Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants • Hacker News Board

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#21

Post by checker » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 12:38 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #14

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants ), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is mor…

The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be wo…

Can you explain how Obama could invoke the 14th? After reading it, it doesn't seem to mention any executive powers (IANAL, I am curious though).

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#22

Post by bd_at_rivenhill » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 12:43 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #14

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants ), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is mor…

The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be wo…

There's one big flaw in any plan to unilaterally increase the debt ceiling: it's not really clear whether that would be legal. You could make a reasonable argument on either side, and the final arbiter would be the Supreme Court, which is not particularly liberal these days. Nobody who wants a safe investment would buy the new treasury debt issued under those conditions without a significant risk premium above what they are paying now; I certainly wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole without a couple of hundred basis points of spread over the current yield. Not something the government would want to lock itself into for 2 years to avoid skipping some Social Security payments.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#23

Post by khafra » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 12:44 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #6

asnyder wrote: post #2

I thought this was an interesting article as it's more analysis than it is political commentary, something the hacker news community could enjoy from an analytical perspective.

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants ), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is mor…

Tea Party-leaning legislators have constituents who actually want them to shut down the Federal Government, so they have less to lose than those legislators beholden to sane voters.

The problem is, once your opponent in this game of chicken has visibly guzzled a fifth of bourbon and torn off his steering wheel, it's too late for you to do the same.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#24

Post by fullgodwin » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 12:46 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #10

Good article - up until the point where he claims the Republicans are the "rogue elephants". To the other side the Democrats are the "rogue elephants", and it's interesting that the author appears incapable of seeing that. A truly irrational person is a rare thing. If you are unable to explain the actions of your opponent in any other way then the fault lies within you, not them.

To the other side the South Koreans/Kulaks/Jews/Blacks are the "evil" ones, and it's interesting that no one is as wise as I, the keeper of the Great Scales of Balance, who knows the truth: if there are two sides, they are equally good and bad.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#25

Post by shareme » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 12:47 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #14

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants ), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is mor…

The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be wo…

not legal.. it specifically refers to rebellion and insurrection and costs associated with putting down a rebellion or insurrection which by no stretch can apply to the war on terror..hence Obama rejecting its use.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#26

Post by bd_at_rivenhill » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 12:49 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #20

bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately for the president, he is the one who has the final move if the debt ceiling isn't raised: he will either have to shut down non-essential government services and skip making some entitlement payments, or he will have to skip an interest/principal payment on the sovereign debt. This puts him in a weakened position relative to the Republicans (many of whom would probably consider skipped entitlement paymen…

Congress already passed a bill instructing the Treasury to pay interest on debt, social security, wages of troops in that order. If the President does not follow that law, it's probably an impeachable offense. The result won't be a default or social security checks not getting sent out, but a normal 1994-style government shutdown.

I know that such a bill was proposed, but was it ever passed? I agree that a shutdown similar to the one that happened in '95-'96 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_governmen...) will definitely occur if the ceiling is not raised immediately, but Republicans could conceivably double down their bets and refuse to raise the ceiling until entitlements are affected, which would certainly happen before the president made a decision to curtail current military activities. Does anybody have a reference to the rate at which outflows currently exceed tax revenues to give us an idea of when that point might be reached?

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#27

Post by ars » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:05 PM UTC

erikb wrote: post #13

Giving oponents a reasonable percentage of irrational behaviour is actually a normal thing in game theory. Game theory doesn't stop to apply because someone on this planet acts irrational to gain an advantage. I like to think more in terms of finding the rationale behind the "irrational behaviour". That the truthfully out of mind elephant acts this way because the cost of a failure really doesn't matter to him at tha…

That's, by definition, not irrational behavior.

It would be better called "nothing to loose behavior", but of course in the real world that's pretty rare, and certainly does not apply to the politicians in the current situation.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#28

Post by ars » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:08 PM UTC

khafra wrote: post #23

jessriedel wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This article is a pseduo-analytical wrapper around an extremely partisian stance: My political opponents are irrational idiots (literally mad elephants ), having purposely made themselves incapable of rational cooperation. Therefore, I will take the high road as the morally upright and rational person I am. The key thing about the game of chicken is that it is symmetric. And, in fact, the current budget debate is mor…

Tea Party-leaning legislators have constituents who actually want them to shut down the Federal Government, so they have less to lose than those legislators beholden to sane voters. The problem is, once your opponent in this game of chicken has visibly guzzled a fifth of bourbon and torn off his steering wheel, it's too late for you to do the same.

You are falling into the same trap. You see them wanting to shut down the goverment and decided they are insane.

They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that - you just don't agree. And if you are unable to see that, then the fault lies with you, not with them.

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#29

Post by demallien » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:14 PM UTC

shareme wrote: post #25

demallien wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The situation isn't symmetric - the President will just invoke the 14th Amendment and bump up the debt ceiling next week if needs be. It's just that the Democrats seem to have decided to use this issue to demonstrate to the voting public just how unreasonable the Republicans have become in negotiations, by trying to negotiate when they don't even need to. Looking at recent polling results, the strategy seems to be wo…

not legal.. it specifically refers to rebellion and insurrection and costs associated with putting down a rebellion or insurrection which by no stretch can apply to the war on terror..hence Obama rejecting its use.

IANAL, but the language does not limit the guarantee of the public debt only to putting down rebellion or insurrection - those are specific cases that are included, and I would hazard to guess that the language was put in the clause to contrast with the next part which explicitly voids any debt the US has towards anyone in rebellion/insurrection against the US.

EDIT: Here's the text of section 4 of the amendment in it's entirety - "Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void."

Re: Game Theory Take On - Washington’s Rogue Elephants

#30

Post by eftpotrm » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:16 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #19

Retric wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he is calling Republicans "rogue elephants" because they have split into dysfunctional elements is reasonable. When significant portions of their party are not willing to make any deal they lose their majority standing in the house and are forced to act as a minority party in both the house and senate. PS: A basic functional strategy would be to block any Democratic bill in the senate and then pass a poison p…

They did pass a bill, the debt ceiling is tied to a balanced budget amendment.

Which is frankly ridiculous grandstanding. If nothing else, a quick look at exactly how the deficit developed will reveal the hollowness of current pleas from some wings of the Republican party for a balanced budget amendment:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24sun4.html