SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: jcky who wrote (64210)1/3/2003 12:05:08 PM
From: JohnM  Respond to of 281500
 
Thanks for the interesting article by Krugman, John. I am not too familiar with the intricacy of game theory but does one of its tenet assumes rational choices are made by all participants?

I assume so, jcky. But the definition of "rational choice" is not an easy one to make. It's easy to assume one's own leaders do so and others do not. Thus, one of the problems with rational choice theory is that it assumes some overarching concept of rationality.

I like Krugman's dive into trying to imagine options from the North's point of view. But I have, and I suspect, Krugman, has no serious idea as to whether that fits or not.

I also like the way it throws into relief the consequences of a kind of swaggering foreign policy, of not following the lead of the Clinton folk on this one. Apparently, there was a process in place which Bush simply cut off.



To: jcky who wrote (64210)1/3/2003 12:05:16 PM
From: carranza2  Respond to of 281500
 
At least we are lucky in that the geographic location of North Korea makes containment a far more realistic policy option than regime change in the immediate future.

With nuclear weapons probably in NK's hand, S. Korea's capital only 40 miles from the DMZ, and a certifiable maniac in charge of N. Korea's formidable armed forces, I really don't think regime change will ever be an option.

C2@plusmyQinvestmentwouldevaporate.com