Game Theory

[Anonymous No.3922347]

Do you think the current U.S. politics between Democrats and Republics over the budget deficit debate as a game of prisoner dilemma, a game of stag hunt, or a game of chicken and what do you think will be the consequences?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3922358]

I think it's a game of America-is-fucked-because-of-them

[Anonymous No.3922377]

It most closely resembles a game of chicken as neither side is currently willing to concede anything which results in absolutely nothing being accomplished and shit just gradually getting worse, whereas some form of compromise is necessary for shit to not just keep getting worse.

But reducing the complexity of the US political system to binary game theory when hugely complex game theory analysis is often actually applied to politics is like trying to model a fully functioning jet airplane using basic high school algebra.

[Anonymous No.3922382]

No one on /sci/ is going to know what any of this means. Try /int/.

[Anonymous No.3922389]

>>3922358
No America is fucked because of it's people. It's a democracy so if anything gets fucked it's everybody's fault.

If America was destroy and started to be cannibalized for its economic resources tomorrow then nobody would be the wiser to blame one or two GROUPS of people for all it's problems, mistakes and shortcomings. That's the type of shit retard tier conspiracy theorists do to run away from the scary facts of real life. What's scary with America is the philosophical and political implications of a country on it's technological and scale failing. By philosophical and political implications I mean to say the ideas of independence and mass multiculturalism (failing). Also, in regards to frightening facts about life, if America fails then we'll be one step closer to intellectuals selling themselves for some form of global totalitarianism which will be known by wider scales of population with some other branding.

[Filenamefag !ZkcfZDEybM!!kn0zMgLJnqE No.3922406]

The economic situation, in my opinion, is a case of the prisoner's dilemma, but it has nothing to do with our inept congress. The dilemma lies in the position of employers and banks. If you're, say, a bank and you give out a loan in the current economic downturn, you're going to pay for it. If you're a business, you can't hire because there might be another crash.

So, either everyone jumps in at the same time and things pick back up, the ones who jump early drown in economic chaos, or no one does anything and we all slowly sink into the mud. It's like watching wildebeest on the edge of a river crossing waiting to see who goes first. Congress may do some things that could make them more confident in that first plunge, but they can't fix it themselves. Frankly, I agree with the starbucks CEO's plan (which pains me; believe me).

That's a short term solution, by the way. I have other opinions about the long run. I'm also a naive moron who probably doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Anonymous No.3922454]

wrong forum, and introductory game theory is boring. You want to talk interesting game theory, let's talk time consistent fiscal policy

[Anonymous No.3922649]

>>3922406
There are prisoner's dilemmas everywhere and there is nothing discretely significant about "the economic situation", in fact that's entirely moot to there being a prisoner's dilemma (or not). Anyone who lends out money is in asymmetrical prisoner's dilemma. The only thing you're referring to is the height of the stakes as opposed to the format.