Yes, thank you! I totally agree and was looking for others that did also. I think this post is confusing several different sorts of failures due to inadequate-information-leading-to-poor-trades. I think the most valuable point is that win-win trades (where you can see what both parties stand to gain) are inherently more trustworthy than win-lose trades which seem ‘too good to be true’ and you can’t identify what the other party gains. In such situations you need to be really confident you have a strong information advantage in order to believe you are actually getting an implausibly good deal which disadvantages the other party.
Yes, thank you! I totally agree and was looking for others that did also. I think this post is confusing several different sorts of failures due to inadequate-information-leading-to-poor-trades. I think the most valuable point is that win-win trades (where you can see what both parties stand to gain) are inherently more trustworthy than win-lose trades which seem ‘too good to be true’ and you can’t identify what the other party gains. In such situations you need to be really confident you have a strong information advantage in order to believe you are actually getting an implausibly good deal which disadvantages the other party.
Also I say the same here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/vyAZyYh3qsqcJwwPn/conditional-on-getting-to-trade-your-trade-might-not-have?commentId=bA34GydjFBaXs9rZa