|
广州翻译公司关键字：Imagine a ticket collector who, faced with hundreds of water for people, how can we identify who is the first kick it; to fetch water when faced with a pot of water to pay the ticket and kick people, why suspect a possible violation (day to fetch water several times) it? Even people who just played the water, immediately return call back, was found to be stopped then the likelihood is minimal. Interestingly, what really makes the condition (1) not to be wantonly destroyed because of the cost of water for people's own kick. Before you can maintain the minimum water, as long as the cost reaches a certain level, he will not want to one day play several times in water. Many people even water, a water relative to its cost benefits kick higher, Furthermore there are other ways to be water (such as illegal or legal to purchase boiling water dispenser and cartridges), often a few days do not bother to fetch water .People on the ticket collector, and the conditions (1), the condition (2) are met or not easy to observe, at a glance, so check with the management scales easily grasp. But for this condition, people do not like water on (1) as "willing to cooperate." Generally speaking, through internal cooperation between water can turn to fetch water, the pot limit for each breakthrough is inevitable. Thus, this long dispute took place: the ticket collector who does not allow one to pay much more than the pot of water to fight tickets; and kick people's attitude is very firm, they plead Road: Water vote is legally obtained, to play more today less from the future of the fight for compensation; cooperation mechanism will play more of their number played by the roommate and less able to offset, and thus did not increase the total amount of water daily is also not damage the smooth, water interests are not damaged. After a period of confrontation, the ticket collector who gave up resistance in vain, to make more efficient behavior of a compromise. Despite the express provision remains the same wall, but each time Lianghu fetching water has become the mainstream.The following proof of this change constitutes a Pareto improvement. People for water, as water, people have said, did not increase the total water supply, and the fluctuations between the day is also very weak compared with the original, so its interests are not damaged. As for the water people, through cooperation turns to fetch water, a pot of water to fight more than cost savings, increased effectiveness. The following is a brief that:Assume the cost of fetching water can be decomposed into a person's fixed costs and unit variable costs. Consider the following program of cooperation: a phase (days) to fetch water once again hit the pot. No co-operation, the total cost of single-
|