The Big Point About The Prisoners Dilemma

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I will repress my urge to make deprecating remarks about your post and will simply tell you that the logical concepts of the prisoners dilemma come up much more often in the opposite context. Namely situations where society is BETTER off when people cooperate rather than defect (and the players themselves gain rather than lose less). There is an excellent book by a Hungarian author who enumerates dozens of such situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept you are missing (and that is most often the major defect of using game theoretical analyses on the economy) is time preference.

The lower an individual's time preference, the less premium he places on current satisfaction relative to future satisfaction. People with lower time preference are always more likely to engage in cooperation than conflict because in the long run, cooperation is almost always a better (less costly and/or risky) solution (conflict is usually very risky and costly).

Luckily, capitalism acts to reduce the time preference of society as a whole, and drives the system towards an ever more cooperative, lower conflict (i.e. civilized) state.

[Mickey Brausch]

He means John von Neumann.

[Darryl_P]

How about another reply by DS ... this time I've got a link to the English version. Was it this one?

I doubt it was von Neumann because that is a name he would have remembered and therefore mentioned IMO.

[HumanACtor]

[ QUOTE ]
There is an excellent book by a Hungarian author who enumerates dozens of such situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is one of them?

[GMontag]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those who don't know The PD or don't get what I am driving at when I bring it up, it is simply this:

There are situations, not that rare, where you would HOPE there was a BIG BROTHER FORCING YOU to make the opposite decision than what is in your best interest (your underboss tells you not to snitch). This occurs when the loss you incur is more than made up for by the fact that a Big Brother is forcing others as well. It would be nice if he forced only them and not you, but failing that, you would prefer that you are included rather than there be no Big Brother at all. And of course "Big Brother" can mean God, government, laws, a group of people, or whatever.

The above words are fact, not opinion. What isn't clear is whether the above words prove that pure capitalism, one that never includes a big brother, is flawed.

Some might say that there is no good way to invoke a Big Brother only when needed. A practical argument but not a theoretical refutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The correct "Big Brother" you are searching for that "forces" you to behave in manners that might seem immediately against your self-interest but ultimately are very much in it is called private property. PD type problems (such as the tragedy of the commons) only occur in the absence of private property (i.e. when there exist commons), and TotC (PD) situations inevitably generate property rights (to reduce costs). Hence, such situations always generate their own solutions, without recourse to centralized violence.

The Prisoners' Dilemma is not a dilemma at all for the free market.

Next.

[/ QUOTE ]

Total nonsense. Every positive externality is a PD type problem. They very much occur even in the presence of private property. They do often generate their own solutions, but usually that solution *is* centralized violence.

[TuNeCedeMalis]

How is it a practical argument but not a theoretical refuation.

This is what I hear you asking:
"Wouldn't it be nice if the fiary tale Christian god that answered all your prayers and looked out for you actually existed? Shouldn't we design a system where that happens?"

It can't happen. The physical reality of the world precludes the possibility. So I don't know what you mean about theory. You can have a theory that this kind of benelovent god exists, but it doesn't.

[HumanACtor]

[ QUOTE ]
Total nonsense. Every positive externality is a PD type problem. They very much occur even in the presence of private property. They do often generate their own solutions, but usually that solution *is* centralized violence.


[/ QUOTE ]

Example please if you dont mind.

[David Sklansky]

I think that was it. Meanwhile I have no idea what those who are arguing with me are saying and am not even sure whether they are talking about the same thing.
For now I have no incentive to delve into it. But I would be curious what they have to say about that book.

[David Sklansky]

"Does pure capitalism imply that people won't cooperate when its to their advantage or is this a practical point about stupid people?"

chez

Neither.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Does pure capitalism imply that people won't cooperate when its to their advantage or is this a practical point about stupid people?"

chez

Neither.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, txs.

Why would a group of rational people HOPE for a big brother?, if they realise they would all be better off if the big brother existed then shouldn't they cooperate and act as if he did?

chez