@Scp-3125
in normal speech, manipulation means that one side wins while the other side loses
here it seems clear that both sides won (as they only made some very straightforward free trades with no hidden clauses)
@Scp-3125
Thank you for providing a good example of folk economics theory.
FEB 1. International trade is zero-sum, has negative effects. The notion is expressed in many forms in everyday conversations and in political discourse, and it was also a recurrent theme in early political economy (Hiscox 2006). This belief may take many forms. For instance, trade is said to create unemployment at home because foreigners instead of locals are making the things we need (Wood 2002, pp. 53–55). Also, it is claimed that a nation should always try to export more goods than it imports (Worstall 2014, pp. 29–32). This belief is often associated with the assumption that the wealth of nations is the outcome of a zero-sum game. As a consequence, the assumption that foreigners profit from trade entails that “we” are losing out. Consistent with this assumption, many people believe (against possible comparative advantage) that trade cannot be beneficial if “we” import goods that we could manufacture ourselves (Baron & Kemp 2004, p. 567).
Folk-economic beliefs: An evolutionary cognitive model (2018)
In this market, the agents are working with their comparative advantages: Maud specializes in extracting rock stuffs, Trixie specializes in making fireworks, and Pinkie specializes in partying. However, you intuitively interpret it as manipulation (harmful), presumably because the Pie family could have manufactured the fireworks themselves, or Trixie could have extracted the rock stuffs herself.
In some ways, everyone did win.
Pinkie got her fireworks, and it looks like it was ‘merely’ a 100% markup on the pure ingredients (so not even counting the work).
Meanwhile, Trixie got a sack of bits out of it, and the rule-of-thumb I hear for freelancers is to assume half the ‘billable hours’ will be spent trying to find work (so Maud did half the work for her)
And Maud got to sell some stuff she was clearly trying to get rid of.
Really, all that Maud did was do Trixie’s job for her.
True, but that kind of manipulation of events solely so you can sell your product is a little too capitalist for my liking
in normal speech, manipulation means that one side wins while the other side loses
here it seems clear that both sides won (as they only made some very straightforward free trades with no hidden clauses)
Edited
I meant “manipulation” as in she was manipulating events so they would play out in her favor
Thank you for providing a good example of folk economics theory.
Edited
Manipulation is magic
Edited
Well this is a show created to market dolls.
It’s the magic of Friend$hip, with a Capital
ist$!Don’t judge her until you’ve lived your entire life with Pinkie Pie.
Poor Fluttershy.
Not everyone won. Some were unfortunate enough to be around when Pinkie set that thing off.
Pinkie got her fireworks, and it looks like it was ‘merely’ a 100% markup on the pure ingredients (so not even counting the work).
Meanwhile, Trixie got a sack of bits out of it, and the rule-of-thumb I hear for freelancers is to assume half the ‘billable hours’ will be spent trying to find work (so Maud did half the work for her)
And Maud got to sell some stuff she was clearly trying to get rid of.
Really, all that Maud did was do Trixie’s job for her.
I’m still impressed at how smoothly it was done.