3 ms·
Because the non-collusive city will come out ahead in this prisoner dilemma.
by kodablah 9y ago
Because the non-collusive city will come out ahead in this prisoner dilemma.
- bryanlarsen 9y agoThis isn't a prisoner's dilemma, the cities are allowed to talk to each other, and to gang up to punish those who break ranks.
- dnautics 9y agoPunish how?
- guyzero 9y agoWhat possible penalty could one city impose on another?
- tzahola 9y agoRevival of medieval city-state wars!
- matte_black 9y agoImagine a future where cities go to war with each other to win the favor of massive corporations.
- internetman55 9y agoIts lit!
- rlanday 9y agoMore relevant to the topic under discussion would be a future where cities go to war to keep each other from winning the favor of massive corporations.
- bryanlarsen 9y agoAny sort of collusion agreement can have a penalty clause, so presumably punitive damages. And damages to reputation are also possible.
- coldtea 9y agoThe only problem is they have nothing to say to each other. The idea of a "collective bargain" in a "winner takes all" situation doesn't make sense.
- neil_s 9y agoWhat is being suggested here is a cartel. Yes, if one city didn't agree to signing up for the non-aggression agreement at all, they may stand to win, but if everyone agrees on non-aggression, then whomever the eventual winner is wins the deal for much cheaper. Of course, in practice, defining what constitutes aggression and tax cuts would be quite difficult, but in theory players competing in a winner takes all market could still work.