July 20, 2010

The Ultimate Game

The Ultimate Game is a study performed in the 1970s by Werner Guth. The premise is of the game is simple. There are two players. Player One is given a sum of money and told he must give Player Two an open amount. Player Two can either accept the money and both players keep their sum or reject the offer and both players walk away with nothing.

Ofcourse, the only motivation for Player Two to reject the offer is to punish Player One. It is also in Player Two's best interest to accept whatever sum is offered him, knowing he will receive nothing if he does not. Surprisingly, most offers resulted in about half of them money with cooperation and mutual benefit being the outcome.

Now, what gets really interesting and should help you destroy any argument any Marxist can muster is the results where the game was played with fifteen varying tribal societies. The societies that were most closed off, less engaged in trade and more advanced economic systems were the least generous and rational about the outcome.

Machiguerna (slash and burn) farmers from the Amazon averaged just 15% give away. And nearly all would be recipients rejected the offer.1

Players most integrated in modern markets such as the Orma Nomads from Kenya or the Achuar subsistence gardeners of Ecuador offered up nearly half, similar to their western counter parts.

What can we take from this game? That self interest raises all boats. Trade and commerce based on mutual self interest results in more generosity and the more people have access to these ideas and their results, the more people will prosper and work in cooperation. Self interest was the motivating force in the cases were the people gave more, not altruism.


1. Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist-How Prosperity Evolves (New York: Harper Collins, 2010) 87-88

Comments (4)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
KMBR's Back!

Very good post following the post CL did regarding Maddow's ridiculous comment about paying for tax cuts...they seem to kind of go together.

but what do I know I am a greedy capitalist not a selfless communist
1 reply · active 767 weeks ago
KOOK, you are not a greedy capitalist. You support economic liberty as do most Americans. BHO and his banking cronies are the greedy capitalists and with greed comes a desire to impede the ability of others succeed in a similar manner. You have never demonstrated such a desire to prevent the success of others, nor do the vast majority of our readers here. The notion of economic liberty should be a concept that we push when others opposed to capitalism try to engage in loaded debate. Even with the "anti-capitalist" or "anti-wall street" sentiment within the Country, attacking personal economic freedom or liberty is not going to win general support. This is simply taking a play from the book of liberal name changing where "nationalizing" is a "bailout" and a "jobs bill" only "saves or possibly creates" jobs.
But, but, but (sputters the progressive) It can't be valid if it doesn't take legions of government bureaucrats and pseudointellectual eggheads...
CL did give us a great post, and has much potential as a blogger or activist no matter what issues she chooses to take up. You also give us absolutely great posts. I was saddened when you stated you would not be posting here anymore. I'm glad you changed your mind there. The subject of this post is exactly why 2 or 3 RINOs always seem to break from the Repubs and vote with Dems on key issues every time. I believe that when a deal is offered to Repub leadership such as: you take some perks or a pork project in favored districts in exchange for a few votes for the enemy. Sure enough Repub leadership always seems to lose one or two out of it's ranks. This happens so frequently that now I think if it weren't the usual suspects (Brown, Snowe, etc) then 2 or 3 other suspects would take their place. I believe those calling shots for the national Republican Party are closet progressives and need to be thrown out with every other incumbent in the midterms. There are some good folks in the Republican Party in DC, such as ones that have signed on to the "tea party caucus. There are even a few Dems that are okay (like Phil Bredesen in Tennessee), but most need to get pink slips ASAP!!!

Post a new comment

Comments by

Blog Widget by LinkWithin