I would like to comment on the movie “A Beautiful Mind” and the book, which was actually much better. I just finished reading another book on the similar side of John Nashs’ claim to work together rather than compete against each other. That book was “Co-opetition.” By Adam M. Brandenburger (Harvard Guy) and Barry J. Nalebuff (Yale Dude). Many have been aware of such theory for quite some time and practice it occasionally to improve an industry or through the art of diplomacy, sometimes through misdirection and other times as an experiment (no more, no less) especially when it really isn’t. matters and is not really fundamental to our direction and strategy of market dominance for a given region. It would have to differ from the movie version in that if you try to run your business the way Jim Nash discussed in theory, you might do fine for a while, but eventually you’d get beaten up in the market whether you actually do it or not. . You were able to sleep with a brunette when you wanted the big-breasted blonde (go see the movie, you’ll understand that comment). In theory, it sounded wonderful on film, but it wouldn’t get you very far in the cutthroat world of business, even though regulators always want to level the playing field, more often than not they’re manipulated agents for competition, like Adam points it out. Smith, Carl Marx, and Rodney Dangerfield in “Back to School.” The fact is that even the arbiters of business, that is, the regulators who want to level the playing field, tend to tilt it in favor of politically powerful and well-connected companies that finance the campaigns of (political) overseers. Once the regulatory bodies find out that they have been cheated, instead of mentioning it to the politicians, they want to punish all the players in the industry and kick them out of the game, of course this hurts the fans (consumers) and then the game ( industry) and then referees and fans are not needed (read: “When Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand).
Unless there is a perfect and fair playing field, John Nash’s dream of a perfect economic system and structure cannot exist and that is quite easy with the study of human psychology, Machiavelli, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, the prisoners, the dilemma or a multitude of platitudes that surround human nature. The world does not work that way, it is not a perfect world, and therefore such theories are not worth trying, although they are obviously interesting from an academic point of view or discussion in the random dialogues of the cafeterias of the societies geological.
The win-lose scenario still forces someone to lose, if we were to really see the real picture here we would find that what John Nash was saying is that you should consider giving another person what they want so that you can get what you want. want. I say Obviously John is right. Too bad regulators condemn humanity’s biggest contributors, while competitors cheat, the playing field is not level and the true voter of the currency unit of commerce called the dollar cannot see through the clutter and scatter of the advertising and platitudes behind the scenes of a system that is not all that it seems.
Looking at the actual methodology of John Nash’s achievements, it’s fair to say that being able to put simple concepts into mathematical formulas will significantly help the future of computers capable of calculating answers to game theory, war efforts, strategy and competition with fuzzy logic. business exposure. That will be one of the great achievements of his work, which it will be in the future. However, whoever runs a business has other responsibilities, such as the survival and profitability of the business, and using the strict John Nash model in an imperfect world is dangerous to the continued vitality of what was once a business. . Beware of prematurely adopting perfect systems in an imperfect world.