Everyone comes to the table with points that would make the other side walk away, and everyone has their initial redlines.
These change during the negotiations, premature release of information backs one or both parties into a corner in which further negotiations are no longer possible.
This is the real world, not some fairy tale.
Indeed. And in this world now, information asymmetry is greatly reduced. Politicians can live with it.
The fairy tale is you can hide your dirty laundry until you've fleeced your negotiating opponent.
Look at how many deals with Iran and N. Korea blew up early own because one side leaked (usually intentionally to tank the negotiations) some information that meant no further negotiations would be possible.
If say there was an email from hilary saying that "The US would back X amount of billions in guaranteed loans to provide funding for infrastructure informer FARC controlled zones" one party now knows exactly how much to ask for, one party now knows a limit, one party now has more power... Or here is another example say on day 2 of the negotiations there would be some preliminary agreement on how many and what type of sentences would be commuted that's just one small point of the negotiation it hasn't been finalized but if leaked it can blow up the entire deal. FARC can say it's too little, the Colombian government/people can say it's too much, and all over something that haven't been finalized or agreed upon, on something that is likely to change 50 times over during the negotiations. You seem to think for some reason that leaking things prematurely isn't using you as pieces, it is you are a puppet of your emotions and feeding you specifically tuned information is effectively playing you like a string.
People are irrational because they are irrational.
So let's fix that first instead of continuing to manipulate the flow of information; the rest will follow.
Because our few pounds of gray matter will never be rational. Us techies tend to think we are, which is exactly why we're even more prone to act irrational in some situations!
It has become (and assuming we are still here in the future, it will become even moreso) easier to broadcast more. The primary reason people don't go around broadcasting everything is because they can't. Most people have been capable of broadcasting very little.
Consider what you are arguing (or at least, appear to be): "Yeah, we fucked you over in the past (and we may do so again in the future) and we didn't want to tell you about it (and tried not to [and will try to not tell you about it in the future]), but just play nice and give us this stuff we want, please?"
I see this argument continuing to be rejected wholesale.
Imagine trying to end WWII if every citizen of every nation in that war were sitting at the negotiating table.
A good modern example would be the middle east peace process, every time there are negotiations and a deal is on the table it blows up more often than not because of premature and selective release of information.
The selective part doesn't have to be intentionally i.e. in one side only releasing part of the information but simply because the other points were not settled upon yet.
Negotiations are like trying to balance an egg on a point of a needle, if they aren't they are often one sided.
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Mark-Zuckerberg-s-mor...
"When you can borrow at a rate below inflation, you're borrowing for free," McBride said. "This is the concept of using other people's money and it preserves financial flexibility for the borrower."
If you're borrowing at under market rates, we, the market are effectively subsidizing you. Does Zuckerberg need subsidies in order to have a mortgage?
The mortgage was likely only one piece of the deal negotiated. It costs the bank nothing to write an at-cost mortgage, but gives Zuckerberg value though additional liquidity. Items that cost nothing yet provide value to the other side are excellent things to throw on the table during negotiations to help seal the deal. One example: The bank may have the adjustable rate tied to the balance in an asset management account -- if Zuckerberg takes his money elsewhere, the mortgage also becomes profitable.
Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
So how does your income play into house prices? We had many houses on offer when I bought last year. We spoke with experts and offered slightly below market. If they countered above market, we would have walked.
> Stores in the US generally don't price negotiate at the register, but they do have coupons that discriminate shoppers into loyal shoppers (those that take the time to track down the coupons or join the store's particular flavor of loyalty program) and ordinary shoppers.
Isn't that more to do with advertising than income discrimination? I know wealthy housewives who have the time to clip coupons, my working class wife and I do not.
I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
If the seller knows you are making a million a year, it's a fact that balances against their desire to sell. While their desire to sell could be greater and they might capitulate anyway, they may very well hold faster to their asking price because they know you're able to afford it.
If Warren Buffet makes an offer on my house and tries to negotiate me down on price, I'll hold out and even sell to someone else who also negotiates down on price, but isn't him; all things being equal, I'd rather feel like I helped someone out than was taken advantage of. This is among the reasons people with wealth will often use intermediaries to close deals.
> I'm not denying these practices exist, but its always sleazy businesses that engage in them and most consumers end up moving on once they catch wise. Grocery store vs. Amazon for example.
Amazon owns woot.com, which allows them precisely to engage in price discrimination and the benefits of time-scoped deals while simultaneously offering a more "supercenter" experience on their main site. They capture both sides of the market---people who like to feel they are getting a special deal, and people who prefer the simplicity of one price.
(Besides, since Amazon brokers trades between buyers and sellers who are selling at different prices, they don't even practice "one product, one price" on their main site, really. And they have Amazon Prime, which is a loyalty program).
The FARC deal is now dead as it seems since the referendum has failed but if there was anything in those emails that could have jeopardized the deal it should not have been released.