• solstice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    4 hours ago

    I did a few game theory simulations in college and they were always real interesting. In one of them for example, it was a multiplayer game, with multiple interactions. I think it was to simulate global trade basically: you could cooperate with as many players as you want and each time you cooperate you both get a point. If you defect then you get two and they get none. However, all the players could see what the other players are doing, so if you defected they would know and probably would play (trade) with you. The best way to win was to form as many connections as possible and fully cooperate the whole time.

    I formed maybe like 20-30 connections with other players and didn’t defect. Each point was worth a few cents or something. So I walked out with a check for like $20-$50 or something. Many players walked out with nothing because they cheated too many people too many times and nobody wanted to trade with them.

    Therefore, clearly, the best economic policy is protectionism, tariffs, trade wars, and fucking over both allies and enemies, right? Right?!?

    • Lemming6969@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      46 minutes ago

      Your simulation seems to only punish selfish actors when that’s not always the case. Doesn’t include natural monopolies, lacks clandestine exploitation, and there’s likely no market capture or saturation. In such a case the only play is to cooperate.