Just to clarify, what is allowed here. I can think of tons of scenarios where there are probably better equilibria (e.g. nuclear disarmament, no starving people, etc) in which clearly the current state is not optimal, and there’s some other theoretical equilibria that’s more optimal.
Just to clarify, what is allowed here. I can think of tons of scenarios where there are probably better equilibria (e.g. nuclear disarmament, no starving people, etc) in which clearly the current state is not optimal, and there’s some other theoretical equilibria that’s more optimal.
At a minimum, there should be a good argument that the new equilibrium is stable in that no one can benefit by unilaterally defecting.
Yeah. The new equilibrium has to be realistic, and, as Measure says, stable.
Situations where there’s almost certainly a better equilibria, but we don’t know what it is, don’t count.
Every entry should include:
How things are currently, and why that’s bad.
How they could be instead, and why that’s better.
What’s blocking the transition from 1 to 2.