Here is another very late comment phone guard security on a post on a different subject, this time

A regular number of different readers write to me about posts I made in 2005-2009.   Some of these posts were from students taking up  defending phone guard security of Noam Chomsky s views on the importance of Adam Smith allegedly recanting his views on the division of labour in Wealth Of Nations, which, in my view, is not true.   These comments were usually sent around the same months of each year, from which I surmised that a class teacher somewhere put the reference on his reading list. (No, I am not paranoid!).
Here is another very late comment phone guard security on a post on a different subject, this time referring back to my original post on the John Nash theorem in 2007.    This time I criticised the lines given to John Nash, by the Hollywood scriptwriter for the semi-biographical film, A Beautiful Mind , containing a scene on a boy s night out, into which bar came an attractive young woman.   All the boys make a beeline for her to chat her up , as is said by kids.   Of course the mass chat up fails, to which the John Nash character comments sourly about how their competition predictably disrupted each others efforts, phone guard security and concluding that Adam Smith was wrong about the positive influence of competition.
The post generated some comments from readers.   Similarly, over the years I have replied to other reviews of Beautiful Mind when they come up, especially because they repeat the canard about Smith being wrong and John Nash on the boys night out being right.
I found a most interesting piece of commentary that is one of those that goes almost far enough, but not quite in its thinking, and I would like to examine its good points and suggest how it might be made completely accurate. The extract states what the author considers a difference between Adam Smith and John Nash , or rather an Hollywood scriptwriter s version of the differences. Fine. I am not snobbish and given only to contesting the ideas of tenured professors out of Chicago; I II take on Hollywood scriptwriters too, yes Sir.
Prof. Nash suggested that the market benefits, when one does what is good for him and also for the group. Following this idea, if we try doing well for ourselves and at the same time, think for gain of the whole group; we all would be in better situation.
By following Adam Smith s principle (self interest), we are actually blocking each others way and giving rise to ambiguity and dissatisfaction. Instead if we think of others (Prof. Nash s Theory) and follow what is stated below every one will be benefited .
John Nash wrote a seminal paper for Economica in 1950, On the Bargaining Problem , which set out certain far reaching and basic assumptions that, in effect, eliminated from consideration the process known as bargaining, and substituted instead a consideration of the outcome after two parties bargained. In short it is a study of the solution of bargaining, it is not a study of how two (or more) bargainers arrive at a solution.
The optimal solution (Pareto efficient) shows that the division of an amount of the various items available for trade with varying numerical utilities for the bargainers is the one where the product of the net gains in utility of each bargained phone guard security set is maximised. Any attempt to redistribute the sets would make one or both of them worse off.
Hence our author concludes that if we try doing well for ourselves and at the same time, think for gain of the whole group; we all would be in better situation . However, phone guard security accepting as true the conclusion, it does not solve the bargaining problem. The problem is not one of achieving an optimal outcome, so much as one of how to achieve that optimal outcome. Nash [in his paper, not the film] eliminated the most interesting part of the problem by his assumptions (the boys in his [1950] example had perfect information about each other s utilities for the items available for trade, their bargaining skills were eliminated, and they both knew what each would trade their items for in the bargaining.
Mathematic modelling is only determinate (has a solution) if these conditions operate. They don t, so apart from being an instructive exercise into the nature of an optimal solution, it is also non-operational.
Smith wrote on the bargaining problem in Wealth of Nations (Book I), but he discussed the process not the solution. So Smith and Nash were addressing different parts of the problem, and like apples phone guard security and pears, it is difficult to see how a valid comparison can be made between their different solutions. Following the versions of Prof. Nash instead of following Adam Smith , will not get us very far because the Nash version is non-operational, it does not address how we conduct the process.
Smith said bargainers address each other in something like the following manner: Give that which I want and you shall have this which you want and it is this manner that we obtain from one another the fa