Some informal extensions to mathematical game theory: factoring in elites and religious fanatics.

[wcepler]

Game theory in a sense started with Adam Smith’s "Wealth of Nations" in which he argued, "As every individual . . . endeavors as much as he can to employ his capital in support of domestic industry . . . every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can."

This "laissez-faire" philosophy seemed to suggest the more individually people are allowed to behave, the more socially they will behave, albeit inadvertently.

More formally, game theory began in 1921 when John von Newmann proved that every conceivable two-person zero sum game of perfect information has what is called an optimal strategy. Lots of assumptions here and here's just a few of them. One is that the two players are taken to be equally competent. "Perfect information" means neither player has secret information (which precludes poker) and "optimal strategy" means each player can do no better than follow the optimal strategy which will always fall into one of two categories, depending on whether it guarantees the players a tie game or a predictable win for one of them.

Tick-tack-toe has an optimal strategy that guarantees a tie against any opponent. This optimal strategy is called fair. In Nim, an ancient two-person game of perfect information, each player in turn removes any number of sticks from a pile, and the winner is the player who picks up the last stick. The optimal strategy of this game is “unfair” because the first player will always win.

Then, in 1951 the American mathematician John Nash (yes, the same Nash in "A Beautiful Mind"), wrote a work called “Non-Cooperative Games” in which the outcomes inevitably evolve into two kinds of equilibrium, which he characterized as optimal and suboptimal. Though Nash's premises are consistent with Adam Smith, his conclusions diverge. Optimal equilibrium in the game of "stagnation" is one in which all players break away from the group to receive a reward. Suboptimal equilibrium is when all players chose to stay with the group to avoid a penalty.

Naturally most of the above is simplistic and leaves out major assumptions, but it's enough to suggest some new turns in the road.

Laissez-faire seems to lead (in various ways) to a kind of "pack mentality" in which all the players try to anticipate the moves of the other players who, in turn, can lead the group to the most desirable state as easily as the most undesirable one.

However, a profoundly unrealistic and implicit assumption in all these game theory models is that of a level playing field, which is addressed with the following three assumptions, classified as “nodes of disequilibrium”.

(1.) The most counterproductive, chaotic, and toxic state in individual/group dynamics is the historically lethal combination of astronomically rich people who are also religious fanatics, i.e., an oligarchy/theocracy. That being the case, such "nodes" of elite fundamentalists should guarantee a permanent non equilibrium of human society. The pragmatic application of this would be to "isolate" these nodes so as to do everything possible to contain or neutralize them.

(2.) The next most counterproductive state is that of a pure oligarchy (i.e., and elite Dictatorship of the Rich, aka, the "Have's").

(3.) The third most toxic state is a pure theocracy (i.e., institutionalized religious fundamentalism).

If these assumptions are reasonable, then it follows that the most chaotic regions of the planet should be "fields of chaos" centered at nodes of elite fundamentalists.

Of course, this is exceedingly informal, but it least it demonstrates that the laissez-faire analysis of Adam Smith or John Nash is academic is both senses of the word, since ANY kind of equilibrium is meaningless and impossible in a world “poisoned” with nodes of elite fundamentalists (or to a lesser degree, with nodes of either elites or religious fundamentalists).

The lack of mathematical formality can be loosely compensated for by a kind of empirical, global scan of the Earth's "hot spots", since this theory predicts the hotter the spot, the more fanatical the elites (or the richer the fanatics). Certain areas of the Earth and/or specific countries immediately come to mind.

Similarly, the "hot spots" in each country (America included!) should have exactly the same patterns. The more righteous & rich the social group, the more chaotic the generated field.

Hence, if these ponderings are even minimally a "theory", this is the game theory of the societal nodes (oligarchy and/or theocracy) which generate human chaos and disequilibrium. Remember the “nodes” are the above three assumptions, and “fields of chaos” are the inevitable social/personal results

An immediate and verifiable prediction of this theory is that it will be impossible to find even ONE "field of chaos" which is not actualized and energized by a node of disequilibrium.

It is also probable that a critical mass of nodes of disequilibrium will lead not only to the failure of a civilization, but also the biological extinction of the species.

In short, chaos kills.
**********************************************************************

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

<http://theliberationofrealism.blogspot.com/>

[1776Forever]

1. Oligarchy / Theocracy - Isn't this the reason for so many wars - My God is better then yours.

http://www.glendale.org.uk/traveller/data/glossary/government-theocraticoligarchy

The world is ruled by a priesthood who believe that they have been given the power by their god. Other religions will be discouraged if not actively hunted down and destroyed. Religious Law will be enforced at all levels of society.

.....

If we look at maniacal cults like Hitler and Napoleon we can say that not only is it religion but the self building of power of a man into a God like figure to control a society that leads to Wars.

