The inventor of Game Theory was von Neumann – who some consider the smartest person ever.
35 years ago I delved somewhat into the seminal work on Game Theory, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, by Oskar Morgenstern, John Von Neumann. This is a heavily mathematical book, which I would not attempt to read today.
Actually the more relevant work was done by Robert Axelrod. You can read about it in his book (which does not use higher mathematics), The Evolution of Cooperation. His cited experiment has been latched onto as a guide to conduct in many fields, including international relations.
a little further reading made it clear how the situation could be defined as a series of prisoner’s dilemmas - I remain unconvinced as to the applicability in the current situation, though.
Oh, and using “perfidy” (at least as defined by www.dictionary.com: “Deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery”) to describe France’s reluctance to support GWBs little adventure is a seriously silly bit of hyperbole.
It’s also a world of multiple interactions and interests.
Here’s my advice working in a world which is a whole sight meaner and more unforgiving than NY ever thought of being – except perhaps Little Italy during a certain time period.
(a) The Cost & Benefit of Paybacks must be weighed rationally, cheap satisfaction needs to be weighed against the reality of required cooperation among a small set of big fish.
(b) Looking at any single transaction as a one off, instread as part of a repeated series of relationships digs you in hole, since your perception of the deal is not the only one that counts, that limited number of other players also count, and can gang up to screw you later.
This is not a simple interpersonal game, or something of a big impersonal market, it is a small set of players, a restricted market with long memories. I’ve spent a lot of fucking time in this kind of setting, cheap payback (or what was in the end hardly ‘betrayal’) is not a way to long term success. Above all given the latest transaction is showing a lot of fucking problems that you don’t want to hold all the fucking risk for.
BTW december my man, vanilla pd is not the right game, nor any of the simple two player game theory models. You need to look at multiple player models.
I do recomment Axelrod’s book. His work is also described in Godel, Escher, Bach, which everyone should read.
Resolution 1441 threatened “consequences”, meaning military action. IMHO France agreed to Resulution 1441 merely as a way to delay US action. They had a secret intention to never actually support military consequences. France was also violating UN sanction resolutions, while fighting to preserve them as the means to enforce Iraqi disarmament. These two action constitute perfidy.
December this is a stupid bald faced assertion. Very clearly serious consequences was not understood to mean an automatic trigger to war – indeed Negroponte made that statement in public.
Of course I hope you also have actual evidence of France, the nation, violating the sanctions. Bloody moron.
“…a country they are supposed to be working with.”
So, we’re supposed to be working with them? And pray tell, what ever happened to the concept of, oh, them working with us? Or does it happen that in your world, cooperation only goes one way? That is to say, WE are supposed to work with everyone else in the world, no matter how they treat/work with us?
Come on, France actively opposed our stance on Iraq, for whatever reason. And seems to be continuing on it’s own way, to the point of surprising even the countries that supported it before:
<snip> "The French proposal appeared to take the Russians and Germans, their closest allies in opposing the war, off guard. "<snip>
Sure sounds to me like France isn’t interested in [sarcasm]working with[/sarcasm] anybody.
“Consequences” may have meant military action to you, the US Government and other pro-war governments, but at the time it was hotly disputed that that is what the word was intended to mean.
Opponents of the war claimed that the code for military action in UN terminology tends to be “all possible means”.
So basically the gameplan has become disagree with the United States, and the US acts like a bully?
Smart, real smart. Schoolyard tactics on an international level. This will fly over great with the general population, cause the US to lose any number of trade battles with international tribunals, and sink the economy even further. But if you distract the population with bafflegab, then you can get re-elected.
And if you were my employee, I’d ask you to come into my office for a “little talk.” I’d explain to you that such childish and immature behavior has no place here.
Bollocks. The US gave assurances that 1441 was not a automatic trigger to war to the French and Russians, that’s why they signed. You’ve been given cites about this before (by elucidator IIRC) but it went against you’re shite so you ignored it.
I said that “serious consequences” meant military action. (It would behoove you to read more carefully before you insult someone.)
There was no automatic trigger in Res. 1441. That’s part of what I was saying. The implication of Resolution 1441 was that if Iraq failed to comply with its “last chance,” then the Security Council would authorize military action. However, I allege that France voted for Res. 1441 intending to veto military action if and when Iraq didn’t comply. Chirac made that clear later. So, France’s agreement with 1441 was done in bad faith.
Dimwit, as many others have pointed out to you on more than one occasion, there is clear, and contemporaneous evidence that ‘serious consequences’ was not, repeat not, understood to of necessity mean war.
That is why Russia and France signed on. Further they signed on with the understanding that the inspections had a reality, and were not simply a gambit to find an excuse for war.
Come on people. What else would serious consequences mean? More sanctions? Could we even possibly lay more sanctions on them?
Anyway, IMO France postured itself so it would be an important voice in the world community and by doing that set up a major roadblock to US aims. So IMO it’s only natural that we react by minimizing thier international influence so they don’t continually try to act in the same manner.
I would like to refer the president (and some folks in this thread) to Jody Hoffer Gittell’s book The Southwest Airlines Way: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve High Performance.
I’m not given to self-help books - I read this one because I like Southwest. Gittell contrasted Southwest’s management style to that of other airlines. One of the key differences was this:
Southwest doesn’t employ “accountability” as most of us understand it.
They don’t seek to pin blame on individuals or departments. No one is left holding the bag when there has been a problem. The other airlines generally must hold someone accountable as a matter of policy. So when a flight is delayed at American Airlines, everyone points fingers at everyone else. The management eventually nails somebody for the delay, and that person or group doesn’t get bonus mone and/or gets reprimanded.
At Southwest they claim to simply examine the problem so it doesn’t happen again. If it turns out someone really screwed up egregiously that person is spoken to. But the company culture makes people feel supported by the managment, and they don’t have a lot of problems with screw ups.
It would seem Bush subscribes to the American Airlines philosophy. He has pushed strongly for “accountability” in education. Now he seems to want some in international politics.
American Airlines is currently a hair away from bankruptcy.
Jdeforrest, most airlines were already in trouble before 2001. Air Canada has been on the verge of bankruptcy, and asking for govt handouts, for the past decade. It’s pretty similar with American airlines, United, and Delta, I believe.
Airlines aren’t necessarily a risky business venture, but they do seem to attract a lot of managerial dorks.