I’ve argued before that there is no intrinsic distinction between trade and extortion, apart from the “default” point.
This seems similar. If we take the default point as “Adam has the card”, then him giving it to Beth is a pareto improvement if he’s indifferent to her happiness, and a strict Pareto improvement if he values her happiness or she gives him some money.
But if we take any given deal as the default point (eg Adam sells Beth the card for $10), then all the other deals are going to be worse for someone, because that deal is already at the Pareto boundary.
The term Pareto improvement needs to specify between which options you’re considering. A=”The current situation”, B=”The proposed deal”, and C=”What some group would ‘reasonably’ expect to get.” It’s very plausible that both B and C are Pareto improvements over A, but neither is over the other.
I’ve argued before that there is no intrinsic distinction between trade and extortion, apart from the “default” point.
This seems similar. If we take the default point as “Adam has the card”, then him giving it to Beth is a pareto improvement if he’s indifferent to her happiness, and a strict Pareto improvement if he values her happiness or she gives him some money.
But if we take any given deal as the default point (eg Adam sells Beth the card for $10), then all the other deals are going to be worse for someone, because that deal is already at the Pareto boundary.
The term Pareto improvement needs to specify between which options you’re considering. A=”The current situation”, B=”The proposed deal”, and C=”What some group would ‘reasonably’ expect to get.” It’s very plausible that both B and C are Pareto improvements over A, but neither is over the other.