game theory (1 Viewer)

[abdooooo!!!]

do you do this in hsc economics?

 

[ameh]

yes, cant remember what its about though...

 

[Newbie]

no i dont think so
this is that shit from the nash person right?
dont think we be learning nobel level economics in year 12

 

[tWiStEdD]

what is 'game theory'? i've never heard of it

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Newbie
no i dont think so
this is that shit from the nash person right?
dont think we be learning nobel level economics in year 12

nah its not nobel level... lol... there is a difference between comming up with a theory and just learning a theory.

its actually first proposed by the mathematician john von neumann... the dude who invented computer and he also took part in the creation of the atomic bomb.

i think nash was the one who proposed the dominant strategy equilibrium.

i was wondering if anyone knew this... cause its so interesting.

 

[Newbie]

well this is above hsc economics and probably isnt useful in any exams unless you wana throw around some names to get a bit of cred

 

[L1onHeart]

game theory and oligopoly market are usually related I think they start teaching in intermediate level microeconomics in university.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

yeah oligopoly market... its like firms play game with each other by changing their pricing and plans... them optus and telstra cable battle lol... the nets getting cheaper.

 

[AGB]

i thought it had to do with making deals or something (i only vaguely remember reading about it).....something about zero games i.e. nobody wins, one games i.e. one person wins, 2 games, both parties win

this could be something completely unrelated, just thought id post it anyway

 

[abdooooo!!!]

price fixing and collusive agreement?

if both parties complys then both parties wins...

a party cheats even after agreeing on certain agreements thus one party wins big by cheating and the other loses.

both cheats no one wins except the consumer. thus nash equilibrium is established... and zero economic profits.

 

[Minai]

Originally posted by abdooooo!!!
price fixing and collusive agreement?

if both parties complys then both parties wins...

a party cheats even after agreeing on certain agreements thus one party wins big by cheating and the other loses.

both cheats no one wins except the consumer. thus nash equilibrium is established... and zero economic profits.

thats close to correct

game theory and prisoners dilemma is heaps interesting
those doing commerce/eco in 1st year will learn about it in Microeconomics 1

about the prisoner dilemma - if both parties comply, then both parties will win - that seems obvious, but in uni, u will learn that both parties NEVER comply..so in these situations, full economic profit is NEVER reached

 

[L1onHeart]

Originally posted by Minai
thats close to correct

game theory and prisoners dilemma is heaps interesting
those doing commerce/eco in 1st year will learn about it in Microeconomics 1

about the prisoner dilemma - if both parties comply, then both parties will win - that seems obvious, but in uni, u will learn that both parties NEVER comply..so in these situations, full economic profit is NEVER reached

well never say never...you will learn deeper and more interesting in Intermediate level of microeconomics.
if punishment is severe enough i think it is the best interest of both parties to collude. Collusion is harder when the member are many like OPEC cartel. They tend to cheat but when the member is not that many and punishment is severe enough that the dollar today is worth less in the future than collusion is the best interest of both parties. Though, the best response function tends to make full economic profit will not be reached since each individual always choose to maximise their gain unless collusion occurs and they can coorperate together. They will act like monopoly and have supernormal profit.

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by Minai
about the prisoner dilemma - if both parties comply, then both parties will win - that seems obvious, but in uni, u will learn that both parties NEVER comply..so in these situations, full economic profit is NEVER reached

yep. thats the whole point of Nash's dominant strategy equilibrium... because the dominant strategy is to cheat ie cheating yields either no profit or big profit, while complying yields a loss or a smaller profit than cheating. Nash equilibrium occurs when there is a dominant strategy for each player/party.

this shows that the best economic profit for both parties as a whole is to compromise and do whats good for the group and themselves... but we as humans would not give crap about the group... unless you are total a communist... again thats the reason that communism doesn't work lol

hey to the uni guys what do you do in a B economics? is it like the freakin hsc where everything is just essays about societal issues and political crap?

 

[abdooooo!!!]

Originally posted by L1onHeart
well never say never...you will learn deeper and more interesting in Intermediate level of microeconomics.
if punishment is severe enough i think it is the best interest of both parties to collude. Collusion is harder when the member are many like OPEC cartel. They tend to cheat but when the member is not that many and punishment is severe enough that the dollar today is worth less in the future than collusion is the best interest of both parties. Though, the best response function tends to make full economic profit will not be reached since each individual always choose to maximise their gain unless collusion occurs and they can coorperate together. They will act like monopoly and have supernormal profit.

just on this... yes its definitely possible in a different situation. if you watched the movie "a beautiful mind" the movie shows the supposed nash situation of where there is a bunch of girls... and the dominant strategy for everyone is not to go for the hot blonde... but this dominant strategy also coincides with the best interests of the group as a whole. but the situation it describe is too simplistic though... social situation between girls and boys don't just happen like that