3 ms·

To 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 a

To 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 ago
  Okay, 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.
dragonwriter 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 Given that there is plenty of evidence that relative deprivation is a major source of disutility, getting them to exclude themselves from the social milieu in which other people exist would be a net win, though less than that of them staying and complying. But, objectivist fantasy novels aside, there's not a lot of evidence that that's a significant effect in the real world. The people that are actually most successful in modern society understand the role society plays in the utility they derive from success a lot better than some of the wannabes that imagine how they would deal with similar success.
- michaelscott 7y ago
  I largely agree, but would just clarify that the players in any economy, capitalist or not, can be both people and companies/legal entities. The more globally oriented modern society means that any player of sufficient resource can implement multiple, compartmentalised strategies for various aspects of that resource (eg. various taxes, corporate structure, government incentives) under differing rulesets. If a ruleset becomes too onerous (which there is evidence for in modern settings like Zimbabwe or Venezuela) then a player may decide that the utility of the society is not worth the loss in resource and remove themselves from a game which enforces such a ruleset. In all other cases though I agree completely with your insight.

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 ago
Okay, 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.

dragonwriter 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 Given that there is plenty of evidence that relative deprivation is a major source of disutility, getting them to exclude themselves from the social milieu in which other people exist would be a net win, though less than that of them staying and complying. But, objectivist fantasy novels aside, there's not a lot of evidence that that's a significant effect in the real world. The people that are actually most successful in modern society understand the role society plays in the utility they derive from success a lot better than some of the wannabes that imagine how they would deal with similar success.

michaelscott 7y ago
I largely agree, but would just clarify that the players in any economy, capitalist or not, can be both people and companies/legal entities. The more globally oriented modern society means that any player of sufficient resource can implement multiple, compartmentalised strategies for various aspects of that resource (eg. various taxes, corporate structure, government incentives) under differing rulesets. If a ruleset becomes too onerous (which there is evidence for in modern settings like Zimbabwe or Venezuela) then a player may decide that the utility of the society is not worth the loss in resource and remove themselves from a game which enforces such a ruleset. In all other cases though I agree completely with your insight.