Thanks for explicitly pointing out which Mazes posts might be worthwhile reads. Because people seemed to be excited about the quality of the Mazes sequence, I started reading it and stopped somewhere in the Perfect Competition post, basically because of this:
“Which, for any compactly defined axis of competition we know about, destroys all value.
This is mathematically true.
Yet value remains.
Thus competition is imperfect.”
If there are posts later in the sequence that differ from that style and content, I’d like to give them a try. Maybe I’ll just read those you nominated.
There are a bunch of people who think the competition posts aren’t great but who like what happens after that. To me they are important groundwork but in practice many don’t agree.
Thanks for commenting. When reading the part I quoted, I was put off by the claim itself (which is false except if I overlook or misunderstand something) but also by the style of just claiming something to be “mathematically true” without demonstrating it. To me that just seems like an authority argument. But I will judt assume the rest of the sequence is not like that.
Yeah it’s not like that. Wasn’t meant to be authority, was meant to be ‘this is math and true by definition’ but I see how you got that interpretation.
Thanks for explicitly pointing out which Mazes posts might be worthwhile reads. Because people seemed to be excited about the quality of the Mazes sequence, I started reading it and stopped somewhere in the Perfect Competition post, basically because of this:
If there are posts later in the sequence that differ from that style and content, I’d like to give them a try. Maybe I’ll just read those you nominated.
Glad to hear that was helpful. I do recommend reading the rest of the sequence.
There are a bunch of people who think the competition posts aren’t great but who like what happens after that. To me they are important groundwork but in practice many don’t agree.
Thanks for commenting. When reading the part I quoted, I was put off by the claim itself (which is false except if I overlook or misunderstand something) but also by the style of just claiming something to be “mathematically true” without demonstrating it. To me that just seems like an authority argument. But I will judt assume the rest of the sequence is not like that.
Yeah it’s not like that. Wasn’t meant to be authority, was meant to be ‘this is math and true by definition’ but I see how you got that interpretation.
Ok, thanks. Maybe it would be helpful if you defined what you mean by “value”? Maybe you meant (surplus) profit instead of “value”?