You are ignoring the theorem. The one who has less to lose will take greater risks
That depends on whether the losses are a percentage or not. The man with a million dollars is much more likely to risk $1000 then the man with $1500. Perhaps the man with a million dollars is less likely to risk 100% of his money then the person with $1500.
In this case both parties risk everything. If the "rich man" could avoid risking everything then it would make sense for him to do so, but he can't, so the fact that everything is at risk pushes him to "play the game" harder not to be soft and let the other side dictate how the game will play out. And the rich man has more resources to devote to the fight.
I think you're missing the point. The Israeli isn't risking just $1000.....they are risking the whole tamale.......same with the Palestinians. However, what the Israelis have to lose is significantly greater than the Palestinians. Econ. theorem states that the party who has the most to lose will be the most cautious and will not be willing to risk everything.
If one person has $.05 and the other $50k, who do you think will be more willing to lose all to get what they want? You've used econ. theory before with re. to agric. subsidies and other subjects. This is no time to be abandoning it.
Economics is better in describing how people react to market signals and to distortions of the market signals then it is at predicting the results of violent conflicts. Economics deals with production and exchange of goods and services.
Logical theorems can apply to more than just econ. activities.......marginal values found in econ. apply when people evaluate their own lives. A well educated person with a successful job is less likely to commit suicide than an unemployed person with an 8th grade education. Why? Because his life has more value to him.
The most valuable thing they have to lose are their lives.....and what's Israel going to do.....kill them all? Unlikely.....Israelis are very sensitive to the issue of genocide for good reason.
The Palestinians probably can't actually win by force, but if they became enough of a threat to defeat and "ethnically cleanse" or commit genocide against the Israelis then Israel would face losing everything and would use the resources it has to prevent that, with extreme brutality if necessary.
I don't agree for a lot of reasons. One reason was examplified this week.......the international outrage expressed after the Israelis lastest foray into Gaza. The world's attention is more and more focused on Israel......Sharon is pushing the envelope. And there are other more complex reasons that are not worth going into.
In any case, Israel's hands are getting more and more tied.
The fact that the Palestinians have less to lose matters in conflicts where the person with more to lose can easily back out. But if a poor guy pushes a rich guy to the brink and puts the rich guy at risk of losing everything, and the rich guy has no way of backing out then the poor guy's lack of "things to lose" won't matter much. When the poor guy comes to kill the rich guy the rich guy's bank account won't prevent him from fighting back.
You're just churning here......trying to defend the Israeli position.
I would say that the Palestinians are feeling a lot more pain, but we hear less griping because 1 - They are a bit more used to it, 2 - Griping against Hamas and the PLO is probably not very healthy in the Palestinian controlled areas.
You're rationalizing......where's the poster who is a strong believer in logic?
That's not rationalizing. Its speculating based on the limited data that are available. It might be illogical if I went went beyond statements like "I would say that..." and "...is probably", to statements like "Is is true without any doubt that the Palestinians feel far more pain then the Israelis.", but I made no such statement.
If it were as bad as you suggest, they would stop. Like I've said repeatedly, they are at the point where what do they have to lose. You never want to push people to that place.
ted |
