"The second component - is something where I feel more like I know what my teachers would say, than like I really know the answer."  (These, of course, are vastly different internal subjective sensations that no dath ilani would confuse.)  "What I think they'd say is that the amount of human interaction and endeavor where we mutually benefit one another, in a way that we negotiate explicitly, where we could possibly pay to have a third party evaluate the outputs, is the tip of an ice floe... you don't have much ice here.  Is the thin tip of a pyramid, whose much larger base is all the places where people cooperate with each other without explicitly negotiating a price in money.  Can I arrive a little late to our meeting?  Oh, sure, they say.  Somewhere in the back of their mind, you expended a tiny bit of your social currency with them, and they now think you owe them a tiny bit of debt or cancel a tiny bit of debt they used to consider themselves to owe you.  And you'll also keep track of how much you fairly owe one another in implicit favors like that, and if the two of you disagree on that a little, it should only cause a breakup with very small probability, but if the divergence gets wider, maybe the two of you don't want to deal with each other anymore.  When you don't even stop to negotiate and no money changes hands, matters are in a much less legible place still, and you're relying to an accordingly greater degree on people being implicitly fair in how they reward effort or output, which means that the surrounding structure which incentivizes that implicit fairness matters even more."

"I'm sort of skeptical about to what degree you really need all those implicit exchanges and couldn't maybe just pass small bits of money back and forth more often, like maybe in the world made of Kelthams they just do that.  But also I've never really tried it so maybe my imaginary teachers are right in what I imagine them saying, and that wouldn't actually work."

"The second component - is something where I feel more like I know what my teachers would say, than like I really know the answer."  (These, of course, are vastly different internal subjective sensations that no dath ilani would confuse.)  "What I think they'd say is that the amount of human interaction and endeavor where we mutually benefit one another, in a way that we negotiate explicitly, where we could possibly pay to have a third party evaluate the outputs, is the tip of an ice floe... you don't have much ice here.  Is the thin tip of a pyramid, whose much larger base is all the places where people cooperate with each other without explicitly negotiating a price in money.  Can I arrive a little late to our meeting?  Oh, sure, they say.  Somewhere in the back of their mind, you expended a tiny bit of your social currency with them, and they now think you owe them a tiny bit of debt or cancel a tiny bit of debt they used to consider themselves to owe you.  And you'll also keep track of how much you fairly owe one another in implicit favors like that, and if the two of you disagree on that a little, it should only cause a breakup with very small probability, but if the divergence gets wider, maybe the two of you don't want to deal with each other anymore.  When you don't even stop to negotiate and no money changes hands, matters are in a much less legible place still, and you're relying to an accordingly greater degree on people being implicitly fair in how they reward effort or output, which means that the surrounding structure which incentivizes that implicit fairness matters even more."

"I'm sort of skeptical about to what degree you really need all those implicit exchanges and couldn't maybe just pass small bits of money back and forth more often, like maybe in the world made of Kelthams they just do that.  But also I've never tried it so maybe my imaginary teachers are right in what I imagine them saying, that it wouldn't work, or it would just be more inconvenient without helping much."

"The second component - is something where I feel more like I know what my teachers would say, than like I really know the answer."  (These, of course, are vastly different internal subjective sensations that no dath ilani would confuse.)  "What I think they'd say is that the amount of human interaction and endeavor where we mutually benefit one another, in a way that we negotiate explicitly, where we could possibly pay to have a third party evaluate the outputs, is the tip of an ice floe... you don't have much ice here.  Is the thin tip of a pyramid, whose much larger base is all the places where people cooperate with each other without explicitly negotiating a price in money.  Can I arrive a little late to our meeting?  Oh, sure, they say.  Somewhere in the back of their mind, you expended a tiny bit of your social currency with them, and they now think you owe them a tiny bit of debt or cancel a tiny bit of debt they used to consider themselves to owe you.  And you'll also keep track of how much you fairly owe one another in implicit favors like that, and if the two of you disagree on that a little, it should only cause a breakup with very small probability, but if the divergence gets wider, maybe the two of you don't want to deal with each other anymore.  When you don't even stop to negotiate and no money changes hands, matters are in a much less legible place still, and you're relying to an accordingly greater degree on people being implicitly fair in how they reward effort or output, which means that the surrounding structure which incentivizes that implicit fairness matters even more."

"I'm sort of skeptical about to what degree you really need all those implicit exchanges, and couldn't maybe just pass small bits of money back and forth more often, like maybe in the world made of Kelthams they just do that.  But also I've never tried it, so maybe my imaginary teachers are right in what I imagine them saying, that it wouldn't work, or it would just be more inconvenient without helping much."