Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

There is a alternative to Capitalism and Socialism there is

Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

27 Apr 2011, 10:04 pm

ruveyn wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:

Oh please do tell us the factual winner of the economic model race, great & wise Nobel Economics laureate!


It is a matter of fact the the most successful economies (this happen to be the advanced industrial economies) operate on a mix of government regulation and market elements combined with private ownership of the means of production. The least successful economies (N. Korea is the champion here) still try to operate on Marxist principles. Not far behind is Cuba which is a basket case. Haiti is not even a mixed economy. It is just a mess. Somalia is neither communist nor capitalist. It is a gang run thugocracy and is close to anarchic.

Philosophical arguments DO NOT MATTER. Only facts matter.

ruveyn
That's right. Practicality is what matters the most, not what is the most intellectually stimulating.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

28 Apr 2011, 7:18 am

ruveyn wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:

Oh please do tell us the factual winner of the economic model race, great & wise Nobel Economics laureate!


It is a matter of fact the the most successful economies (this happen to be the advanced industrial economies) operate on a mix of government regulation and market elements combined with private ownership of the means of production. The least successful economies (N. Korea is the champion here) still try to operate on Marxist principles. Not far behind is Cuba which is a basket case. Haiti is not even a mixed economy. It is just a mess. Somalia is neither communist nor capitalist. It is a gang run thugocracy and is close to anarchic.

Philosophical arguments DO NOT MATTER. Only facts matter.

ruveyn


I agree that mixed economies are factual the best system, tho its the right form of mixed economy that is the issue.



Shagodah
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9
Location: Czech republic

28 Apr 2011, 8:14 am

ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

28 Apr 2011, 9:08 am

Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

28 Apr 2011, 9:29 am

cdfox7 wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.


Classic Game theory is bollocks at predicting anything
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n6310213572k2478/
the nash predicted outcome is near 0% the real world average is near 40%
Nash may have been a genius but his math really sucks at predicting human behavior.
experimental economics / evoluntonary economics
is much better than trying to predict human behavior from "first principles"
when we don't actually know the first principles of human behavior.
also Pareto optimality != actual fairness


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Apr 2011, 10:52 am

cdfox7 wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.


In the iterated form TIT-FOR-TAT is the winner.

ruveyn



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

28 Apr 2011, 11:08 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.


Classic Game theory is bollocks at predicting anything
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n6310213572k2478/
the nash predicted outcome is near 0% the real world average is near 40%
Nash may have been a genius but his math really sucks at predicting human behavior.
experimental economics / evoluntonary economics
is much better than trying to predict human behavior from "first principles"
when we don't actually know the first principles of human behavior.
also Pareto optimality != actual fairness


Very true from my studies at university in game theory both from economics and computer science.
Game theory knows jack s**t about human behaviour its more useful to computer agent systems behaviours.
Nash didn't know at the time that iterated evolutionary games can tern into games of Hawk-Dove and/or Chicken.



Last edited by cdfox7 on 28 Apr 2011, 11:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

28 Apr 2011, 11:10 am

ruveyn wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.


In the iterated form TIT-FOR-TAT is the winner.

ruveyn



Well you, I and Axelrod agree on that :wink:



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

28 Apr 2011, 12:27 pm

cdfox7 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.


In the iterated form TIT-FOR-TAT is the winner.

ruveyn



Well you, I and Axelrod agree on that :wink:


tit-for-tat is A winner.
but not The winner
it is a local max
(something evolution and folks are pretty good at finding)
but not necessarily the true maximium.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

28 Apr 2011, 12:44 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
Shagodah wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
This is manifestly the case. In the various struggles of economic systems with their own internal contradictions, with other systems and with the vagaries of nature, the Mixed Economy has been shown to be the survivor. The last one standing is The Winner.

On a purely factual basis the Mixed Model (or Models) are the winners. This might rub the wrong way philosophically, but facts trump theories and philosophies.

ruveyn
This only proofs that the mixed economy is the system most likely to prevail. But it has nothing to say whether the mixed economy is desirable. Consider the prisoner´s dilemma game, where the equilibrium i.e. the situation most likely to prevail is not at all the desirable outcome.


In the classical form or the iterated form? as equilibruim can change in both forms. The classical when using a mixed strategy shows up a hidden equilibruim which is not Pareto optimum. The iterated from gets a bit complicated as Bayesian Nash Equilibrium start to aper from past games.


In the iterated form TIT-FOR-TAT is the winner.

ruveyn



Well you, I and Axelrod agree on that :wink:


tit-for-tat is A winner.
but not The winner
it is a local max
(something evolution and folks are pretty good at finding)
but not necessarily the true maximium.


OK Axelrod did empirically show Tit-for-tat to be optimal in some cases. However using the strategy in the real word can lead to a "death spiral" or cycles of defections. Plus he didn't look into Tit for tat with forgiveness & contrite tit for tat which only proofs that Tit-for-tat is not a subgame perfect equilibrium



psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

28 Apr 2011, 1:16 pm

cdfox7 wrote:
OK Axelrod did empirically show Tit-for-tat to be optimal in some cases. However using the strategy in the real word can lead to a "death spiral" or cycles of defections. Plus he didn't look into Tit for tat with forgiveness & contrite tit for tat which only proofs that Tit-for-tat is not a subgame perfect equilibrium

In particular, signal distortion - the mistaking of a "cooperate" decision for a "defect" decision - can cause the death spiral. That's really where the forgiveness strategies come in - they allow you to get back to mutual cooperation after a communication failure.

Of course, symmetry of participants can also change the ideal strategy.



cdfox7
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Mar 2011
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,700

28 Apr 2011, 3:47 pm

psychohist wrote:
cdfox7 wrote:
OK Axelrod did empirically show Tit-for-tat to be optimal in some cases. However using the strategy in the real word can lead to a "death spiral" or cycles of defections. Plus he didn't look into Tit for tat with forgiveness & contrite tit for tat which only proofs that Tit-for-tat is not a subgame perfect equilibrium

In particular, signal distortion - the mistaking of a "cooperate" decision for a "defect" decision - can cause the death spiral. That's really where the forgiveness strategies come in - they allow you to get back to mutual cooperation after a communication failure.

Of course, symmetry of participants can also change the ideal strategy.


Yes plus I forgot to note that Axelrod's research was based on computer simulations which negates the behaviour of human players.



Kon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Nov 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 728
Location: Toronto, Canada

28 Apr 2011, 7:21 pm

Here's another utopian alternative to both capitalism and state socialism:

http://vimeo.com/4041228



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

28 Apr 2011, 8:25 pm

The United States technically has a mixed market economy, but most would still call it capitalism. Third Way politics are also decidedly capitalist. Social democracy is an attempt to bring about socialism in a modern market-based, representative democracy through gradual reform.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Apr 2011, 2:19 am

NeantHumain wrote:
The United States technically has a mixed market economy, but most would still call it capitalism. Third Way politics are also decidedly capitalist. Social democracy is an attempt to bring about socialism in a modern market-based, representative democracy through gradual reform.


This attempt will not entirely eliminate markets and property. Economic and technical initiatives will still largely be in the hands of individuals and voluntary associations of individuals. The Government may govern but it will not Rule.

ruveyn



LikeGreenAndBlue
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 97

06 May 2011, 4:06 am

Egalitarianism is the best system of course. Current commercialist societies place so little value on equality between people. No wonder the world is such a sh***y place to live in. Discrimination and inequality is king is our world.

Personally I would be much better off under a communist or other sort of egalitarian system. As least a communist system takes care of the weak and not lets you starve on the street without shelter and where people can beat you up to death.