Sublime

Mancur Olson argues that political participation in large groups is generally attributable to the presence of “selective incentives”—rewards and punishments that operate not indiscriminately on the community as a whole but, rather, selectively in favor of the participants.

Game theory was succinctly defined by economist Roger Myerson (one of the game-theory Nobel laureates) as “the study of mathematical models of conflict and cooperation between intelligent rational decision-makers.”

proposed having owners self-assess the value of their property under penalty of having to sell at this self-assessed value.[447]

By late 2017, Berkeley had replaced Oxford as the financial capital of effective altruism. One reason for this was that Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife, Cari Tuna, signaled their intent to give away most of their multibillion-dollar fortune to effective altruist causes—but there were others. Oxford was still the movement’s intellec

Second is an aggregation mechanism, a way to bring that information into one place. Double-auction markets, where buyers bid a price and sellers offer a price, are extraordinarily good at this function. The final condition is properly functioning incentives—rewards for being right and penalties for being wrong. For the stock market, this is measure

These data make a strong case that, as human social networks grow, they necessarily lead to systems that require fewer resources per person, and produce more per person. In other words, the benefits of scale for human groups have always been there.

There frankly is a hell of a lot of value in the game theory and economics literature.

Both are dynamic systems in which the selfish actions of countless individuals—whether they be cells or investors—lead to unpredictable consequences at the system level. In turn, these collective actions and consequences feed back to influence individual actions in endless cycles of adaptation and evolution.