Suppose that the commune sells the widgets for $29. You purchase one, gaining net $1 of value; the commune gains net $9 of value. Total net gain = $10. (You seem to be assuming that utility ends up being linear in money, so let’s stick with that assumption.)
This seems to be exactly as good as the scenario you describe. Do you agree? And yet my scenario does not require anyone to have any moral motivations, make any sacrifices, etc.; it only requires self-interest.
> You seem to be assuming that utility ends up being linear in money, so let’s stick with that assumption.
> For a function to convert dollars to utils u($), u’($)>0, u″($)<0
^^^non-linear function^^^
^^^U″($)!=0^^^
[/snark]
That is important, though. The whole point of the thought experiment was that the strictly selfish result (I buy $100 of ice cream) is different from the Kaldor-Hicks/utility efficient outcome (I overpay for a widget) in a situation where my (normally very utilitarian) moral intuition backs the selfish action. Your scenario is only equivalent if you take the U″($)=0 condition which I explicitly rejected.
I don’t know whether it’s equivalent but it seems the transaction is equivalent to a $20-$30 price point fair deal plus a $80-$70 sized gift. In the limit if a dollar is worth equal to everyone then a gift $X-$X=0 no net change from gifting. The trade part comes from evaluation being higher than cost. This would be true even if the beneficiary and the cost bearer would be the same party.
Suppose that the commune sells the widgets for $29. You purchase one, gaining net $1 of value; the commune gains net $9 of value. Total net gain = $10. (You seem to be assuming that utility ends up being linear in money, so let’s stick with that assumption.)
This seems to be exactly as good as the scenario you describe. Do you agree? And yet my scenario does not require anyone to have any moral motivations, make any sacrifices, etc.; it only requires self-interest.
> You seem to be assuming that utility ends up being linear in money, so let’s stick with that assumption.
> For a function to convert dollars to utils u($), u’($)>0, u″($)<0
^^^non-linear function^^^
^^^U″($)!=0^^^
[/snark]
That is important, though. The whole point of the thought experiment was that the strictly selfish result (I buy $100 of ice cream) is different from the Kaldor-Hicks/utility efficient outcome (I overpay for a widget) in a situation where my (normally very utilitarian) moral intuition backs the selfish action. Your scenario is only equivalent if you take the U″($)=0 condition which I explicitly rejected.
I don’t know whether it’s equivalent but it seems the transaction is equivalent to a $20-$30 price point fair deal plus a $80-$70 sized gift. In the limit if a dollar is worth equal to everyone then a gift $X-$X=0 no net change from gifting. The trade part comes from evaluation being higher than cost. This would be true even if the beneficiary and the cost bearer would be the same party.