[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not surprising, (although its mildly surprising I agree with Nielsio on something, lol) because the nature of most of our day to day experiences are zero sum.

Until John Nash came along some very bright people didnt realize that you could prove that non-zero sum but non-cooperative games could reach an equilibrium, and if there were no such equilibrium there would be no win-win solutions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think the question is while the examples given by OP (increased number of billionares, Walmart), while they do not necessarily have to have a "loser", they don't necessarily have to be "win-win", and if you look at people that know what they are talking about criticize these things they don't do it from a zero sum perspective (though I agree you do hear stuff like what the OP referred to a lot)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what youre saying is that while every non-cooperative situation has a Nash equilibrium, that equilibrium isnt always reached, which I think is true. Prisoner's dilemma as an example. One of the two criminals eventually is too stupid/gullible to keep his mouth shut.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure you fully understand the Nash equilibrium. In the PD, defection is the equilibrium.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually my understanding of the NE with regard to PD is that there are multiple equilbriums, but I could be wrong.

Edit: yup. I was wrong. Cooperation is Pareto-optimal while the single NE of defection is sub-optimal. My bad. Its been ~40 years since game theory.