

Ask HN: Does the Nash equilibrium promote communism? - chrischen

This question randomly popped into my held while thinking about the many worlds theory.<p>So assuming the economy is a non zero-sum game, wouldn't the most ideal outcome for everyone be achieved if we <i>didn't</i> only pursue our individual interests? I just want to be sure I'm grasping what the Nash equilibrium is.
======
david927
No, but it does promote Socialism. Right now, we're trawling the last fish out
of the ocean. That helps a few people (the fishermen) at the expense of the
rest of the world. It's not a Nash Equalibrium, but it's very much Capitalism.
Without government intervention (Socialism) you would get no fish, inflammable
kids' pajamas and toxins in your food.

~~~
bertramm
I disagree with the above description of a Nash equilibrium. My understanding
of such a thing is: When a Nash equilibrium exists each player's best strategy
to the others create a "equilibrium" point, or a point from which you don't
deviate. In a sense a change in government creates a change in game, not
necessarily a Nash EQ. A Nash EQ in a society with a generally "Capitalist"
economic, with supporting legal statutes, potentially result in players
robbing, stealing, or cheating. However, in a game in which "Communism" is the
economic standard, a Nash EQ may be universal altruism or chaos (my hypothesis
to two possible Nash EQ's --not based in observation).Thus it is incorrect to
blanketly label "Communism" or "Socialism" as a Nash EQ. In a sense a Nash EQ
doesn't care about the morality of its players behaviors only that it is a
relative equilibrium which results in best strategies that do not deviate in
play.

See this Yale open course: <http://oyc.yale.edu/economics/game-theory/>.

~~~
david927
Socialism != Communism. I was saying exactly what you're saying: Capitalism
but with legal and social protections; Capitalism with boundaries; and that's
what most people refer to when they say Socialism.

