Hacker News Reader

Don’t most of those theorems require rational agents ("homo economicus") with perfect knowledge?

Yes, and so we should treat the result with caution. But the results I were critiquing are worse, because they assume homo economicus plus some very specific deviations, or some very specific (non-free market) environment.

The paper (and most game theory based papers) also assumes that people are perfectly rational and have perfect knowledge. The only difference is that instead of actions being restricted to the free market, and payoffs being consumption, game theory allows an arbitrary environment (chosen by the paper author) to provide the actions and payoffs.

Somewhere I have bookmarked a list of all the assumptions that go into the "classic" theorems of economics, written by a practising academic in the field. I’ll try and dig it out.

You seem to have missed my point. Either way, you are making a lot of assumptions. It's like "assume zero friction" vs "assume friction follows exactly this formula". In either case, your result is wrong if friction isn't exactly as you specify.

You seem to be assuming that I’m trying to put you down instead of contributing (hopefuly) interesting things to a mutually beneficial discussion. Online discourse in a nutshell sadly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com