| | I was recently rereading Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" -- a short book he wrote close to his passing.
In one of the later chapters, he ponders game theory, and makes the observation that virtually all of the games we play are win lose/zero sum. And I agree with that observation; how can one not?
He then extends that observation to the game "Monopoly" and sure enough, the rules of the game "Monopoly" -- without the inevitable personal adjustments(loans, forgiveness to keep the game going, side bets)-- eventually has a winner and loser, who ends up bankrupt.
Sure enough.
But then he extends that observation to our economies, and that is a total blunder. Our economies are nothing like a zero sum poker game or monopoly game with a fixed set of chips, with zero mobility, with a binary set of opportunities. In the real economies, it is possible to be both a landlord and a renter as well as neither, all at the same time, in different contexts, at different points in our life, modulated primarily by our intellect and effort-- no matter what birth advantages any other players in our non-zero sum game might have, or what their current account, debt, and savings balances are.
What is easy to ignore in a game like Monopoly is how little choice is involved; the only superficial choice is, which properties to buy and which to pass on. But everything else in that game is pure chance with no choice involved; you roll a 3, you must pay rent on Boardwalk. You don't have the choice to walk on buy and stay where you can afford to stay. You indeed will go bankrupt when you are a pawn on a gameboard driven by dice.
By what stretch of the imagination is that a model of our economies? We have far more broader economic choices than the constraints of 'Monopoly.'
Sagan observes that it is hard to think of a game that is not Zero Sum win lose. True enough. But it is not hard at all to think of an example of human interaction that is not based on Zero Sum win/lose -- it happens all the time, every day, and it is called commerce.
Take any item that is sold in commerce. A gallon of gasoline. A bottle of ketchup. Buyer meets seller when the buyer walks into a store and sees the current price.
There is not just one Magic Market Price at which the sale will occur. There is a range of price at which the buyer will buy, there is a range of price at which the seller will sell. When those ranges overlap, a sale will occur, an exchange of value for value.
In virtually every exchange that is made, those ranges overlap; a buyer would pay more, and still make the exchange. A seller would take less, and still make the exchange. And so, in these exchanges, it is not 'win-lose.' It is virtually always 'win-win' (The buyer bought at a lower price than he would have willingly paid, the seller sold at a higher price that he would have willingly accepted. That is win-win.)
At the very least-- as long as a trade is made -- the exchange is "Win-break even." We don't "lose" because our trading partner also "won" -- except in our seedy little left wing brains.
The only other possibility is "Lose-lose"-- that is what happens when the sale isn't made at all. The buyer wants to buy it, but not at the price offered. The seller wants to sell it, but not at the price offered. They both fail to win, there is no exchange. See our present economies, flat on their back in service to failing left wing theories of economics.
Critics of this analysis say it doesn't apply to 'necessities of life.' It applies only to 'things we want' ... not 'things we need.'
Think about THAT one. Things we need are things we value greatly-- more so than things we merely want. Critics who put forth this agument must believe that there is a class of suppliers on earth who were put there to provide the needs of others at any price they dictate-- like slave owners, who own others based on the circumstance that they are unable to provde for their own necessities of life--thus elevating them to slaveowner status-- while others ability to provide those necessities are rendered slaves--by their ability.
See, because they are 'necessities', those with a need are forgiven not only the simply human obligation to 'ask' for subsidy from peers, because those peers might not willingly give 'enough,' but from the conditions imposed on all of us by the universe, as it is, with its uphills and downhills. And those with the ability to provide are stripped of the opportunity for benevolence because they might not be benevolent 'enough' ... as dictated by the self appointed Emperors of Enough.
And so, a model of peer- based freedom is eschewed in favor of a 'mixed' model of freedom and tyranny, because after all, humans who can't, with guns, are less likely to be tyrants than humans who can, without guns.
Huh?
Today's paper: local township tax manager and her ex-cop husband caught skimming a million dollars in tax revenues from a township of 18,000 taxpayers.
Now THAT was zero sum win/lose. I guess she needed it.
regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 6/02, 10:53am)
|
|
