4 ms·

This was the narrative before Brexit, and yet that didn't ultimately stop it. Game theory rarely helps when the actors aren't perfectly rational, which they are

This was the narrative before Brexit, and yet that didn't ultimately stop it. Game theory rarely helps when the actors aren't perfectly rational, which they aren't.

throwaway45349 6y ago
From the perspective of an "irrational actor": Brexit was much more about not liking the political policies of the EU than about cutting the UK off from the rest of the world.
- pas 6y ago
  Not really, it was UK Conservative voters tirning out to vote against Labor. The actual Brexit thing is a red herring. Populism needs leaders, leaders need vague enemies, the EU was perfect.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
I honestly don't understand Brexit. My usual assumption when strange things happen in politics is game-theory-compatible: there are strong incentive structures driving the behavior. A roughly equivalent statement: some (possibly large) group of people is going to get rich off it, and they're directly or indirectly driving the change. But here? I can't point to obvious actors with enough pushing power that would benefit from this. Not on the UK side, at least. Brexit feels to me like a meme that got out of hand and drove behavior that's against everyone's self-interest.
- danielheath 6y ago
  IIRC (and I may not be; check for yourself) the EU were planning much stricter AML laws which were quite firmly opposed by the UK wealth management industry. That's a group with motive and the power to do something about it.
- golemiprague 6y ago
  Voting for Brexit like voting for Trump is partly to raise awareness to people who were harmed by previous policies, like globalisation etc. They don't expect that Brexit or Trump will solve the problem, they just want new order, mayhem and attention which might lead to improvement of their situation. Hillary didn't visit the rust belt, Biden did. In England they didn't care about the situation in the north, the rate of immigration and all the other known issues, now they do. So altogether there is some rational there, a risky one but at least it breaks the status quo.
  - etrabroline 6y ago
    This is a great analysis. The shocking thing is how Trump stole the Democrats' pre-Bush era positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy and won. Bill Clinton opposed NAFTA, Barbara Jordan wanted to slash legal immigration, and Democrats opposed the Iraq war after Bush's reelection. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform-barbara-jordan-commission.html https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration...
- ben_w 6y ago
  In the language of game theory (but not with enough evidence, so this is a Just-So-Story): When he was a journalist, Johnson discovered that “write disparaging lies [0] about European politics” was a successful strategy. It is plausible others noticed this, and likewise found easier to win power by euro-bashing than by being honest. Given the cognitive biases which makes repetition of claims make those claims seem more true, from that point on you get your meme which got out of hand and drove the referendum and its result. Defect-Defect. [0] https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-130475 https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-13...
  - hyperman1 6y ago
    There is a well known dynamic with EU law being translated to national law : If it is perceived as good, the national lawmaker will take credit. If perceived as bad, the national lawmaker will point to these nasty EU bureaucrats. After years of this, the local population will perceive any EU law as bad. A second fun one is unpopular politicians being dumped in EU seats. They vote pro something unpopular, let their local equivalent implement the national law, then blame them for it. Hence extremist politicians make EU law as nasty as possible, just to get some ammonution at home.
- imtringued 6y ago
  UK opted out of many EU policies. Now they simply decided to opt out entirely.
- notahacker 6y ago
  The incentives were the simple (and common) political expediency of using the EU and immigration as scapegoats; whether to excuse their own failings in power or attack the Blair government. Many politicians did that for years without seeing any benefit at all to actually leaving the EU, but as David Cameron found, if you spend long enough blaming the EU for stuff, sooner or later you're going to get cornered into "why don't you do something about it?". And public concern about 'mass immigration' is less about incentive structures to change it and more a constant that seems to exist irrespective of where, when and what the actual levels of immigration are, which results in massive boosts to the political profile of anyone who wishes to talk about it. There are people with obvious financial incentives to get a trade deal with the US (not necessarily on terms beneficial to the UK), and people with obvious political incentives to destabilise Western European liberal democracy, but they were largely in the background. And some prominent Leave campaigners made a lot of money shorting the pound because they believed they would win, but that was just as much a gamble on the result as anyone else directly or indirectly betting on it.
- johnzim 6y ago
  It's almost as if the people who voted for it held some ideal up as more important than wealth. Here's a Nuffield College survey on the subject: http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Rea... I didn't vote for it but maybe taking people at their word for why they voted for it is a good idea? Would you rather other people assigned their own ratios as to why you made your voting decisions, or actually listened to you? Most people can understand the arguments for both sides of most debates, it just involves a little work to grok what they haven't themselves, concluded.
klodolph 6y ago
It’s about degrees. Brexit has a cost, internet balkanization has a cost, the more you isolate your country the more you pay. At some point the costs are too high, and can only be supported by the most authoritarian regimes.

