Kidneys, trade, sacredness, and space travel

To the trader mindset, sacred values are nothing but a confusion; if you don’t like the deal, you just haven’t been offered a high enough price.

There’s something important the trader mindset can’t see. Its modus operandi is to take two different representations of value and profits from resolving discrepancies. It is agnostic as to the validity of those representations. Thus, the trade orientation tends to collapse the map-territory distinction, and in particular confuse exchange rates (i.e. prices) and stores of value.

Consider this music video:

The protagonist is fixated on an image that's been marketed to her by someone wealthy enough to control a planet. The image isn't very detailed, and she's willing to undertake a dangerous and arduous journey, which implies that things aren't very good back home.

She's in a world where travel is expensive. Somehow, improbably, in outer space, she has to pay a toll. This should clue us in that something sketchy is going on.

Tolls are one of the classic modes of rent extraction, second only to land rents in their centrality as an image. There's a plausible excuse for tolls on improvements like bridges, but you don't need bridges in space - you can only collect the toll by preventing people from going around you. This should inform how we interpret the subsequent interactions where she pays for fuel, repair to her spaceship, and repair to her body; it's not obvious how much of the price is needed to pay for the cost of the service, and how much is a rent extracted by a predatory monopolist.

At each stage, the protagonist sacrifices capacity (in the form of mobility affordances, maybe the most concrete and central instance of capacity, from the Latin capere, meaning to take hold of something - she trades away her hand, then her leg, then her remaining limbs, then her spaceship (albeit getting a fully functioning body back as far as we know)) for some progress towards her destination. Then, once she gets there, she finds that she's traded away her ability to move, for relocation to a place that's no longer providing the service it advertised. It's true at each point that you wouldn't be helping her by preventing her from making the trade, but focusing on that aspect of the situation makes one a price-taker1 in a case where that attitude doesn't actually unlock any value.

Each trade had to leave her with hope, but it didn't have to be an accurate hope.

The resort planet owner likely never colluded with the toll collector, the fueling station, the repair station, or the rescue team. They just did their thing, and the harmful side effects were complementary. The resort planet owner doesn't pay the price of disappointed customers who arrive after the resort shuts down, so they simply don't bother pulling their ads. The other actors don't need to know why people want to go from point A to point B, they just know that they can interpose themselves in the middle and take resources they want.

It's important to bear in mind that no one overtly cheats anyone else in this scenario - all the parties are operating as honest traders, at least when considered within the bounds of the specific transaction they're executing. And yet, the whole situation is horrible in a way that the trades don't actually alleviate.

From the perspective of trade, sacredness intuitions are always a mistake. If I desperately need a new kidney, and you're desperately poor, why shouldn't I be allowed to solve your problem in exchange for you solving mine?

Sacredness intuitions say that this is morally abhorrent. The trader says that this is simply refusing to acknowledge tradeoffs. That whenever the sacredness intuition is correct, a proper weighing of tradeoffs would get the right answer.

The trader is missing something important.

There's offering a trade, and there's extortion. Sometimes people are honestly uncertain or mistaken about which one is happening, or correctly believe that something described as the former is in fact the latter.

When you're proposing a trade that gives the poor a fungible resource, you should wonder whether rent extraction will, in the long run, keep pace with their ability to pay. Except now they've all been through an elective surgery and have less kidney. Trading a kidney for a kidney does not suffer from this problem, so people are less worried about it. This is the sort of thing it's hard to see inside the trade intuition, but easier to see if you think about the systems involved.

There is also an attention economy consideration. If you foreground the details of a particular transaction, taking prices as a given, you're relegating the context to the background. But that context is where the prices come from - it's necessary if you want to understand why people are willing to pay. It's necessary if you care about anything that's not already priced.

Sometimes the most important thing is that background.

(This post is based on my comments here.)

Related: Categories of SacrednessSacred CashEternal, and Hearthstone Economy versus Magic Economy, Cash transfers are not necessarily wealth transfers, Eliezer Yudkowsky's Facebook post about Basic Income

References   [ + ]

1. Some economic models assume you’re negligible in size compared to the market, and can basically only buy and sell things, so you can treat prices as constants. This is being a price-taker, you take prices as you find them. (By contrast, in monopoly situations, your decisions are one whole side of the supply-demand balance.)