Faiths Cults And Sects Of America From Atheism To Zen (1960)

http://www.archive.org/details/faithscultsandse009985mbp

[happyslug]

2. The problem is most Fundamentalism is a RESULT of action by the local Elite,

Basically, if a person has problems, he will look to a way to resolved those problems OR learn to accept those problems. The best way to accept those problems is to fall back on some dogma that gives a person HOPE for the future. Thus as Income declines, Fundamentalism expands. Since the 1980s Working Class people in the US and the rest of the world have seen a steady decline in Income (From the End of WWII till the 1960s, income of most people in the world went UP at the same rate as productivity has gone up, since 1980 that HAS not been the case).

In the 1970s Unionized workers did the best for their income had increases equal to the rate of Inflation, those people who were in occupation without large Unionized members saw their Income Decline (Accountants, Lawyers and other professionals lost income in the 1970s, while Steel Workers and Auto Workers held their own). Thus you start to see American Fundamentalism in the Lower professional ranks and in those states with the least Unionization (i.e. the American South).

With Reagan, the situation reversed. Reagan fired PATCO and with that termination Unions came under attack, most had to give up their Cost of Living Increases and go for set increases even while the inflation rate stayed high (Not the 18% it peaked at under Carter, but a excessive 6-8% for the Subsequent Reagan, Bush I years). This period saw the biggest growth in Fundamentalism in the US, and notice it was the RESULT of a loss of Income, Income even most Professionals did not regain under Reagan/Bush I or even Clinton. MY point is Fundamentalism expands as things fall, Fundamentalism does NOT cause the fall, it is the result of that Fall.

In the Moslem World, the 1970s with its high oil prices was the hight of power of the Professional classes of those Countries. Come the 1980s, those oil prices started to fall, they fell so much do to the 1980s "Oil Glut" i.e. More oil was being produced then could be sold, thus the prices fell to the cost of the country that produced the "Marginal" barrel of oil. By "Marginal Barrel" of oil I mean that country whose cost to produce a barrel of oil was lower then any other country producing oil AND was willing to sell it at that price. Saudi Arabia was the Number oil producer and had the lowest costs to produce oil. Saudi Arabia could (and did) set the price of oil by how much oil it produced. The less oil the House of Saud produced, the higher the price for the price was then set by the country willing to produce oil also at that price. For example, in the 1980s the North Sea oil came on line and Thacher, who was then the English Prime Minister, kept lowing the price of North Sea oil to get greater market share and thus greater income. Finally Saudi Arabia had enough and increased its production to the level where the price fell below the cost to produce North Sea Oil. Saudi Arabia held that price for over a month and then drop its production and increased its price. Thacher learned her lesson, she matched that price.

The marginal price for oil was and remains the cost of oil from the highest oil producers with the highest cost of production that can still sell oil. If cost of production exceeds the price, that producer will STOP selling (for a recent example look at the Alberta Oil tar and the Bio-Diesel prices since the price of oil declined, both are in rapid decline in production do to the fact that their cost exceeds the present price of oil).

The Chief reason bin Laden broke with the House of Saud and went on his Anti-American Campaign was that the House of Saud's income declined between the 1970s and the 1990s, as a new generation of people were coming of age. The catalyst of bin Laden's Anti-Americanism was the First Gulf War and the stationing of American Forces in Arabia, but the actual reason was this decline in Income at the same time Saudi Arabia's "Baby Boomers" boom in the 1970s came of age and could NOT find employment OR what employment they were finding was at lower income then their Parents (Sounds familiar? The same thing has been occurring since the 1980s in the US, except the American baby boom was earlier, not as high, and the drop in jobs was slow in the US, but much more rapid in Arabia).

Thus by 2000 Arabia was facing two problems, a drop in income from the continued drop in oil (Oil is priced in US Dollars so US Inflation affects the price of oil negatively in countries that uses other currency then the Dollar or a currency not pegged to the dollar i.e. the Yen and the Euro, both independent of the Dollar, and the currencies that OPEC members use to buy most of the things they want except for weapons). Thus the prices of everything was going up, while revenue in real terms was dropping.

This was further complicated by the overt corruption of the House of Saud. The members of the Ruling families would build multiple houses (Not always in Arabia, many were built in Europe and even the US) and payment of multiple vices (i.e. gambling and alcohol in addition to women who were NOT their wives). The vices would have been tolerated except these were NOT done on a small scale but on a huge scale, millions of dollar by some members of the Family. Given the cut back on Social Services and income do to the lack of jobs lead to a resentment of the royal family and with it a crackdown on opposition to the Royal Family. Into this mess bid Laden appeared as an honest man who had fought the Russians and help free the Moslem people (the Afghans) from foreign oppressors (The Russians). He was honest, did not drink or otherwise break any Moslem rules (including limiting himself to Four Wives at one time, as Mohammad which was the rule Mohammad told his follows, furthermore he respected his wives and took care of them, when he asked all four of his wives to follow him into the hills of Afghanistan, two of them declined and he granted them a divorce with a large cash payment, again as required by Moslem law, through he did NOT have to ask if they wanted to follow him, he gave them that option, bin Laden was NOT going to force anyone to follow him).

