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

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

#31

Post by demallien » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:18 PM UTC

bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #22

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…

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 t…

It's true that it isn't cut and dried whether or not the 14th can be invoked, which means that any attempt to use the 14th would likely end up in the Supreme Court. It is also true that the Supreme Court is not terribly liberal at the moment. But, fortunately enough for the US and the world, raising the debt ceiling is not a 'liberal' cause - it's something that G.W. Bush, G. Bush, R. Reagan and others from the conservative side of politics have seen fit to do. It is not likely (in my opinion) that the Supreme Court would follow Tea Party rhetoric against the advice of every economics advisor out there. In other words, I think that ending up in the Supreme Court is pretty much a win for anyone that thinks the debt ceiling needs to be raised...

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

#32

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:22 PM UTC

bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #22

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…

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 t…

Issuing SS payments does not affect the federal debt subject to the debt ceiling. This means that SS is not in any danger from the debt ceiling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405311190355490457645...

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

#33

Post by DennisP » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:47 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.

I think his point is not that Republican policies are irrational, but that Obama is assuming the Republicans are ultimately willing to compromise to avoid default, and actually they're not.

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

#34

Post by eru » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:48 PM UTC

fullgodwin wrote: post #24

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.

The regime in East Germany was truly worse than in West Germany. And they knew that, even though official propaganda said something different.

(The contrast between South Korea and North Korea is, of course, even more striking. But I did not grow up in Korea.)

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

#35

Post by Astrohacker » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 1:52 PM UTC

bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #18

paganel wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be terrible in the short run, but it would be vastly better in the long run. Presently, the US is on the unsustainable trajectory of acquiring debt until it defaults. Some of us have been saying this ever since Bear&Stearns went down, in the spring of 2008, that you cannot just prop up an non-solvent bank/country/whatever. At that time all the "bright" economists were saying things like "it's only a liquid…

Eventually there will be a good deal of money printing involved in solving this problem, especially given the paucity of options available for fixed-income investors with a low appetite for risk (what, would you prefer the Euro or the Yen?), but it will never be the case that the US will have a solvency problem in the same way as Bear Stearns or Greece because they can always print their way out of it with inflation…

Is inflation tame according to the Fed calculations which ignore expenses that matter to people like oil, or according to meaningful calculations? Because it sure seems to me that the prices I pay are rising pretty quickly. Quickly enough that I can notice it. A cup of coffee that cost $1.95 a couple of years ago now costs $2.30. And I'm not earning any more money than I was then, so I can feel the difference.

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

#36

Post by vbtemp » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 2:18 PM UTC

> The president is best advised to do the same: declare that the other side has foregone all pretense at rational legitimacy, and simply proceed to govern as best he can for the good of the country.

This is seriously how the article ends? How does the author suggest he do that, considering one house is controlled by these "rogue elephants". That's the important question. Professor Captain Obvious hasn't really contributed anything new by labeling the republicans as a much of crazy animals...

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

#37

Post by khafra » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 2:28 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #28

khafra wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether they're sane by some objective standard is irrelevant to this understanding of the underlying game theory. If someone handcuffs himself to you on the edge of a cliff and starts dancing a jig, he has the upper hand in negotiations, for pretty much anything he wants to negotiate.

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

#38

Post by albedoa » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 2:31 PM UTC

ars wrote: post #28

khafra wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They have perfectly sane reasons for wanting that

Name one.

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

#39

Post by michaelfeathers » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 2:32 PM UTC

demallien wrote: post #31

bd_at_rivenhill wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

It's true that it isn't cut and dried whether or not the 14th can be invoked, which means that any attempt to use the 14th would likely end up in the Supreme Court. It is also true that the Supreme Court is not terribly liberal at the moment. But, fortunately enough for the US and the world, raising the debt ceiling is not a 'liberal' cause - it's something that G.W. Bush, G. Bush, R. Reagan and others from the conse…

To me, it's not even clear that it would end up with a decision in the Supreme Court given the political questions doctrine and the fact that's hard to imagine who would have standing. I think that the worst that would happen is long impeachment proceedings.

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

#40

Post by ars » Wed, Jul 27, 2011, 2:37 PM UTC

khafra wrote: post #37

ars wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether they're sane by some objective standard is irrelevant to this understanding of the underlying game theory. If someone handcuffs himself to you on the edge of a cliff and starts dancing a jig, he has the upper hand in negotiations, for pretty much anything he wants to negotiate.

You are still stuck.

You think they are doing things just to annoy you, or for no reason at all.

They are choosing things because they think it's the best thing to do.

But you seem incapable of realizing that someone may actually have a different opinion about something. You seem to think that if they have a different opinion it must mean that they are not rational.