wrong and (b) that you'll pay people to stop I might start doing these simulations so you would pay me. \u00a0This isn't that different from the worries with carbon offsets, where a company that might upgrade their plant could delay the upgrade until someone else will pay for it for the efficiency gains.", "timestamp": 1405260099}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://plus.google.com/106120852580068301475", "anchor": "gp-1405271644483", "service": "gp", "text": "Yeah. Another way of putting it is that something changes qualitatively when the reservation price is or might be zero. Then negotiation bleeds into the real world differently. ", "timestamp": 1405271644}]}