Comments on an Analysis of an In-Class Experiment

Macroeconomics

Trading Experiment

This trading experiment actively involved everyone and became very interesting once the directions and trading information was understood.[1] At first the point system, consumption, production and types of goods and people were difficult to relate between. [2] 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. [3] 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 [4] hoped and took risks that ultimately were unsuccessful.

The final outcome of my trades and point total in this trading experiment was not successful. [5] 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. [6] 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. [7] 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 [8] 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. [9]

The amount of success also depended in part upon which type of person you were. [10] 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. [11] 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. [12] One other success factor for type 3 people is that they wanted good 3 to consume. [13] 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 [14] so it became a form of currency. It could be traded with any other good because it had value. It's [15] recognized value was that it took the least amount of points to store. [16]

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. [17] It is [18] the same with good 1. Good 1 could be traded without consequence for any other good, even another good 1. [19] It is interesting to see how this trading experiment reconstructed the emergence of currency. [20]

 

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 this.

 

8. In what way was it unsightly? Is this a randomly chosen negative sounding term?

 

9. Restate: Awkward

10. Need the context.

 

 

11. Restate

 

12. Restate

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.

16. Explain.

 

 

17. Why?

18. Changing tense?

19. Would this ever happen? no.

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.

 


This web site created and maintained by the Coe Writing Center. Copyright 2001.
E-mail Dr. Bob Marrs with any questions, comments or suggestions.