© 2006 , 2007 Greg Kaiser

feel free to copy and distribute entire document

Exposé: Competition and [Con] Game Theory: Again - We Were Had

“The trade of the petty usurer is hated with most reason: it makes a profit from currency itself, instead of making it from the process which currency was meant to serve. Their common characteristic is obviously their sordid avarice.” - Aristotle

It’s the rich who are the weak. They give in to envy and desire for the produce of others. When they’ve misled the community and have hoarded our common wealth, they claim it was produced by their authority and hard work. We all know how many poor fools believe that sorry propaganda. We shall vanquish this evil. Remember, the profit of investors is the most unnecessary part of the cost of any product.

July 1, 2007
      Conservatives speak often of freedoms but like the choices available in the market place, only the rich ones can afford them. They are all about their right to exploit our society for personal gain, without government interference, but want nothing to do with the community’s common well being, unless it’s time for our children to die for their freedom to own everything and to enslave US with debt, on that which we pretend is our own. As long as they have what they want, and they want it all, then everything is OK. So called Liberals in America buy into the great meritocracy/opportunity lie, a scam which the neo-aristocracy sells to US all, and which makes it all fair. That’s why they can’t see what’s coming and don’t want to.
      Their hubris is such that they think they can keep the majority of US stupid with lies, as they’ve done for thousands of years. But after thirty years of real progress for all Americans we’ve had almost forty years of economic decline for most of US (80+% and growing fast) while the affluent minority and their sellouts, sycophants and wannabees are a shrinking fraction with growing wealth. That’s the economic growth the neo con artists point out every day. They’re so stupid themselves that they believe their own lies and don’t comprehend the destructive dissipation their greed has caused. They’re also ignorant of the growing discontent as their slaves catch on. They don’t know what’s coming, because, as in all things, their narrow focus on their individual bottom lines precludes the possibility of foresight and vision with respect to the cumulative effect of their evil.

      Game Theory attempts to systemize a logic of manipulation of the community, which, like all economic theories that by design or perversion serve as rationalizations for the existence of the rich, silently presupposes the acts of individual “players” in their own interest will not damage the social institution that is played for profit. Individual material gain at the expense of all, is the “outcome” that it’s assumed will create the most “utility” and will therefore be the object of the “agents” strategies. It’s development has taken place in an intellectual environment that limits thought and acknowledged Human Nature to politically acceptable social and economic theories. That is: ideology and thought are restricted to that which does not threaten the property, money or power of the elite ruling class, the neo aristocracy. Those who carry on the work today, like every other discipline, have never known freedom and so believe it when they’re told they are free. Specious enough in it’s conception, Game Theory’s incredibly shallow by the time it trickles down to conservatives like George Will, who unknowingly mock it.
      “. . . Today conservatives tend to favor freedom, and consequently are inclined to be somewhat sanguine about inequalities of outcomes. Liberals are . . . Conservatism is realism, about human nature and government's competence. . . .” - “The Case for Conservatism” [WA Post] By George F. Will; Thursday, May 31, 2007; Page A19 - What we really have here is a case of social Darwinism, which rationalizes the hoarding of the communities wealth by a few elite conservatives, and of projection of conservative faults onto their opponents. (Projection is mostly what follows the statement, “liberals are . . .” whenever it’s uttered - and it often is - by reactionaries.) What’s clearly implied by the article is Will’s desire to have the “outcomes” determined without constraint by the community, which is exploited to increase the “utility” [the thing desired - usually assumed to be profit] of “players,” who have competed and won. This is without regard to the damage of impoverishment of the population, who are the community that’s victimized by the “agents” of note.
      No redress of our common grievance concerning their parasitic profit is possible. We don’t dare offend the rich investors, who have stolen the produce of our work, through the imposition of taxes to recover some of our common loss to their individual hoards of the people’s goods and property. The market will take care of everything and the rich [conservatives] will get what they want from the community (which only they can afford to choose) if the government doesn’t interfere. They want it all. They won’t give it back even when they die. [Ed, note: All that is a case for the extermination of parasitic conservative vermin.] What really pisses me off is their inability to understand zero sum reality. Well, there’s also the hubris of the “winners,” who concoct such idiotic theories to rationalize their greed. Their existence as a class harms We the People, our Nation and the Human Race. They are a threat to survival.

