Game theory—in practice

Posted: 16 February 2015 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , ,

Greece-Greek-Games-4

source*

Back when I taught Principles of Microeconomics, I offered a lecture or two on game theory. Given how terrible most textbook presentations are, I used to borrowed heavily from the work of Judith Mehta and Shaun Hargreaves-Heap and Yanis Varoufakis to explain the key assumptions behind and the tensions generated within game theory.

Now, Varoufakis is back—in a very different capacity, of course—to explain the lesson he learned from his studies of game theory:

The trouble with game theory, as I used to tell my students, is that it takes for granted the players’ motives. In poker or blackjack this assumption is unproblematic. But in the current deliberations between our European partners and Greece’s new government, the whole point is to forge new motives. To fashion a fresh mind-set that transcends national divides, dissolves the creditor-debtor distinction in favor of a pan-European perspective, and places the common European good above petty politics, dogma that proves toxic if universalized, and an us-versus-them mind-set.

And the payoff?

One may think that this retreat from game theory is motivated by some radical-left agenda. Not so. The major influence here is Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who taught us that the rational and the free escape the empire of expediency by doing what is right.

How do we know that our modest policy agenda, which constitutes our red line, is right in Kant’s terms? We know by looking into the eyes of the hungry in the streets of our cities or contemplating our stressed middle class, or considering the interests of hard-working people in every European village and city within our monetary union. After all, Europe will only regain its soul when it regains the people’s trust by putting their interests center-stage.

 

*This is Bill O’Grady’s view of the payoff matrix of the “game” being played by Greece and the EU—as seen by the Syriza party.

Our view is that Syriza believes that caving in to the EU will end its political movement before it really begins. Caving in produces the outcome of -100 in quadrants one and three. Thus, its only positive payoff is to press for restructuring at all costs, while the EU caves (quadrant two outcome). At the same time, we think Tsipras believes that the costs to the EU of caving to Syriza aren’t all that high, but a situation in which both parties hold (quadrant four outcome), which probably entails a Greek exit from the Eurozone, is devastating for the EU. If the Eurozone breaks up, the Pandora Media Inc (NYSE:P)’s Box of European nationalism is released with all the risks that entails. The conditions that led to two world wars will return. And, most importantly, Germany loses its single currency free-trade zone. Thus, we fear that Syriza has concluded that the EU/Germany/ECB has no choice but to cave as long as Syriza holds firm.

Comments
  1. Magpie says:

    Prof.

    For Syriza to back down it would be a terrible lost of face.

    Historically, there was a somewhat similar precedent: the 1988 presidential election in Venezuela and the 1989 surprising about-face on the promises made by the winning party (Acción Democrática). The immediate consequence was the Caracazo of February 1989.

    That was the end of the so-called Punto Fijo Agreement between the two until then dominant political parties in Venezuela (Acción Democrática and Copei) and it marked the beginning for Hugo Chávez.

    In Greece, however, that may end in a different way: with the raise of the Golden Dawn.

  2. BRF says:

    Best analysis of the situation to date> Well done!

Leave a comment