In a price-taker situation, the goods offered for sale and the prices they're offered at are taken as givens, even if there's imperfect information. Things that aren't considered include negotiation with counterparties, interfacing directly with physical (or social) reality to configure it into states you like that aren't well-approximated by anything currently for sale, or coordinating with other agents in your position to change the overall dynamic.

9 thoughts on “Kidneys, trade, sacredness, and space travel

  1. Pingback: Rational Feed – deluks917

  2. Zvi Mowshowitz

    (I'm using your description of the video rather than the video)

    The resort owner is making an unreliable, unenforceable promise here. Taking the journey is certainly a risk on many levels, and even if it works out, the resort might be closed for any number of reasons. It is her responsibility, in the universe described, to discount the benefits based on the chance it won't be there, along with the other risks, when deciding whether to go. Presumably, the potential rewards entice sufficiently that she thinks the risk is worth it. If she's right, it's a good risk/trade that didn't work out (e.g. if she is giving up a life worth X utility for a 10% chance at 20*X utility, after risk aversion and decreasing marginal utility and so on, we shouldn't feel too bad if she ends up in the 90%, or even if it's 90/10 the other way for a 1.5*X shot and she draws the whammy). Certainly, if the resort owner is committing fraud, that's bad, in a combination of burn-the-trust-commons and doing-actual-harm ways.

    So one could argue that either the resort owner DID overly cheat her, via fraud slash false advertising, and should be held accountable, or she took a risk (calculated or otherwise) that didn't work out.

    Compare to a pioneer who moves to Deadwood to take part in the gold rush. Chances are this won't work out. He'll be shot in a saloon or by a native, or he won't find any gold and end up working at some crappy job in a town with a terrible gender ratio and nothing to do, or what not. He's willing to take those risks to try and strike it rich and that seems fine. If someone has flyers that say "Come to Deadwood, gold in them hills, strike it rich" and gives them out in Chicago, it's bad/good based on detail considerations, I'd think?

    None of that takes away from the sacredness points made later, which I mostly agree with and plan to keep expanding on. The concept of free energy slash rent extraction intuition is crucial. If someone is not in a position where they can defend their slack, then transforming non-slack assets into slack assets via availability of trade does great harm. I've thought a lot about the question of things like status signaling and real estate being slack sinks that effectively do this to everyone. The extreme version of this is where Malthusian conditions apply but anything considered sufficiently 'required for life' gets added to the poor's compensation basket essentially for free.

    1. Benquo Post author

      Gold mining is a pretty interesting example, given that on the margin it's responsible for basically no additional production of things people want, or net increased leisure. It's pretty much just a cool hack where you can dig a hole in the Earth and find the raw material used to create tokens that serve as claims on scarce resources.

      Considered systematically, gold rushes are pathological. This might be a little easier to see if we don't use heavy shiny stuff with a long rich history being fetishized as a store of value as the example. North Korea's dollar-counterfeiting operation seems more like a sign that they're kind of pathetic, than an emblem of their enterprising spirit.

      Your first three full paragraphs feel like a great example of the sort of focus problem I'm trying to describe. You're not factually mistaken or misrepresenting anything or incoherent. But, there's something about this perspective that makes it hard to see important systemic features.

    2. John Salvatier

      I like the phrase "If someone is not in a position where they can defend their slack, then transforming non-slack assets into slack assets via availability of trade does great harm."

  3. Michael Vassar

    It seems to me that the trader mindset assumes the robustness of the substrate underneath trade, e.g. property rights and certain levels of trust. Universal trader values which enable open bribery of judges and juries are self refuting. Allowing the sale of votes or slaves may be similar. Possibly also the dynamics of lending at interest, bankruptcy, incorporation, etc.

    There may be two trader mindsets actually, one for imminent trade without the assumption of property rights, which cannot be a substitute for sacred values at all, and another different type of trader mindset which can be built on top of a sacred value for honesty, sanity, justice and who knows what else.

  4. Pingback: Sacred Cash | Don't Worry About the Vase

  5. Pingback: from perspective of – scryptomnema

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.