Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
There are three great space-faring nations in the world. Yet, only two (China and the U.S.) are prosperous. Why is Russia a laggard (e.g. can't build five-axis machine tools, supercomputers, and semiconductor processors)?
An interesting problem is the Prisoner's Dilemma. How does China get Russia to build Amur River-bridges that would benefit both nations in trade? The Russians are strictly-logical people and cannot seem to transcend the bound of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Russian logic dictates that China will benefit more from Amur River-bridges. Thus, Russia has refused to agree to building bridges across the Sino-Russian border for decades. This is a lose-lose proposition, but perfectly logical under the Prisoner's Dilemma.
China and the United States play a much more complicated game. The Prisoner's Dilemma is an idealized academic problem. In the real world, the Prisoner's Dilemma surfaces repeatedly in multiple iterations. The Russians are pretty mindless simpletons and always play the non-cooperation card.
In contrast, China always play the cooperation card. In the majority of the cases, the United States reciprocate with cooperation. However, the United States will occasionally play the non-cooperation card (e.g. impose tariffs on Chinese solar panels). Intelligently, China responds with a non-cooperate response (e.g. ban all U.S. polysilicon suppliers to Chinese solar panel manufacturers). Due to Chinese retaliation, the U.S. makes the correct move and reverts back to cooperation (e.g. cut tariffs on Chinese solar panels in half from 30% to 15%).
The following "Nice Guys Finish First" video explains the dynamics of the Prisoner's Dilemma when played in multiple iterations as in real life. As you watch the video, remember the Russians always play "defect." China always plays "cooperate" initially and moves to "Tit for Tat" as a long-term strategy. The United States mostly plays "cooperate" with an occasional "defect" against China.
An interesting problem is the Prisoner's Dilemma. How does China get Russia to build Amur River-bridges that would benefit both nations in trade? The Russians are strictly-logical people and cannot seem to transcend the bound of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Russian logic dictates that China will benefit more from Amur River-bridges. Thus, Russia has refused to agree to building bridges across the Sino-Russian border for decades. This is a lose-lose proposition, but perfectly logical under the Prisoner's Dilemma.
China and the United States play a much more complicated game. The Prisoner's Dilemma is an idealized academic problem. In the real world, the Prisoner's Dilemma surfaces repeatedly in multiple iterations. The Russians are pretty mindless simpletons and always play the non-cooperation card.
In contrast, China always play the cooperation card. In the majority of the cases, the United States reciprocate with cooperation. However, the United States will occasionally play the non-cooperation card (e.g. impose tariffs on Chinese solar panels). Intelligently, China responds with a non-cooperate response (e.g. ban all U.S. polysilicon suppliers to Chinese solar panel manufacturers). Due to Chinese retaliation, the U.S. makes the correct move and reverts back to cooperation (e.g. cut tariffs on Chinese solar panels in half from 30% to 15%).
The following "Nice Guys Finish First" video explains the dynamics of the Prisoner's Dilemma when played in multiple iterations as in real life. As you watch the video, remember the Russians always play "defect." China always plays "cooperate" initially and moves to "Tit for Tat" as a long-term strategy. The United States mostly plays "cooperate" with an occasional "defect" against China.
Last edited: