Does the equilibrium of non-cooperative games almost always have a worse social outcome than the equilibrium of cooperative games?
I'm talking about games from game theory - a branch of mathematics.
>>7975430
Equilibrium is a meme. Your purpose should be to win the game not make comprimises to the enemy.
>>7975430
It depends on how "non-cooperative" we get. If we throw out human welfare as a basis of values for a given player, then the social effects will become rapidly negative around that player.
>>7975450
By social outcome I mean social welfare - a concept from welfare economics which is used to measure how well a society is doing as a whole.
Not the conventional normie definition of "social effects" as in effects on social interaction.
>>7975448
You can win the game by making compromises. You can also win by cooperating.
Your decisions and strategies are bound by the decisions and strategies of other players - you adjust them in accordance to those of other players.
If everyone starts behaving like a selfish libertarian idiot, everyone will end up being worse off, for example. Just because it seems like you can take as much as you want, it doesn't mean that you will - you're bound by the decisions that others make. If others decide not to give you the money you want to spend, for example, you will end up poor. If some firms decide to overexploit resources, pollute and emit greenhouse gases, then they will end up running everyone into the ground - so we cooperate to stop them.
Retarded libertarians and free, unrestrained market proponents need to learn basic economics and game theory.
>>7975598
>>Retarded libertarians and free, unrestrained market proponents need to learn basic economics and game theory.
and you must learn that whatever map you choose, your map is not the territory.
Your little formalization only works when you train people to behave according to your model, not the other way....
>>7975598
>libertarianism is selfish maymay
>>7975598
> libertarians
> opposed to cooperation
>>7975595
Then yes, but the degradation of welfare will be diluted since the way you're measuring your information is degraded.
>>7975598
This. I just want to point out that >>7975448
>enemy
>meme
that post didn't make any game theory claims. To reframe their post into a game theory construct we need some connective logic:
>the enemy of my enemy is my friend
The whole point of game theory is to stop treating things in terms of "enemies" and realize that no matter how you frame things, game theory will always (re?)emerge. In this case, cooperation is a spontaneous behavior that your enemies enact by realizing that you (the "enemy" thought-proponent) are their shared common enemy. Basically if you say that everyone is a potential enemy then by the same reasoning, you are potentially everyone's enemy and they can gain a great deal by acting in a hostile manner against you.
>>7975640
>whatever map you choose, your map is not the territory
No, that's exceedingly and statistically wrong. You model agents as arbitrarily randomized decision generators, but in reality we only tend to choose a map that already fit the territory. Game theory is the study of the difference in outcomes when we assume that "players" make non-randomized decisions.
Or in fairy terms: Anyone can beat the random AI.
Majority of people online don't play as a team. And they lose to people who work as a team and talk on mics.
>>7975598
>thinks the economy is a zero-sum game
>>7977309
>counterclockwise flow chart
Absolute madman.
>>7977309
Excellent pic. I wish I were in a position to save it.
>>7975448
>Equilibrium is a meme.
Speak the guy who has never read a single thing about the subject.
>>7977339
not your fucking blog, you fucking namefaggot
