I agree with the first part of your comment, but I’m not sure about the Esperanto example. Arbitrage refers to exploiting a difference in price of the same good (usually fungible, e.g. currencies, shares or commodities) in two markets to make a financial profit.
OP seems to be talking about transfer of learning, and you seem to be talking about learning things in a certain order so that the total investment is lower. Both of these are good things, but I’m not sure either fits the meaning of the word arbitrage.
Voted −1 for the same reason. This is a confusing usage of the word arbitrage.
The way the word arbitrarge is actually used in economics and finance is as an _exploitable inefficiency_. Two things of the same value are selling at different values. There has to be a market, and competition, involved. This explains why arbitrage is rare: it is essentially a money pump, and we should expect money pumps to be drained quickly. This relates to the notion of _informational_ efficiency: the extent to which prices reflect information about the value of the underlying good or asset.
The Esperanto example rather relates to _productive_ efficiency: the extent to which the available resources are used to generate as much value as they can.
Here’s a world where the Esperanto example is actually an arbitrage opportunity: there’s a Spanish learning contest with a cash prize. All participants focus solely on learning Spanish. Anyone who uses the Esperanto-technique will outperform them, and win a prize sum larger than their opportunity cost of practicing. Then, in theory, you could keep sending proteges to the competition and win the price, charging a slice of the prize money for selling your secret learning technique. Until, of course, other people discovered this was happening, and the arbitrage disappeared as all contest participants started learning Spanish by learning Esperanto first.
> you seem to be talking about learning things in a certain order so that the total investment is lower
I think he’s actually saying that by learning Esperanto first, you learn *Spanish* quicker. Not just the total investment is lower, but the investment required to learn Spanish is lower.
Yes, by “learning things in a certain order” I include the case of learning Esperanto before learning Spanish (as opposed to doing it the other way around, which would presumably be less efficient for a native English speaker who wants to learn Spanish).
I agree with the first part of your comment, but I’m not sure about the Esperanto example.
Arbitrage refers to exploiting a difference in price of the same good (usually fungible, e.g. currencies, shares or commodities) in two markets to make a financial profit.
OP seems to be talking about transfer of learning, and you seem to be talking about learning things in a certain order so that the total investment is lower. Both of these are good things, but I’m not sure either fits the meaning of the word arbitrage.
Voted −1 for the same reason. This is a confusing usage of the word arbitrage.
The way the word arbitrarge is actually used in economics and finance is as an _exploitable inefficiency_. Two things of the same value are selling at different values. There has to be a market, and competition, involved. This explains why arbitrage is rare: it is essentially a money pump, and we should expect money pumps to be drained quickly. This relates to the notion of _informational_ efficiency: the extent to which prices reflect information about the value of the underlying good or asset.
The Esperanto example rather relates to _productive_ efficiency: the extent to which the available resources are used to generate as much value as they can.
Here’s a world where the Esperanto example is actually an arbitrage opportunity: there’s a Spanish learning contest with a cash prize. All participants focus solely on learning Spanish. Anyone who uses the Esperanto-technique will outperform them, and win a prize sum larger than their opportunity cost of practicing. Then, in theory, you could keep sending proteges to the competition and win the price, charging a slice of the prize money for selling your secret learning technique. Until, of course, other people discovered this was happening, and the arbitrage disappeared as all contest participants started learning Spanish by learning Esperanto first.
> you seem to be talking about learning things in a certain order so that the total investment is lower
I think he’s actually saying that by learning Esperanto first, you learn *Spanish* quicker. Not just the total investment is lower, but the investment required to learn Spanish is lower.
Yes, by “learning things in a certain order” I include the case of learning Esperanto before learning Spanish (as opposed to doing it the other way around, which would presumably be less efficient for a native English speaker who wants to learn Spanish).