Hacker News Reader

Comment by bingobangobongo | Hacker News Reader

First, let's do the experiment with a billion dollars and see if you really just offer me 50 million.

That was just an example clearly illustrating my point.

I'd probably offer you a lot less if it were real - say 10-15 million.

This isn't really something we can try, but I suspect you'd get turned down some reasonable percentage of the time (2%-10%, say) with such an offer, by people who have "all the money they need." Since to me the utility of the first few million is vastly larger than the last 500 million, I'd offer 50% just to avoid that rare case.

If someone is turning down $50M because they have "all the money they need", why would they then accept $500M?

The same reason, a normal person might decline $5 but accept $50 out of a pool of $100. 5% seems more unfair than 50%.

"i have all the money I need" is a different reason to "that's hardly fair!"

It's the combination of the two, I think.

That's hardly fair... but I need the money => Accept.

I don't need the money, but it's fair => Accept.

It's unfair, and I don't need the money => Turn down.

I'm not real rich, but I'd turn you down. Someone so selfish running around with close to a billion dollars...no. The misery you could cause! Let the researcher keep their money, they will probably offer it to someone more deserving in the next round.

Doubt it. Quite sure you'd take it with both hands.

Seeing as you work in the oil industry - the above statement does strike one as being exceedingly odd. You are in the industry for the money aren't you?

That's some serious cognitive dissonance you've got there.

Furthermore, I thought you guys pumped misery out of the ground day in, day out?

> Doubt it. Quite sure you'd take it with both hands.

Damn, now even I'm thinking I'd turn that down to teach your selfish ass a lesson.

You're confused because you're thinking about this (selfishly) as money being granted to you, and expecting your partner to do the same. Your parent (pun intended) is considering the whole relationship: Money will be redistributed from a researcher R to A and B only if A and B can agree on a fair distribution method. This will alter the balance of power between these three agents at a minimum. A and B should agree to this only if they both feel it is globally optimal; the more unfair the distribution A chooses, the more likely that this change is for the worse overall, which places increasing moral pressure on B to veto.

>You are in the industry for the money aren't you?

Not really. In case you are interested, I am in the industry by accident.

>I thought you guys pumped misery out of the ground day in, day out?

No, we pump oil. And gas. By and large, these things are used to create a whole lot of happiness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com