Hearted Youtube comments on Mathologer (@Mathologer) channel.
-
11
-
At first sight, there is something slightly unsatisfying about Aumann's game-theoretic solution, because it assumes a happiness function. However, standing a bit further back, among the uncertainties of the original lending decisions might be ignorance of where you stand in the list of creditors, ordered by size. And another might be uncertainty what your happiness function would be, at the time the dividend is being determined. From this perspective (originated, as far as I remember, by Harsanyi) there is an intuitive basis for wanting small creditors to be favoured when the dividend pool is small relative to the total liability of the estate, and for them to be subordinated to large creditors when the pool is larger, but still deficient. It could be argued that it is an even greater merit of the Talmudic solution that it responds to this intuition than that it is optimal given the Aumann utility function. It is also an attractive feature of the hydraulic model that it visually exhibits the ranking between creditors when there is a super-dividend, as well as generating the solution at every level (whereas the garment model generates the solution without showing how it works).
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10