Thus you had bin Laden and his followers on one side vs the House of Saud, who did NOT want the last son of Saud I (Who died in 1953) to become King for he was viewed as honest and religious. To prevent him from becoming King, the previous King (King Faud) was kept alive for years after he was nothing but a walking shell of a man do to a stroke. King Faud finally died a few years ago, but only as the situation in Arabia become worse and the family finally accepted that they needed a King instead of a Regent. So finally Abdullah became king as the situation in Arabia became worse (Through this may be an inner-family conflict, but the exact nature may not be known for decades but we have to be careful for hereditary monarchies tend to fail as the third generations take over, the sons can work together, but Cousins find it easier to fight among themselves for a larger share of the Kingdom controlled by the Family).

For more on King Faud:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahd_of_Saudi_Arabia

For more on King:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia

For more on King Saud I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Saud

Now the House of Saud was always tied in with one of the more radical branches of Islam, but that goes back to the collapse of the Turkish Empire. While Turkey never controlled ALL of Arabia, they controlled Mecca and Medina, the two important most RELIGIOUS cities in Islam, but both fell to the House of Saud in the 1920s during the time where the borders of the Middle East was being drawn by England and France. Till the 1960s Arabia was a backwater, most oil was pumped elsewhere, and most of the money prior to 1973 went straight into the hands of the House of Saud for their personal use (This you had a decline in Income for most Arabs citizens of Arabia till the 1970s). It was only in the late 1960s, as the price of oil increased by a third that Arabia started to use that money on the people of Arabia, this increased in the 1970s as the price went up even more after 1973. Thus for about 20 years (1965-1985) the various members of the various OPEC nations had a rush of cash. The problem this was followed by the Oil Glut and the subsequent drop in oil prices in real terms. With this increase the Middle east people resorted to their religion for help, and the fundamentalism inherits already in the Moslem Religion of Arabia took off and produced bin Laden and his followers.

This brings me to the question "How do you break people from Fundamentalism", first is you do NOT do it by force, force reinforces their need for support and thus reinforces their Fundamentalism. What is needed is to work on the conditions that produced the resort to Fundamentalism, i.e. the economic situation must be addressed. In the US that means addressing the drop in Income for people making less then 50,000 a year (Roughly median income (Median Income or that point where 1/2 of Americans earn less and 1/2 earn more has been stuck at roughly $42,000 since Bush I, thus why I use $50,000 for that includes the majority of Americans), and addressing especially the decline in income for those people making less then 50% of Median (I.e. less then $25,000).

In Arabia and the Rest of the Middle East a similar policy has to be followed, but the US government since Reagan has had a policy of DROPPING Wages throughout the world NOT increasing them. What I fear is what is happening in Gaza, as people's income go down hill, they rally around people who, at least, try to solve their problems. Most of the people who try to solve the problems of the people in Gaza where members of Hamas, whose power base is still their Charities and the fact most people in Gaza look to them for food, medical assistance and even education (and this was true BEFORE Hamas won the last election). This is also the group who is backing bin Laden in Arabia and the rest of the Middle east.

Side Note: Their is a clear split between bin Laden and the Shiites of Iran. The Shiites of Iran are better organized for relief acts i.e. medical, food etc as Hamas is doing in Gaza, while bin Laden is better at the launching attacks like 9/11. Furthermore these two groups do NOT like each other, both view each other as heretics. They are working to the same goal today, thus minimum conflict between the two, but also minimum co-operation between the two. Both want the US out of the Middle East, for both view the US as the main support for the present Governments of the Mid-East. Both what those governments overthrown, but know that will NOT occur till the US is out of the region, thus both Shiites and bin Laden are Anti-America right now.

My point is Fundamentalism is the result of deterioration of the economy especially for lower income people who can NOT improve their lives as their income declines. Fundamentalism is embraced, first because it gives them hope for the Future, and then a game plan to get to that Future. We may disagree with that Game plan, but it is a plan. People prefer a plan better then no plan, people prefer "if you do this, then you will be better off" then "It is your own fault that you are poor, not the fact the Rich get all of the money". The Communists knew this is the 19th Century, but then Lenin and Stalin took the Communism off on a tangent that Mussolini called "Fascism" and the Trotskyite called "State Capitalism". If the Communists were as organized as they were in 1900 they would be the ones leading the Middle east Revolution NOT the Fundamentalists, but Communism became to much like Fascism to be much of a revolutionary movement today. Communism may become a new Revolutionary movement in the Future but right now the only people who are providing solution to the problems of the poor in the US and the Middle east are the Fundamentalism in both regions and until some one else starts to provide a solution both will continue to increase.

[Locrian]

3. FANTASTIC post!

KR