Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 11:20:16

Game theory wonks have proven that cooperation often beats competition, but not always.
How can cooperation -- if you define it as something other than competition -- beat competition, unless its in competition with, er, competition, in which case its not cooperation . . . :;):
(Not even sure what "Obama" is yet, just started reading this thread.)

Sorry, Mundaka.

I now see your post is more subtle that I first thought. Nah, I NEVER jump to hasty conclusions. Never. :;):

I think of it like this, in non-zero sum games altruistic cooperation (as commonly understood) is usually the better strategy. In zero sum games, competition or strategic cooperation (alliances) is usually the better strategy.

In the real world, my view of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TANSTAAFL]TANSTAAFL depends on whether life is or is not a zero sum game.

Hard-core (classical liberal) advocates of the TANSTAAFL principle seem to assume that markets are efficient unless due to interference by the government or other "outside" forces.

Is it reasonable to assume that markets are inherently efficient absent government interference? I say NO! Market inefficiencies arise from many sources, including government.

I also say we have barely scrached the surface of our ability to remove inefficiencies from the market. What are the hypothetical limits of worker productivity given increasingly advanced technology?

Removing inefficiencies is NOT a zero-sum game.

Morris · 2004-08-13 15:26:33

Asking which is "better" -- competition or cooperation seems to me rather like asking an electrician whether the ( + ) or ( - ) wires are "more important" than the other.
Spoilsport! You take all the fun out of arguing <chuckle>.
Okay, you want to argue on these boards? Simple-minded libertarians annoy me with their shallow reasoning.

<heh-heh>Ok. Not near as much as woolly-headed, spendthrift, pinko, liberal bureaucrats bother me. <wink, chuckle>

There! That's done. <shake?>

Morris · 2004-08-13 16:00:16

I

Hard-core (classical liberal) advocates of the TANSTAAFL principle seem to assume that markets are efficient unless due to interference by the government or other "outside" forces.
Is it reasonable to assume that markets are inherently efficient absent government interference? I say NO! Market inefficiencies arise from many sources, including government.

I think that classical liberals and especially libertarians place so much emphasis on government interference because the "free-market" value of something depends upon the "free, unforced judgement of the traders" but when government is involved, in any way, there is always at least the implicit, and often the explicit, threat of force.

But all inefficiencies (or non-rational judgements based on expected values) do not result from outside factors. A number of aspects of the way we think as human beings contribute to non-rational judgements in a variety of situations. A wonderful summary of these can be found in Daniel Kahneman's 2002 Nobel Prize http://www.nobel.se/economics/laureates … ml]lecture in Economics entitled "Maps of Bounded Rationality". The lecture can be watched via RealPlayer and/or downloaded in .pdf format. Kahneman is the first psychologist to win a Nobel Prize and I think it is fitting that it was in economics. Unfortunately, there is no Nobel prize for psychology.

Let me know what you think.

Morris · 2004-08-13 16:08:59

Does anybody know how Obama is reacting to his new opponent, Allan Keyes. In 2000 Keyes got 20% of the primary vote here in Arkansas running for President against Bush.

Boy was our governor embarrassed at the Republican convention that year having to cast a few votes for Keyes on the first ballot!

BWhite · 2004-08-13 20:04:01

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … senate]One link

Morris · 2004-08-13 21:35:09

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … senate]One link

Ah. Yes the entertainment value of the campaign should be adequate. :;):

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-08-13 11:20:16

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#52 2004-08-13 15:26:33

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#53 2004-08-13 16:00:16

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#54 2004-08-13 16:08:59

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#55 2004-08-13 20:04:01

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

#56 2004-08-13 21:35:09

Re: Obama thread continuted... - Lost posts in old one.

Board footer