Here is the challenge that anyone interested in combining market economics with fairness faces.
Consider the experiments in market economics, first done by Vernon Smith. Here is a nice example.
上述简单的实验设计为所有后续的市场实验设计提供了基础。毕竟，市场的核心就是多个买家和卖家之间进行双边交易的场所。假设我们想建立一个有5个卖家和5个买家的市场。在这种情况下，我们会给每个卖家一张卡片，说明生产成本。例如，一个卖家会收到一张卡片，上面写着10美元的价格。其他四个卖家的成本分别是12美元、14美元、16美元和18美元。被指定为买家的人会收到一张卡片，上面写着他们的转售价值。继续这个示例，假设这些值为$22、$20、$18、$16和$14。在这种设计中，每个卖家和每个买家都有机会进行一笔交易。
考虑到买方的价值范围和卖方的成本范围，当他们被允许交易时会发生什么?卖家会占上风吗?买家吗?会不会所有对买卖双方都有利的交易都发生了，还是会有一些有利的交易因为信息不完全或所谓的市场失灵而未能发生?当交易发生时，他们是在一个大的价格区间还是一个狭窄的区间?
Economic theory in its simplest incarnation of supply and demand makes a strong set of predictions. What are the supply and demand schedules here? Consider an axis set that has price on the vertical axis and quantity on the horizontal axis. The supply schedule answers the question "How many units would voluntarily be brought to the market at different prices?" Thus supply in this experimental structure is an ascending stair-step pattern that starts at $10 and rises $2 per step for each unit in the market. Above $18 the supply curve is vertical for no other than the fifth unit can ever be purchased in this setting. Likewise, the demand schedule answers the question "How many units will be voluntarily purchased in the market at different prices?" Using the same analysis as that for the sellers, we find that the demand schedule is a descending stair-step pattern that starts at $22 and falls $2 per step for each unit demanded in the market. Below a price of $14 the demand schedule also is vertical for no more than the five units are desired in this setting. For this scenario, textbook economics predicts that equilibrium will be reached where supply equals demand. In this case that means that four units would be traded at the identical price of $16."
史密斯和其他人展示了简单的双重拍卖，买家喊出他们的价格，卖家喊出他们的价格，将产生4笔交易的均衡价格为16美元。(为什么需要这么少的交易员，理论上仍然是个谜。)
A moment's reflection shows that this equilibrium with four trades produces great inequalities, or potentially great inequalities. And the cost producer with $18 is shut out.
It also doesn't take much reflection to see that each buyer/seller could be splitting $4 if an omniscient being could mediate and match the high cost producer with the high cost resellers.
但设计的问题是如何重新安排拍卖规则，以带来更公平的结果?

把罗尔斯先生的“正义即公平”看作是有缺陷的。因为正义远不止是公平的不确定性或灰色地带，而是自然唯一真理的绝对肯定的平等。
Truth would serve the universe better than only fair, and equality would unite the differences and make us truly One.
=
MJA

把罗尔斯先生的“正义即公平”看作是有缺陷的。因为正义远不止是公平的不确定性或灰色地带，而是自然唯一真理的绝对肯定的平等。
Truth would serve the universe better than only fair, and equality would unite the differences and make us truly One.
=
MJA

Hi there, not sure if you guys respond to questions but thought I'd ask here anyway. Many would argue that it's a fear of poverty that drives us to work hard and without this fear, the incentive disappears. So, what happens when an inordinately large number of people decide that the 'lowest acceptable level' (LAL) is fine for them? Where will the hard work and innovation that has made our lives in the last 200 years better/easier/etc come from then?
And beyond this, there are inherent problems in deciding what the lowest acceptable level should be. I believe it was mentioned that it should be decided upon by vote. But this then subjects the whole system to a new set of problems that can arise from the idea that majority rules. Eg., who says the majority is right, and if the majority rules, this means that there is still a (possibly large) contingent of people out there who do not believe the LAL is in its correct place. So, how is this any different than what we see now with the ongoing debate over whether the poor are either getting too much or not getting enough? There would STILL be those that are unhappy with the treatment of the poor. And likely, many.
And finally, it seems there's an assumption that Rawls' system would fix the problem of today's poor. But who's to say that the majority wouldn't decide that a lower level than what we're currently seeing isn't acceptable? Some would argue that with today's social programs, the poor have it easier than they should...
Anyway, thanks for the program guys!
Scott

