Comments on: Special Issue of JEM on Thomas Schelling http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/10/special-issue-of-jem-on-thomas-schelling/ Economics of organizations, strategy, entrepreneurship, innovation, and more Sun, 20 Jul 2008 05:20:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=MU By: Nicolai Foss http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/10/special-issue-of-jem-on-thomas-schelling/#comment-69475 Nicolai Foss Mon, 11 Feb 2008 08:38:35 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1370#comment-69475 Michael, u are entirely right, of course, but isn't this like complaining about the way Solow treated the residual, or about Hayek's failure to define a role for money in general equilibrium, etc.? Isn't it appropriate that Selten AND Schelling both received the Nobel? Michael, u are entirely right, of course, but isn’t this like complaining about the way Solow treated the residual, or about Hayek’s failure to define a role for money in general equilibrium, etc.? Isn’t it appropriate that Selten AND Schelling both received the Nobel?

]]> By: Rafe Champion http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/10/special-issue-of-jem-on-thomas-schelling/#comment-69473 Rafe Champion Mon, 11 Feb 2008 03:26:53 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1370#comment-69473 Without reading the articles I could be wide of the mark but it always looked as though game theory was based on the wrong games. If you analyse a game like cricket you end up with a kind of Austrian (or Even More Austrian) analysis that takes account of the rules of the game (the institutional setting), plus the way the rules are interpreted by oficialdom (the regulators) and any local traditions that are relevant, plus the individual strengths and weaknesses of the players, including their capacity to learn, the tactics and strategy employed by the teams (including changes of personnel) as the game (and the series) proceeds over time, plus elements of technology that intrude. And the weather. http://www.the-rathouse.com/EvenMoreAustrianProgram/OffspinneronReductionvsExistence.html Without reading the articles I could be wide of the mark but it always looked as though game theory was based on the wrong games. If you analyse a game like cricket you end up with a kind of Austrian (or Even More Austrian) analysis that takes account of the rules of the game (the institutional setting), plus the way the rules are interpreted by oficialdom (the regulators) and any local traditions that are relevant, plus the individual strengths and weaknesses of the players, including their capacity to learn, the tactics and strategy employed by the teams (including changes of personnel) as the game (and the series) proceeds over time, plus elements of technology that intrude. And the weather. http://www.the-rathouse.com/EvenMoreAustrianProgram/OffspinneronReductionvsExistence.html

]]> By: michael webster http://organizationsandmarkets.com/2008/02/10/special-issue-of-jem-on-thomas-schelling/#comment-69470 michael webster Sun, 10 Feb 2008 20:48:05 +0000 http://organizationsandmarkets.wordpress.com/?p=1370#comment-69470 Hmm, most of Schelling's commitment devices were examples of ignoring sub-game perfection. The examples were compelling, but there was little theoretical or formal examination of what Schelling was up to. Hmm, most of Schelling’s commitment devices were examples of ignoring sub-game perfection.

The examples were compelling, but there was little theoretical or formal examination of what Schelling was up to.

]]>