This trading experiment actively involved everyone
and became very interesting once the directions and trading information
At first the point system, consumption, production and types of
goods and people were difficult to relate between. 
There was some uncertainty as to when and how trading should be
done and the consequences that might follow. After the third or
fourth trading period everyone began to see which good was most
profitable to have (or less unprofitable) and which type of person
to trade with. Some people traded for a good that they could not
consume in hopes of being matched with a person who would trade
for a good they could consume. 
It was often the case, though, where the next person they were
patched with did not need that good, already had that good, or
had a good that was less profitable for them to have. It was these
people who  hoped
and took risks that ultimately were unsuccessful.
The final outcome of my trades and point total
in this trading experiment was not successful.
 I was one of those who took risks and traded optimistically.
I was confronted by someone who had wanted to trade good 3 with
me (the most expensive to store) when I consumed good 1. 
My hope or optimism was that I might be matched with a trader
who consumed good 3 and produced good 1. Such was not the case.
For several trading periods I was forced to give up points for
storing good 3 as I was unable to make a trade with anyone. Coercive
reasoning would not win anyone over either. I finally traded my
unsightly  good
with someone who needed it to consume, a type three person. At
the end of the trading session I had a negative point value. It
was those who traded only when consumption was guaranteed that
achieved success in this experiment. 
The amount of success also depended in part upon
which type of person you were. 
A type 1 person was typically more successful than a type 2, but
a type 3 was the most successful. This pattern occurred because
of the cost of storing and the type of good produced defined success,
or rather the rate at which one's points decreased. 
The good that a person produces is the good they keep and have
to store most often. So type 3 persons produced and stored the
cheapest good (good 1), type one persons second cheapest and type
2 persons last. 
One other success factor for type 3 people is that they wanted
good 3 to consume. 
They were the only people who wanted that good, so they got it.
Good 1 became the most coveted good beside the good which traders
needed to consume. Everyone wanted good 1
 so it became a form of currency. It could be traded
with any other good because it had value. It's 
recognized value was that it took the least amount of points to
This experiment made it easy to see how a form
of currency might develop. Long ago, when trading was more common,
this effect was obvious with gold. Everyone wanted gold. It became
coveted and emerged as a form of currency. Gold was beautiful
and rare and somewhat easily to carry and store in spite of its
weight. Since it could be traded for anything there was value
placed on it. 
It is  the same
with good 1. Good 1 could be traded without consequence for any
other good, even another good 1. 
It is interesting to see how this trading experiment reconstructed
the emergence of currency. 
1. Describe the experiment
first. Gives this paragraph context.
2. Restate: awkward.
3. Confusing: explaining
the process up front would help lower the confusion.
4. Restate: awkward
5. "The final outcome
was not successful." Mismatch
6. Again this is confusing
without the context.
7. Don't use phrases like
8. In what way was it unsightly?
Is this a randomly chosen negative sounding term?
9. Restate: Awkward
10. Need the context.
13. If you summarized the
same up front, we wouldn't
need these awkward confusing explanations.
14. Insert comma
15. It is = it's. Use its.
18. Changing tense?
19. Would this ever happen?
20. Better conclusion needed.
This is something like first draft quality. It needs an introduction
and a conclusion. The texts in between is often confusing and
there are many errors.