3 ms·

I disagree. According to the article, the USPS is subsidizing Chinese imports to the tune of approximately $150,000,000 per year. We have exhausted all other pr

I disagree. According to the article, the USPS is subsidizing Chinese imports to the tune of approximately $150,000,000 per year. We have exhausted all other practical approaches to resolving this outrage. China will not budge unless they know they have to. That's the tie-in with prisoner's dilemma, you see? Only by making the other party aware that negative consequences are dire, certain, and soon can an equitable outcome for both parties be achieved. I would note that China has already leveraged government borrowing power to the hilt in order to artificially support their stock market prices, leaving them almost no room the maneuver. You argue that this it is childish for us to force the issue. No. Wrong. It's game theory. Do you want a good outcome?

DuskStar 7y ago
> That's the tie-in with prisoner's dilemma, you see? I feel like I should point out that the example I posted differs from the classic prisoner's dilemma by making the differential utility of moving to the defect, defect state negative for both parties. Normally, defection improves the defector's utility, so that space would be something like (3,3). Still game theory though.
kerkeslager 7y ago
> You argue that this it is childish for us to force the issue. No, I don't argue that at all. I argue that it's childish to say China is forcing us to do this. I also said it's foolish to only look at the cost of continuing to subsidize Chinese imports, and not ALSO look at the cost of leaving the global postal union. Your post shows that you continue to only look at the former costs, and have yet to even acknowledge that the latter has cost. Incidentally, looking at ALL the possible outcomes to choose your action is exactly what game theory about, so don't cite game theory as if it proves your point when in fact you're refusing to actually use game theory.

DuskStar 7y ago

> That's the tie-in with prisoner's dilemma, you see? I feel like I should point out that the example I posted differs from the classic prisoner's dilemma by making the differential utility of moving to the defect, defect state negative for both parties. Normally, defection improves the defector's utility, so that space would be something like (3,3). Still game theory though.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> You argue that this it is childish for us to force the issue. No, I don't argue that at all. I argue that it's childish to say China is forcing us to do this. I also said it's foolish to only look at the cost of continuing to subsidize Chinese imports, and not ALSO look at the cost of leaving the global postal union. Your post shows that you continue to only look at the former costs, and have yet to even acknowledge that the latter has cost. Incidentally, looking at ALL the possible outcomes to choose your action is exactly what game theory about, so don't cite game theory as if it proves your point when in fact you're refusing to actually use game theory.