Again, most actual serious, modern academic economists will tell you that no one in power actually listens to them, the powerful just pick idiot cranks with an Econ degree like Art Laffer to justify their ridiculous policies.
Its more complicated than you are simplifying it to.
…
Also, no, you did not specify anything about what you meant irt game theory applications.
You said it isn’t applicable to broad populations and everday activity, and I said it is broadly applicable to many things… which would include what you say it doesn’t cover.
A rather well known, other cross domain use of game theory is to explain the popularity of different mating strategie of various animals.
You can use similar models and apply them to humans, and it works well also.
…
Finally, your last point in particular reveals your total ignorance of game theory as a concept:
Yes, much of economics is oversimplified to the point that all actors are assumed to be perfectly rational with perfect information.
Game theory is specifically extremely useful to counter this obviously false assumption.
Game theory excels in giving you the ability to model more realistic, actual kinds of decisions that actors actually make… because it is specifically very useful in modelling how different actors with different levels of different information actually act.
This can be used in more comprehensive economic models, and the result is often a much more accurate to real world representation of how people and companies and governments actually act, as compared to the oversimplified economic models where perfect information is just assumed.
I’m not an expert, but I’ve read some and played around with it, and the work required to make it not-bullshit are basically never used by it’s advocates. It’s sort of in the same category as large (thing) models; an expensive but useful niche tool that does more damage with its misuse than it could ever provide in value
This part i do not disagree with. They’re the priestly caste of capital.
Sure, but not for the ones i said-everyday behavior and population level shit. I did specify.
Yeah, totally.
Sigh.
Again, most actual serious, modern academic economists will tell you that no one in power actually listens to them, the powerful just pick idiot cranks with an Econ degree like Art Laffer to justify their ridiculous policies.
Its more complicated than you are simplifying it to.
…
Also, no, you did not specify anything about what you meant irt game theory applications.
You said it isn’t applicable to broad populations and everday activity, and I said it is broadly applicable to many things… which would include what you say it doesn’t cover.
A rather well known, other cross domain use of game theory is to explain the popularity of different mating strategie of various animals.
You can use similar models and apply them to humans, and it works well also.
…
Finally, your last point in particular reveals your total ignorance of game theory as a concept:
Yes, much of economics is oversimplified to the point that all actors are assumed to be perfectly rational with perfect information.
Game theory is specifically extremely useful to counter this obviously false assumption.
Game theory excels in giving you the ability to model more realistic, actual kinds of decisions that actors actually make… because it is specifically very useful in modelling how different actors with different levels of different information actually act.
This can be used in more comprehensive economic models, and the result is often a much more accurate to real world representation of how people and companies and governments actually act, as compared to the oversimplified economic models where perfect information is just assumed.
Shit, whoops. Meant to. Have now.
Yeah, economics
I’m not an expert, but I’ve read some and played around with it, and the work required to make it not-bullshit are basically never used by it’s advocates. It’s sort of in the same category as large (thing) models; an expensive but useful niche tool that does more damage with its misuse than it could ever provide in value