BloodyShrimp comments on Three Parables of Microeconomics - Less Wrong

25 Post author: jimrandomh 09 May 2014 06:18PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (38)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: BloodyShrimp 09 May 2014 07:15:16PM 6 points [-]

The next morning, both stations charge $1.52. The morning after that, $1.53. The morning after that, $1.54, and so on. Later that year, CF reasons as follows: If I keep my current price of $20...

How long are years on Townton's planet? Or is the Schelling price increase path nonlinear?

Comment author: jimrandomh 09 May 2014 07:50:54PM 14 points [-]

Three months into the process, the economist came back, and sold them both digital signs that update every hour.

Comment author: Pentashagon 11 May 2014 07:04:14AM 1 point [-]

Isn't the moral of the story that the gas station owners colluded to form an illegal cartel to raise gasoline prices?

Comment author: Nornagest 11 May 2014 07:28:53AM 16 points [-]

The moral, as I understood it, is that you don't need illegal collusion to gain the effects of a cartel as long as you can use your pricing to play a reasonably pure iterated prisoner's dilemma with the other members of your oligopoly.

Comment author: ete 11 May 2014 08:02:45AM 7 points [-]

Without communication it's iterated prisoner's dilemma (co-operate=raise prices, defect=lower prices), and so long as they're not communicating there's no actual cartel.

Comment author: Caue 14 May 2014 07:42:11PM 2 points [-]

Are they really not communicating, though? They seem to be signalling to each other their willingness to cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma.

I'd be very surprised if judges and regulators failed to classify this as a cartel.

Comment author: Nornagest 14 May 2014 07:44:07PM 11 points [-]

They're communicating in an information-theoretic sense, but probably not in a legal sense.

Comment author: EternalStargazer 28 May 2014 08:07:56PM 1 point [-]

If something as simple as this can be considered a cartel, then the entire free market system is a cartel.

The whole point is that companies can only communicate with each other in this manner, and not directly, because that would be collusion.

When I have time, I'll look up the specific legislation, though i suspect it varies by area.