      “. . . a country with an excess of bananas trading with another country for their excess of apples, where both benefit from the transaction, are referred to as non-zero-sum. . . .” - Wikipedia. I guess they think that variety and choice are useful and consumable goods in and of themselves. While desirable, it can’t be said that they are things. But economists are always trying to make something from nothing. That’s how they’re able to contrive a very comfortable existence of words alone. Such specious notions are also sufficient for game theory, invented by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern in 1944. But zero sum equations represent physical reality that no amount of economists wind will dis-substantiate. “In game theory, zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).” -ibid. While economists acknowledge zero sum reality with pronouncements like the latter, the former tends to mislead and obscure the loss to the community that’s must occur to allow the gain of the individual or clique of elite capitalist investors and traders .
      The loss becomes apparent when we keep in mind that money is a token, which represents the goods we trade. At the basis of all economy is material things. The “value added” by a pretty package, description, pride of ownership or a false sense of well being that has been created by offering a variety of choices all of which further enrich one capitalist or another, is insubstantial. Yet economists and investors live on it - and the interest on the loans that we borrow to get back the money they’ve conned out of US, through the application of their specious theories. Today services, especially finance, are the principal way of making money. Since all service is non productive of real goods, it is a burden on society. It would be well to call it disservice. In fact, the money it makes is nothing but inflation that devalues the currency because it produces no goods to represent it. That is cold, hard, zero sum reality.
      So let’s examine apples and bananas to see what if anything is gained or lost by both countries involved in the trade. Zero sum reality is expressed, at the primary school level, as a = b. Therefore, a -b = 0. If a1 represents the apples traded by country 1 and b2 the bananas traded by country 2, then after the transaction a1 + a2 = b1 + b2 . That substitutes into a = b and the original zero sum criteria is satisfied: (a1 + a2) - (b1 + b2) = 0. No matter how complex the trades among any number of agents, the zero sum criteria for material goods must be satisfied or someone loses. [See the “Nash Equilibrium.”] If both sides gain, imaginary wealth has been introduced and the medium of exchange has been corrupted. The money is worth less. In America our money is almost completely worthless.
      If someone finances the trade and makes money by the usury, the number of tokens involved in the transaction increases but neither the value of nor the amount of goods in the equation is affected. However, the value of the money is decreased because there’s more of it to represent the same amount of goods. After a time the capitalists accrue most of the money. The more they have the less its worth and the faster they make it. Still, despite the dissipative effect of finance, the owners end up with a bigger piece of the pie. Our debt grows at the same rate as their share of the goods we cooperate under the direction of “free market forces” to produce.
      “In game theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a kind of solution concept of a game involving two or more players, . . . the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
      “. . . Nash showed for the first time in his dissertation, Non-cooperative games (1950), that Nash equilibria (in mixed strategies) must exist for all finite games with any number of players. Until Nash, this had only been proven for 2-player zero-sum games by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1947).” ibid.
      Outcomes are ruled by zero sum reality. Even the honest economists understood the difference between material goods and imaginary money that is created by usury and other profits, which are superfluous to the real economic transactions. Those preceded Milton Friedman’s Chicago School and the issue of free trade, privatization and service economy advocates, apologists and supporters like Greenspan and Bernanke. But the increasingly degenerate intellectual progeny, and their henchmen like Thatcher and Reagan, aren’t so honest. They try to tell US that the good feeling we get from having a choice between apples and bananas is a real and substantial asset with other than imaginary value. Apparently they have enough of the imaginary money that’s been produced by their scam, while raising the prices and reducing real wages for the rest of US, that they don’t have to worry about choosing among food, rent and getting needed medical attention.

      Game theory is perverted to a play on the internalized propaganda, which says that competition is good for everyone. The “outcomes” of competition are not to be disputed by the losers. The theory doesn’t state such as its purpose but the inference is clear to me. “We’ve got it, because we won. You don’t deserve it. We do. Shut up, losers!” It has degenerated to the absurd Social Darwinism of the neo-cons, and the acceptance of the “outcomes” by the so called liberals.
      If conservatives think outcomes must be unregulated and progressives say outcomes indicate lack of opportunity, then tax the winners to compensate for unequal opportunity and thus allow the winners to continue playing the game. That is: have the rest of US work to create the wealth they win in the economic competition and then we get the money back to spend on consumption that allows them to win it again. They’ll have it all again and again in no time and the pyramid scheme will have continuous and more slowly dissipative growth, because the imaginary part will be recycled. The games go on but won’t destroy the economy so fast, because we’ll keep taking from the top to revitalize the consumption that keeps the merry going round. The clowns running the circus should be pleased with this solution. It’s way more sustainable than the debt kite or the absurd notion of exacerbating the concentration of wealth through non taxation of those with all the money, which forces even more debt. Taxation of the rich is the only answer, other than confiscation of excess money and property, which effects the redistribution that's necessary to keep the game going.
      Next we have to deal with the “winning” (because profitable) strategy of outsourcing that leads to even more currency devaluation and more importantly, skill and knowledge loss. Without our knowledge and skills we can’t make the products that we need to get our money back and we’re even outsourcing the services that were supposed to keep US dominant and solvent. Besides, the Chinese are slowly coming out of the closet, by indicating that they don’t need our service anyway. [See recent leniency towards labor unions and anti sweat shop reforms in China.] The conservative and so called liberal leaders are myopic and ultimately self destructive in their treacherous acceptance of the economist/philosopher’s rationalization for greed. They are wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporatist regime that has displaced and obviated democracy in America.

“The People, United, Will Never Be Defeated!”

   contact me:

Greg Kaiser
email to

I'll feed myself and provide other necessary resources so that I may continue to write.

A G Kaiser

archive of Exposes`