3 ms·
Ah yes. That completely makes sense. I have been thinking this separately already. Thank you for explaining it though. I appreciate it. More to the point I agre
by krmmalik 11y ago
Ah yes. That completely makes sense. I have been thinking this separately already. Thank you for explaining it though. I appreciate it. More to the point I agree with you.
- mikeash 11y agoGlad to help. And just to follow up real quickly, a "collective action problem" is the standard term in game theory for a situation which fits this kind of scenario, where everyone is better off if they all act together, but any individual acting alone is worse off than if he never acted at all.
- murbard2 11y agoRegarding the second part of the statement... Take Kim Jong Un. He holds considerable power, yet he is probably not particularly physically strong. Of course, he could use a firearm, but even then, he would be fairly easy to stop. However, he has body guard. Besides loyalty, a good reason for these body guards to obey his orders is that otherwise they will be arrested and executed. The people carrying out the arrest will also act on the same incentives. In the end, there is nothing intrinsically powerful about Kim, there just happens to be a complex meta-stable equilibrium of incentives which gives him considerable power.