Quote from: dinofelis on April 12, 2015, 06:34:59 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on April 11, 2015, 06:03:25 PM

Quote from: dinofelis on April 11, 2015, 12:20:18 PM

Quote from: thaaanos on April 11, 2015, 07:22:45 AM

central planning is not incompatible to democratic concesus, central planing of economy is orthogonal to society's method of rule.

ok lets recap, nash equilibrium existence does not guarantee
1 stability of the eq
2 optimality of the eq
3 reachability of the eq
4 persistance of the eq
now tell me why one should invest playing a game with uncertain outcome? for some illusion of freedom of tv-imposed choice?

This is somewhat akin to:

A: - If you want to jump from an air plane, the only way to have a possibility to reach the ground safely, is with a parachute

B: - Jumping with a parachute doesn't guarantee:
   1) that it will open
   2) that the ropes will not mangle
   3) that down under you will not fall into a lake and drown

now tell me why on earth I should use a parachute with an uncertain outcome ? Let's jump without !

sorry not the same, parachutes have gone through vigorous testing, while "free market" doesnt have a great success record, besides I gave you a jet pack.

I'm not talking about free market, I'm talking about your logical error.

I say: "no social system can be stable if it is not a Nash equilibrium".

You answer: "there's no guarantee that you reach a Nash equilibrium, so let's go for a non-Nash equilibrium solution".

There's a logical error here, which I tried to point out with my colorful parachute example.

The logical error is this:

The statement "if a social system is stable, it needs to be a Nash equilibrium"
is not contradicted by a statement like "one might not reach a Nash equilibrium, or there may be many"
But that certainly doesn't imply: if it is NOT a Nash equilibrium, it might be stable. Indeed, that last statement is forbidden by the theorem that has not been disproved.

It is not because a parachute might not work, that you can save your ass by jumping out of a plane without one. It is not because a Nash equilibrium might not be reached, that you can find stable social systems which aren't Nash equilibrium.

I dont think Nash equilibrium means what you think it means.

Its not a state of existence. It doesnt mean "stable" or "balanced". You cant say whether some system is or not Nash equilibrium. NE is the most probable move.

Example. If we propose change from free market to social medicine what is the likely response by voters? The Nash equilibrium is the most probable vote (yes or no) considering strategy of the individual voter