This was the narrative before Brexit, and yet that didn't ultimately stop it. Game theory rarely helps when the actors aren't perfectly rational, which they aren't.

throwaway45349 6y ago

From the perspective of an "irrational actor": Brexit was much more about not liking the political policies of the EU than about cutting the UK off from the rest of the world.

pas 6y ago
Not really, it was UK Conservative voters tirning out to vote against Labor. The actual Brexit thing is a red herring. Populism needs leaders, leaders need vague enemies, the EU was perfect.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

I honestly don't understand Brexit. My usual assumption when strange things happen in politics is game-theory-compatible: there are strong incentive structures driving the behavior. A roughly equivalent statement: some (possibly large) group of people is going to get rich off it, and they're directly or indirectly driving the change. But here? I can't point to obvious actors with enough pushing power that would benefit from this. Not on the UK side, at least. Brexit feels to me like a meme that got out of hand and drove behavior that's against everyone's self-interest.

danielheath 6y ago
IIRC (and I may not be; check for yourself) the EU were planning much stricter AML laws which were quite firmly opposed by the UK wealth management industry. That's a group with motive and the power to do something about it.
golemiprague 6y ago
Voting for Brexit like voting for Trump is partly to raise awareness to people who were harmed by previous policies, like globalisation etc. They don't expect that Brexit or Trump will solve the problem, they just want new order, mayhem and attention which might lead to improvement of their situation. Hillary didn't visit the rust belt, Biden did. In England they didn't care about the situation in the north, the rate of immigration and all the other known issues, now they do. So altogether there is some rational there, a risky one but at least it breaks the status quo.
- etrabroline 6y ago
  This is a great analysis. The shocking thing is how Trump stole the Democrats' pre-Bush era positions on trade, immigration and foreign policy and won. Bill Clinton opposed NAFTA, Barbara Jordan wanted to slash legal immigration, and Democrats opposed the Iraq war after Bush's reelection. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform-barbara-jordan-commission.html https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration...
ben_w 6y ago
In the language of game theory (but not with enough evidence, so this is a Just-So-Story): When he was a journalist, Johnson discovered that “write disparaging lies [0] about European politics” was a successful strategy. It is plausible others noticed this, and likewise found easier to win power by euro-bashing than by being honest. Given the cognitive biases which makes repetition of claims make those claims seem more true, from that point on you get your meme which got out of hand and drove the referendum and its result. Defect-Defect. [0] https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-130475 https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied-13...
- hyperman1 6y ago
  There is a well known dynamic with EU law being translated to national law : If it is perceived as good, the national lawmaker will take credit. If perceived as bad, the national lawmaker will point to these nasty EU bureaucrats. After years of this, the local population will perceive any EU law as bad. A second fun one is unpopular politicians being dumped in EU seats. They vote pro something unpopular, let their local equivalent implement the national law, then blame them for it. Hence extremist politicians make EU law as nasty as possible, just to get some ammonution at home.
imtringued 6y ago
UK opted out of many EU policies. Now they simply decided to opt out entirely.
notahacker 6y ago
The incentives were the simple (and common) political expediency of using the EU and immigration as scapegoats; whether to excuse their own failings in power or attack the Blair government. Many politicians did that for years without seeing any benefit at all to actually leaving the EU, but as David Cameron found, if you spend long enough blaming the EU for stuff, sooner or later you're going to get cornered into "why don't you do something about it?". And public concern about 'mass immigration' is less about incentive structures to change it and more a constant that seems to exist irrespective of where, when and what the actual levels of immigration are, which results in massive boosts to the political profile of anyone who wishes to talk about it. There are people with obvious financial incentives to get a trade deal with the US (not necessarily on terms beneficial to the UK), and people with obvious political incentives to destabilise Western European liberal democracy, but they were largely in the background. And some prominent Leave campaigners made a lot of money shorting the pound because they believed they would win, but that was just as much a gamble on the result as anyone else directly or indirectly betting on it.
johnzim 6y ago
It's almost as if the people who voted for it held some ideal up as more important than wealth. Here's a Nuffield College survey on the subject: http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Reasons_Voting.pdf http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Carl_Rea... I didn't vote for it but maybe taking people at their word for why they voted for it is a good idea? Would you rather other people assigned their own ratios as to why you made your voting decisions, or actually listened to you? Most people can understand the arguments for both sides of most debates, it just involves a little work to grok what they haven't themselves, concluded.

klodolph 6y ago

It’s about degrees. Brexit has a cost, internet balkanization has a cost, the more you isolate your country the more you pay. At some point the costs are too high, and can only be supported by the most authoritarian regimes.