I’m inclined to ask you what you mean by “threat”.
I’m inclined to refer you to the standard literature of game theory. I assure you, you will not be harmed by the information you encounter there.
...who are prevented from “threatening” each other by a police man …
I will at least mention that the definition of “threat” is inclusive enough that a cons table would not always intervene to prevent a threat.
… Do you think that the police man necessarily prevents a bargain being reached?
No, the cons table’s intervention merely alters the bargaining position of the players, thus leading to a different bargain being reached. Very likely, though, one or the other of the players will be harmed by the intervention and the other player helped. Whether this shift in results is or is not a good thing is a value judgment that not even the most ideological laissez-faire advocate would undertake without serious misgivings.
If rational bargainers fail to reach agreement, this is usually because their information is different, thus leading each to believe the other is being unreasonable; it is not because one or another negotiating tactic is disallowed.
ETA: Only after posting this did I look back and see why you asked these questions. It was my statement to the effect that “bargaining requires threats”. Let me clarify. The subject of bargaining includes the subject of threats. A theory of bargaining which attempts to exclude threats is not a theory of bargaining at all.
I’m inclined to refer you to the standard literature of game theory. I assure you, you will not be harmed by the information you encounter there.
I will at least mention that the definition of “threat” is inclusive enough that a cons table would not always intervene to prevent a threat.
No, the cons table’s intervention merely alters the bargaining position of the players, thus leading to a different bargain being reached. Very likely, though, one or the other of the players will be harmed by the intervention and the other player helped. Whether this shift in results is or is not a good thing is a value judgment that not even the most ideological laissez-faire advocate would undertake without serious misgivings.
If rational bargainers fail to reach agreement, this is usually because their information is different, thus leading each to believe the other is being unreasonable; it is not because one or another negotiating tactic is disallowed.
ETA: Only after posting this did I look back and see why you asked these questions. It was my statement to the effect that “bargaining requires threats”. Let me clarify. The subject of bargaining includes the subject of threats. A theory of bargaining which attempts to exclude threats is not a theory of bargaining at all.