4 ms·
Exactly. You don't need a conspiracy to describe a stable but sub-optimal outcome: you just need it to be a Nash equilibrium.
by Patient0 13y ago
Exactly. You don't need a conspiracy to describe a stable but sub-optimal outcome: you just need it to be a Nash equilibrium.
- fab13n 13y agoIt's stronger than a Nash equilibrium. It's not even an equilibrium actually, because we keep improving humans' productivity, and bureaucracies keep eating the freed workforce. It's really easier to make sense out of it from an ecologist's PoV than from an economist's or a game theoretician's, because the two competing agents (humans and bureaucracies) are hard to formally separate.
- singingfish 13y ago> It's stronger than a Nash equilibrium. It's not even an equilibrium actually, ... An alternative is that it's an equilibrium, but that we haven't hit where it starts to operate as one yet.