I don't understand the antagonism to game theory. It is a logical technique--a
tool that can be used to focus the mind on strategic decisions. It has the
weakness that it can only practically discuss the interaction of two people,
but surely there is nothing inherent in it that would bring out this scorn.
Rod
Jim Devine wrote:
> >Brad De Long wrote:
> >>He's [Matt Rabin is] brilliant, and very witty: good company. Lots of
> >>interesting ideas about how game theory should be developed...
>
> Doug writes:
> >To what end? What's the point of game theory? What does it explain that
> >things other than game theory don't?
>
> I hope that Rabin is leading the fight against cooperative game theory. But
> I'd like to hear what Rabin's contributions to this field have been.
>
> Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine/AS
--
Rod Hay
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The History of Economic Thought Archive
http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html
Batoche Books
http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/
52 Eby Street South
Kitchener, Ontario
N2G 3L1
Canada
