6 ms·
the author is focused on finite games, which are games that you play to win. but it's interesting to think about applying the same logic to infinite games, wher
by igor47 7y ago
the author is focused on finite games, which are games that you play to win. but it's interesting to think about applying the same logic to infinite games, where the goal is to keep playing forever.
For instance, capitalism is a game that most players assume we'll just keep playing. How do you deal with some players having an advantage? Currently, the advantage only compounds (literally, ie compound interest). What if instead, the game became more difficult for those players, as discussed in the article?
- adjkant 7y agoI think you're basically describing egalitarianism, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd recommend Rawls as good philosophical material on the subject. Always been how I view the world personally and I think people underestimate how much of it could be compatible with free markets and a good deal of general and important freedoms. Of course that's a much longer debate. To get back to the point, what the author describing is also egalitarian. I think people are generally more interested in it with a game because of the finite setting. Golf handicaps are a perfect example that would have fit well into the article. People get more wary as the scope expands.
- claudiawerner 7y agoThere are also a variety of other perspectives worth reading; I found Tony Smith's Beyond Liberal Egalitarianism. Marx and Normative Social Theory in the Twenty-First Century (Brill, 2017) to be a great counter-point to both Rawls and Nozick.
- cirlesquarebook 7y agoIs capitalism actually assumed to go on forever though? The idea of a post scarcity society isn't new. Hell, Marx's presentation of how communism would arise was largely rooted in the idea that capitalism would increase efficiency to the point that it would no longer make sense to follow its model any longer.
- a_imho 7y agoMake sense to who? I don't think the beneficiaries of a particular setup are incentivized to challenge the status quo.
- michaelscott 7y agoTo continue the game theory tilt, the problem with making the game harder as the player advantage increases is that it disincentivises the player from seeking advantage at all. In the theoretical game of "capitalism" this sounds like a good idea, but in the real world a government that imposes these kinds of game restrictions through something like taxes only forces the advantaged players to pull out of the "game" completely (a nett negative for those reliant on their advantage long term) and move their advantage to another "game". This isn't necessarily a bad thing though, so long as the vast majority of players still in the game have enough resource to continue playing comfortably.
- Kbelicius 7y ago> but in the real world a government that imposes these kinds of game restrictions through something like taxes only forces the advantaged players to pull out of the "game" completely (a nett negative for those reliant on their advantage long term) and move their advantage to another "game". This would be true only if profits are the only motivation for humans to do anything... and that is not true. Also, currently, there is no other "game".
- michaelscott 7y agoOkay, I'll clarify with an example: Apple is a company, and they care about the growth and general value of themselves as a company. Let's say this can be measured as their NAV (simplistic I know, but it suffices) which is what the market will assess them on. Profits absolutely are the motivation for Apple, as with most other companies that make up the microeconomy of what I'm calling here a "game", or nation/jurisdiction (because each jurisdiction has a different set of rules for the game, called the jurisdictional law). Unlike other companies, though, Apple has now grown to a size where we can say that they have a very strong advantage in this "game", the American market, but there exists a strategy such that they're able to maximise their reward output by switching "games". Since they're a rational player they do so, and switch their tax jurisdiction, or "game", to Ireland, who plays by a different set of rules. This isn't a perfect example because I don't think the United States penalises companies based on their performance through tax, but if Apple is already doing this in such a situation what would happen if the United States did implement a progressive tax rate on companies [0]? Now consider how many individuals rely on the existence of Apple within the American "game", and how many may or may not be affected by a full move out of said "game" (again, a silly example I know, but I hope it makes the point clear). [0] The US may actually do this already and I'm just not aware of it. If so, feel free to correct me.
- pyrale 7y agoLife is not a game, and capitalism is not consensual like playing a game is. I don't believe, for instance, that farmers suiciding after losing their farm should be likened to sore losers.