An economics, investment, trading and policy blog with a focus on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). We seek the truth, avoid the mainstream and are virulently anti-neoliberalism.
Partha Gangopadhyay | Associate Professor of Economics at University of Western Sydney
ht Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism
6 comments:
Anonymous
said...
You know, I'm starting to be turned off by this game theorization of everything. Sometime it's best just to be blunt, straightforward and consistent instead of treating everything like a Machiavellian poker game where everything depends on your ability to out-think the other side.
Sometime it's best just to be blunt, straightforward and consistent instead of treating everything like a Machiavellian poker game where everything depends on your ability to out-think the other side.
That was Stalin's conclusion, and regardless of what one thinks of him, he was a good strategist. His basic strategy was, you cross me and I'll whack you.
Not really. Strategic ambiguity is used frequently.
For example, advantage can be gained if a party thinks that there is high probability that the counterparty is irrational. It's the basis of nuclear deterrence, for instance. Both parties have to get the other to think that there is a high likelihood that the other is willing to accept mutual annihilation along with massive destruction that will affect all of humanity for ages to come. How irrational it that?
6 comments:
You know, I'm starting to be turned off by this game theorization of everything. Sometime it's best just to be blunt, straightforward and consistent instead of treating everything like a Machiavellian poker game where everything depends on your ability to out-think the other side.
"Suppose you are an avatar like Adonis and you have two beautiful divas, Aphrodite and Persephone, as your girlfriends who are .... blah, blah...."
this is comical...
Sometime it's best just to be blunt, straightforward and consistent instead of treating everything like a Machiavellian poker game where everything depends on your ability to out-think the other side.
That was Stalin's conclusion, and regardless of what one thinks of him, he was a good strategist. His basic strategy was, you cross me and I'll whack you.
"Strategic Ambiguity" = "I am over my head so I am going to pretend that I am being a shrewd negotiator...."
Not really. Strategic ambiguity is used frequently.
For example, advantage can be gained if a party thinks that there is high probability that the counterparty is irrational. It's the basis of nuclear deterrence, for instance. Both parties have to get the other to think that there is a high likelihood that the other is willing to accept mutual annihilation along with massive destruction that will affect all of humanity for ages to come. How irrational it that?
Varoufakis should play the fiddle. Or a pan pipe. The audience can just relax and feel the burn.
Post a Comment