[dash2]

" any solution to a problem that is not a Nash-equilibrium cannot be implemented."

This is empirically false. For example, voluntary contributions to a public good are not a Nash equilibrium, but we observe substantial contributions in experiments with real humans.

It's also weird to argue this and then argue against govt intervention. If you don't think non-Nash solutions to public goods problems such as global warming work, then what alternative is there but government intervention?

[candiodari]

Just because people try, on occasion, to fight a Nash equilibrium does not mean they can win. Hell, I bet people do that by mistake. Often even.

Only if they win would it actually mean something. Call me when donations (or government policy) end poverty, for instance.

[eli_gottlieb]

Social Security basically ended extreme "living on cat-food" poverty among the elderly.

[someguydave]

At the cost of being too expensive to sustain.

[eli_gottlieb]

[citation needed]