3 ms·
The latter evolves toward more optimal configurations as a result of the incentive each individual has to improve their station in life. I understand that this
by EliRivers 8y ago
The latter evolves toward more optimal configurations as a result of the incentive each individual has to improve their station in life.
I understand that this economic axiom has been discredited. For example, by the work of Nash.
Society and economy are too complex to deal with based on broad over-simplifying generalizations about entire classes of interaction.
Yet you keep making them. If you think such broad, simplistic generalisations don't apply, why keep making them?
- CryptoPunk 8y agoI understand that this economic axiom has been discredited. For example, by the work of Nash. Can you elaborate? I'm not familiar with any Nash work that discredits it. I know that game theory models show that the principle of First Possession (which many animals exhibit and which is the foundation of free market interaction) minimizes conflict, and moreover, that in a perfectly competitive free market, all interactions lead to Pareto Improvements. Yet you keep making them. If you think such broad, simplistic generalisations don't apply, why keep making them? It's not a generalization. It's a conclusion based on inductive reasoning about the implications of the economic structure of reality, like people being self-interested, and companies that earn less revenue contracting while those that earn more expand. It's no different than believing that all life is subject to evolutionary forces.