Or, more likely, you haven't read the relevant stuff. (There's an
overwhelming game-theoretic literature out there, of uneven quality and
significance).  I think game theory has provided some interesting insights
about the determinants of bargaining (and, by extension, class) power, for
example. But in any case I'm tempted to doubt that you'd disagree with the
basic substantive premise of game theory:  that people's decisions affect
others, and that they're to some extent conscious of this interdependence;
or its basic methodological premise (of noncooperative game theory, at any
rate):  that in order to understand what would happen in such settings, you
would have to consider what are people's (perhaps historically or
macroeconomically determined) strategic options, and how they would go
about deciding among their options.

Gil

Ok. Maybe I was hasty.  Jim pointed out its use in experimental econ.  I
have not found much useful there, but Jim has said in the past that he
has.  Sterile!  Gil, I just have not seen anything there that has taught
me anything.  Maybe I am too dense to get it.


Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901

-----Original Message-----
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gil
Skillman
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2005 8:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] You Got Game Theory!

Michael writes

>Maybe they should have checked with the Pentagon.  You all know the
>original purpose.

Yes, and the roots of game theory--traceable back to the 19th century
work
of Cournot and Bertrand--had nothing to do with military applications.
Von
Neumann's original work in game theory in the 1920s was not funded by
the
military.   Most of contemporary game theory concerns positive-sum
games,
and thus is not of immediate relevance to the Pentagon.  So I'm not sure
why Michael brought this up.

>Game theory always seemed like a rather sterile exericize in the
>economics literature, but micro economists seem to like it.

Again I'm puzzled.  What makes the application of game theory to
economic
problems a "sterile exercise"?

Gil


>-- > >Michael Perelman >Economics Department >California State University >michael at ecst.csuchico.edu >Chico, CA 95929 >530-898-5321 >fax 530-898-5901

Reply via email to