Talk:Money pump

Cleanup discussion
Okay. I have done quite a bit of basic cleanup but I am not an economist and most of the sources are Ελληνικός to me. I would appreciate any feedback (and help) for fixing up this article. I do know that the original editor who started this article (, who is Dr. Asad Zaman) wanted to differentiate this topic from the related concept Dutch book and I would like to respect that moving forward.

PS: I am a little puzzled because there are two existing Wikipedia articles on the latter subject, the aforementioned Dutch book and also Dutch book paradox... While it is not critical to this page, I can't help but wonder why those two are separate articles? Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 06:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help out when I get some time (hopefully soon). Re Dutch book, the examples should probably be merged into the main article. Brycehughes (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * For now let's keep the two topics separate. My thinking is to cleanup the one before complicating it with any possible content merger. We need to see what strength level this page can achieve so that if there eventually is merger we can also determine which is merged into which. In the end there may be enough material for two independent articles even, it is just too early to tell. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 06:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was suggesting that the examples in Dutch book paradox should (some day) be merged into Dutch book. Brycehughes (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation Style
I have placed a request for feedback onto the Talk page for WikiProject Economics in order to try and identify the most appropriate citation style for the article. Please leave any comments on citation style in this subsection, thank you. Koala Tea Of Mercy ( KTOM's Articulations &amp; Invigilations ) 06:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Overly critical
This article gives the impression of discussing a considerably fought over concept in economics, instead of a minor thought experiment. Additionally, the article is overly critical, spending a lot of time on the criticism of the concept, in relation to everything else. This comment seems to be in consensus with the earlier discussions. It would be great if somebody could try to fix this. I will try to get back to it myself, once I have more time.Andre908436 (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Answers to some objections
There are several queries on the current version which are nearly ALL answered in the references provided -- interested parties may look up and update to remove the objections on the main article:

Standard economic theory[specify] assumes that preferences are transitive.[citation needed] This should be replaced by: Economic theory is constructed on the assumption that people have utility functions. The existence of utility functions requires transitive preferences. CITATION: ANY ECON TEXTBOOK --

However, many[weasel words] people[who?] have argued that intransitive preferences are quite common, and often[weasel words] observed in real world settings.[citation needed] The SEP article cited Hansson, Sven Ove; Grüne-Yanoff, Till (2012). Edward N. Zalta, ed. "Preferences". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2012 ed.) (Stanford University). sec. 1.3 Transitivity. provides a list of authors who have made this argument and references to their published work

The Money Pump argument was invented[by whom?] to show that rational behavior requires transitive preferences.[citation needed] The following quote is taken from entry on Dynamic Choice in SEP, which is citation number 3. Given the famous “money pump argument,” which is suggested by Frank Ramsey's reasoning concerning dutch books (1926) and is developed by Donald Davidson, J. McKinsey, and Patrick Suppes (1955), it is clear that intransitive preferences can be problematic. Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy article "Preferences"[1]

Similarly all places where (citation needed) occurs are either so famous (like transitivity required for utility) as to require no reference, or else taken from the sources cited.

For example about the focusing effect, the LINKED Wikipedia entry provides the information asked for. Asaduzaman (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)