Comments on: Unrealistic Nobel economics Wed, 07 Oct 2015 17:23:32 +0000 hourly 1 By: trevorh Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:17:42 +0000 Oops, the above comment was not meant to bash the Nobel winners this year. It is meant to criticize people who see “game” as unavoidable part, the truth of life.

By: trevorh Thu, 25 Oct 2012 00:13:53 +0000 I generally don’t like game theorists, because they have a philosophical view on life that I find scary.

In sum, they believe that the universe is finite, and thus the implicit idea of any gain is predicated on some loss somewhere else. Most generally don’t recognize nor believe that things can come from zero, void, emptiness and thin air.

Many game theorist followers thus believe that “Life is truly a finite game” to the point that they have no intention of trying to create things from zero. To some of them, in life you have to lie, cheat, scam, steal from others. That’s what life is. The problem is how to do it without getting caught.

The immoral ones put effort into learning the rules and find the flaws (because nothing is perfect) in order to “game the system”, “milk the system”. The ones with good guidance of morality on the other hand learn to avoid and try not to lose what they already have, minimizing potential loss.

Some people take it further with their fear of “survival of the fittest”. I disagree with “Survival of the fittest” on two counts. The first is “survival” and the second is “fittest”.

I believe that if everyone, every group, every country works together then EVERYONE can survive with some acceptable living standard. We don’t have to live in constant fear. We will work out technological and scientific methods to achieve that.

So “survival” should be “expansion” “growth”, and “fittest” be “productive”. Everyone will survive, but only the most productive INDIVIDUALS, the ones who can contribute the most, the “richest”, the ones with the most to offer, the ones who offer the most to OTHERS (whether it is strength, beauty, intelligence, etc..) should grow and expand.

“Growth of the most productive” is a much more humane, civilized yet logical idea.

Some people will scream and curse but the reality is that there is unlikely any system which can withstand “growth of the takers”

I personally believe that we should learn the “system” and how the world operates in order to fix, remove or at least limit the flaws in the system instead. We still have to try to get “better” knowing that we cannot get “perfect”, we have to improve the system.

Perhaps a good way to live is to constantly be on the look out for new things to come out from zero, for new ideas to come to our mind, new things so we can enrich and add into what we have hopefully without incurring a loss on others.

– A game theory hater 😛 –

By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:03:42 +0000 Perhaps we expect too much? “Stable pairwise matching” need not be the “be all, end all” to all questions in order to be worthy of a Nobel. The “journey of a thousand miles” still begins with a single step FORWARD. To such extent as “stable pairwise matching” brings about permanent decisions there is merit. Every “permanent decision” reduces the relative chaos of individual lives, and subsequent decisions become progressively easier. Each of us travel this path from puberty to old age, and the pace is not always smooth or easy.

While TEMPORARY satisfaction may seem simplistic, let’s look a bit harder at marriage. When marriage results in a lasting personal and mutual economic alliance of assets and purpose. Simply because in the United States more marriages end in divorce than a lifelong relationship, is that any reason to disregard the institution as a worthwhile goal for all to pursue as best possible. It’s successes infinitely strengthen our society, entirely independent from it’s failures.

“Human nature” is something twelve people will define twelve different ways. Each of us has a different “life experience” and “role models”. Our very perspective is unique due to differences in intelligence, education, experience, all of which form our individual expectations. It is NOT at all a “one size fits all” concept, but one that varies very much with time and circumstance. To presume otherwise is to be silly or disingenuious.

Society’s “needs and desires” change almost daily because our existence has largely met all legitimate needs and our desires are without limit or definition and frequently self-contradictory or unrealistic. The “moral dimension” is less and less determinative in today’s “life choices”. The “most serious” can be distracted by lint in their navel.

Life is a game all must play. Those who “win” are, more likely than not, those who invest the time and effort to fully understand the rules and employ such advantage so as to ultimately prevail. That’s a lot easier to describe than it is to accomplish.

By: johnebgood108 Wed, 24 Oct 2012 15:50:20 +0000 i was surprised that Mr. Hada did not remind readres that there is no “actual” Nobel Prize for Economics. Rather, it is awarded by a large Swedish bank, to foster credibility in the field.

Many believe that Economics is a “pseudo-science” which is utilized by large financial interests to manipulate markets and fool the majority of people with complex “jargon” and theories that are all unproven. Very few ideas in Economics are accepted as scientific fact.
johnebgood108/waikiki usa