The Prisoner’s Dilemma

Guest Post by Jesse

If you are not familiar with the classic game theory example of The Prisoner’s Dilemma you may read about it here.

I see quite a few instances in the world today that seem like the types of standoffs as described in that example of two people who can broadly benefit if they come to an agreement, or both suffer if one or the other seeks a short term advantage.

The Ukraine, Syria, Israel, the Congress, the great inequality in the US economy. The examples are almost everywhere. It seems as though working for some broader benefit, and engaging in productive compromise, is out of temper in this utterly selfish, morally purblind world of ours.

For me the most interesting aspect of The Prisoner’s Dilemma is watching the Western Central Banks trying to come to terms with their unsustainable positions in the monetary metals markets, vis a vis the BRICS.

Certainly no one in some better, more objective future will view an ulta-easy monetary policy for the Banks combined with domestic fiscal austerity for the people as anything short of a bizarre form of policy error, bordering on malpractice if not sadism.

The notion of giving free money to the very entities that caused the recent financial crisis, while saying nothing while the fiscal authorities do little or even punish their innocent victims, requires a monumental ability to rationalize the unthinkable for the benefit of one’s career.

Well, perhaps the economic class is just following that one divine commandment of the modern order: Thou shalt not speak ill of insiders. Even when the ruling class begins acting like the Captain in The Caine Mutiny.

China, and to a lesser extent Russia, have the Banks by the short hairs. And you know exactly what I mean by this. He who sells what isn’t his’n, must make it good, or go to prison. And they don’t know how and who to stick with the tab for their folly. And to take responsibility is off the table.

So the Banks and their high priests are refusing to come to terms with their counterparts in the international currency regime based on the principle that the truly powerful never concede any substantial and recurring advantage.

Besides, they have become so used to controlling the world’s reserve currency that they cannot imagine any life without it. What is an empire without power? And bureaucrats charged with the public trust have been caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place of their sworn duties and the political puppet masters.

Always, it is that terrible choice, no matter how they might phrase it. All who assume high office must decide. Whom do you serve?

Truth is the only recourse from their error, but that option does not make the short list of the things that our moderns’ love. Truth does not serve power well, or the will to have it all. This is the credibility trap. This is the wheel of fire to which we are bound.

And the pressure continues to build, day by day, with the reckoning’s choice between fire, and fire.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
P.M.Lawrence
P.M.Lawrence
September 24, 2014 10:21 am

I see quite a few instances in the world today that seem like the types of standoffs as described in that example of two people who can broadly benefit if they come to an agreement, or both suffer if one or the other seeks a short term advantage.

That’s not a Prisoner’s Dilemma at all. If both suffer if one or the other seeks a short term advantage, neither has an incentive to do that. It’s only a Prisoner’s Dilemma when they are both better off when neither does that, both worse off when both do – and, if one or the other does that, that one is better off than if neither does and the one that does not is worse off than if both do. It’s clearer if you lay it out in a table of numerical values.

Stucky
Stucky
September 24, 2014 12:49 pm

Here’s how I see it. It helps to see the Prisoner’s Dilemma laid out;

[imgcomment image[/img]

The BEST outcome for an INDIVIDUAL is freedom… the group (both) can never go free.

The BEST outcome for a uniform GROUP (both prisoners vote the same) is 6 months in jail.

So, acting out of pure self interest as an individual …. gets you free.

Now, the dilemma is trying to figure out if the OTHER guy is a selfish prick (acting only in his own self interest). Or, is the other guy a “group player”, who makes decisions that will benefit both.

If I were the prisoner, I would ALWAYS make the assumption that the other guy will act in his/her own interests, and testify …. cuz that’s what the vast majority of humans do.

So, let’s say I am prisoner “A” and I believe prisoner “B” will testify. Therefore;
—- if I keep silent, I will get 10 years in prison
—- if I testify, I will get 5 years in prison
—- if I testify, and by a stroke of luck, “B” keeps silent, I go free

Therefore, the best choice is always to testify.

And that’s what countries always do …. testify, acting in their own self interest. But, when it comes to the USA!, we pretend we always act in the interests of others.

El Comandante
El Comandante
September 24, 2014 9:07 pm

There was this Ring Lardner story of a guy overhearing a conversation about two brothers or friends,i don’t recall, who decided to plead guilty. The poor, distraught and overwrought eavesdropper was frustrated when the story abruptly comes to an end before he learns the outcome.

Then i read a real life story where twins are arrested for a crime, only one committed the crime but they both plead guilty. The real life judge let both go free because of the possibility of convicting an innocent man.

Medvyed
Medvyed
September 25, 2014 7:58 pm

Not really relevant to the topic, but I thought it was amusing,

Split or Steal, gaming the prisoner’s dillemma