I wholeheartedly disagree with several assertions made by the previous poster 'Scott'.
First, the notion that hard work and innovation has been the driving force that has made our lives better over the last 200 years is nonsense. Throughout the gilded age, workers in this country were exploited, manipulated, and murdered in the streets to increase the wealth of a tiny sliver of the population. It wasn't until social welfare programs put in place by FDR in response to a near civil war that we started to see genuine improvement in the majority of our countrie's citizens' lives.
Don't believe me? Here is one example :http://www.continuetolearn.uiowa.edu/laborctr/child_labor/about/us_histo....
你认为终结童工是家长制的一个例子吗?那个时代的自由意志主义者会这么说。在30年代，无法工作的老年人在街上挨饿。大政府的社会保障是家长制的另一个例子吗?这些由最贫困人群需求推动的政府项目改善了我们整个社会。自由和不受约束的市场理想阻碍了这一目标的实现。
You also seem to miss the point about 'deciding' what the lowest acceptable level of human poverty would be. John Rawls has an answer for you, and it's called the veil of ignorance. How would you structure society if you had no idea what your place in that society would be? It's similar in principle to a rule my Dad taught me when I was dividing a piece of pie with my brother. If I am the one dividing the pieces, then I get last pick. It ensures that the decisions I make when dividing the pie are made fairly.
Rawls' theory is about just that, fairness. It's not that everyone is going to have a wonderful life whether they work hard or not... it's that everyone is entitled to the same opportunity to live a successful and happy life. In America, we believe that if you work hard you can succeed. To this end we must ensure that we do everything we can to make that principle a reality. That means setting up a safety net or societal structure that will give more help to a poor, black child whose father is in jail and whose mother is addicted to crack to ensure that no matter what your situation or background, that even he or she has the same chance to succeed that I do being born in privelege.
I think this makes intuitive sense to most Americans. I often use Rawls' theory as a conversion tool against libertarians and find it to be the most effective method to combat a libertarian's inegalitarian, simplistic framework.
By the way, anyone exposed to today's poor wouldn't say that they have it easier than they should. That's frankly an offensive position. I know that you (Scott) are not necessarily saying that... you are saying that 'others' say that... but let me tell you. I work for a State Rep and I am fairly engaged in my community. Most poor people are poor not because they are lazy, but because of some external circumstance. Some have been preyed upon by high interest pay day loan or home loan scams, many had parents that couldn't provide for them and were therefore not able to get the education they would need for a good job. Some work hard but rack up uncontrollable debt. In the South where they have no public transportation systems there is the added cost of owning a car that can drive hardowrking folks into the ground. Oligopolies in the telecommunications market keep access to information and communication a privelege despite being public goods. The quality of your education depends on where you live and who your parents are.. I could go on and on.
在50年代，你可能没有大学文凭，高中一毕业就在工厂工作，买得起房子，有孩子。现在，非大学毕业生能找到的工作只有没有工会组织的服务行业的工作，这些工作的工资低到连房租都付不起。实际工资自70年代以来一直在下降。你觉得事情没有改变吗?看看大学学位的成本。我欠了2万美元的学生贷款，第一年我没有借任何贷款就还清了。我上学的时候在麦当劳全职工作了5年…每周关闭5天商店。我累死累活地工作，今天一分钱存款也没有，除了债务什么都没有。那是在我父母的帮助下。 I wouldn't be here today if I'd had a parent in jail, or if my parents had been poor. Please remember that the post world war II economy was the greatest in the history of the world. Don't expect that people who have failed to make it today just aren't working as hard as you, the situation has changed dramatically.

I think you might like this side
Onedumbworld.blogspot.com

I think you might like this site
Onedumbworld.blogspot.com