Red Paperclip: Success
Well, the guy who set out to keep trading-up from one red paperclip to a house has succeeded.
He traded a red paperclip for a pen, which he traded for a doorknob, which he traded for a grill, which he traded for a generator, which he traded for a keg and neon beer sign, which he traded for a snowmobile, which he traded for a trip to Canada, which he traded for a van, which he traded for a recording contract, which he traded for a year's housing in Arizon, which he traded for an afternoon with Alice Cooper, which he traded for a KISS snow globe, which he traded for a role in a movie, which he traded for a house in Saskatchewan.
I'm pretty sure some people participated for the novelty and publicity (let's face it — that particular paperclip would go for $100 on eBay, easily).
But it's a fun example of how trade increases wealth — nothing new was grown, manufactured, etc. during the process, yet all participants are happier after their trade (otherwise, why do it?) and some dude parlayed his freaking paperclip into a house.
god DAMN it.
i need to think of the dumbest idea (trading a paperclip for a house, selling a million pixels on a webpage) and fucking do it already. this is getting ridiculous.
It's no "Million Dollar Homepage".
I mean, it's a shitty little house near freaking Saskatoon.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 10, 2006 10:57 AM | permalinkI love Canada though, I'd be psyched. If I could actually reside in it. damn immigration laws. :(
million dollar home page does crush it though, just because you could buy 5 houses or so.
Posted by: Chad Day on July 10, 2006 11:42 AM | permalink"But it's a fun example of how trade increases wealth — nothing new was grown, manufactured, etc. during the process, yet all participants are happier after their trade"
Some people, somewhere along the way had to suffer in order for happiness to increase for others.
Economists would make bad physicists.
Posted by: Od-ll on July 10, 2006 1:39 PM | permalink"Some people, somewhere along the way had to suffer in order for happiness to increase for others."
Ugh. No they don't -- that's the whole point!
There is no conservation of wealth, like there is with mass and energy.
You absolutely *can* have a transaction where both parties are better off.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 10, 2006 4:02 PM | permalinkThe items didn't originally appear out of nowhere. There was the initial cost of money/materials/happiness from that. I know what you are saying, but I feel that you are exaggerating the "wealth from nowhere" bit.
And yes, there is a general conservation of wealth in the world - it flows from the poor at the bottom to the wealthy at the top, in the form of money and labor. In this case, there is a conservation of wealth because items merely exchanged hands.
I thought about this one day and realized that a lot of initial input in the country's wealth was from slave labor from long ago. It would be interesting to find out how much of today's dollars can be attributed to that essentially free labor.
Posted by: Od-ll on July 10, 2006 5:12 PM | permalinkThat's simply not true, that "there is a conservation of wealth because items merely exchanged hands."
If you're hungry and I'm cold, and I trade you some of my extra food for your extra clothing, then we're both better off (i.e. wealthier) than when we started.
The same applies to services -- if you want a haircut, and some barber wants more money, then you both gain from making that transaction at a price you can agree to. This, in spite of the fact that the trade doesn't result in any goods changing hands.
The economic impact of slavery is an interesting question. I think it's basically impossible to separate out slavery money (or colonial money, in the case of Europe) from present-day money. I mean, the increase in America's fortunes over the past century has been meteoric -- but the slavery that preceeded it was a significant part of the economy it sprung from.
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 10, 2006 5:57 PM | permalinkOk, it makes a difference when I use your definition of wealth.
Posted by: Od-ll on July 10, 2006 8:16 PM | permalinkAfter actually reading the website, I've got to make one more comment about how this is a product of the media and won't work quite the same in reality.
The first few trades were of close enough value to make sense. However, at the point of the snowmobile, things got ridiculous: the guy who offered to trade it (which was worth far more than his 'instant party') has a tv and radio show. From the snowmobile on, trades happened because the guy was on CNN and in newspapers.
Yes, he got his house, but the average person, without media attention, wouldn't get very far. Nobody in their right mind will trade you a cube van for a trip to Yahk.
Posted by: Od-ll on July 12, 2006 2:46 AM | permalinkYeah, I agree that some of the trades were absurd. But, do you not think that, with more time and more trades, he still could have gotten there eventually?
Posted by: Joe Grossberg on July 12, 2006 8:18 AM | permalink
And now... 24 hours later... the PARODY video...
can you trade a paperclip for a crackhouse in the ghetto?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRjnhKXCwPI
Posted by: mark day on July 12, 2006 11:09 AM | permalinkIt would have taken a lot longer, but yeah, he still could have done it.
I'd like to see the results of someone trying similar but not getting any media attention until after the last trade.
Posted by: Od-ll on July 12, 2006 12:20 PM | permalinkNo more comments! Either someone has violated Godwin's Law, I'm tired of the discussion or, most likely, the ten-week window has closed. You can, however, contact me through email.