> Nash, and the many economists who have followed in his footsteps over the past sixty-five years, can’t necessarily provide an answer. > This is just one of t

> Nash, and the many economists who have followed in his footsteps over the past sixty-five years, can’t necessarily provide an answer. > This is just one of the drawbacks of Nash’s approach. Another problem is that game theory is mentally taxing. I find those depictions a bit skewed. Nash equilibrium is kind of like Thermodynamic Equilibrium, and that's fine. Why does it have to be a one-stop-solve-all? Mentally tasking: so what? That's just what assuming that people are superrational means. You must expect assumptions to be made when people behaviour is being studied. I would think "Behavioural Economics" must do some complexity theory pushed down there to see how decisions vs. optimality decision making would interact and finally crack the whole cognitive-economy. They do give lip service to the fact that an economic theory could not possibly predict the future exactly, but that's not even the point. Economic theory contributions must be valued in more than one way, and it is my impression that Nash equilibrium is specifically about stable-points in a field of possible transitions.