Quote from: ribuck on October 17, 2010, 08:25:05 PM

Hmm. Or maybe he is actually saying that. If I think Starbucks cheated me, I can adjust my balances so that Starbacks has less money and I have more. At the same time, Starbucks will adjust their balances so that they have more money and I have less. I guess everyone else can decide whose balances they want to believe.

But I feel I must be missing the point here. Can anyone shed some light on this?

The idea here is that most people will accept the arbitrator's judgment (remember that both parties have to agree to the choice of arbitrator), unless one of the parties can produce clear evidence that the arbitrator behaved unfairly. So if Starbucks cheated you, and the arbitrator agrees with that, then Starbucks can still adjust their balances so that they have more money and you have less, but then they can't expect to spend that money anywhere else.