The game theory and the actions at the top level of society

 The game theory and the actions at the top level of society

By using short explanation the game theory is model, where every organism and actor in the universe are willing to maximize their benefit. In this text, the word "universe" means international and domestic politics, and also the economical universe, where the companies are acting. In the last environment, the companies are always calculating their benefit, before they are willing to buy or sell anything.

The signals, what company gives, when they are buying or selling things like other companies are important. If the company sells its production equipment, and it doesn't buy a new one, would that thing to tell that the company has economical problems. In the world of economics, companies are in a war, where the stocks and money are acting like ammunition.

Competition must be made by using legal methods, if some businessmen are caught from illegal actions, that would break the reputation of the company. But here we must understand that also one thing must be remembered when we are talking about companies and law. Military companies can operate for the governments in some areas, where sending regular troops would be a political hard decision.

That kind of things are the cases when some areas are swept or "cleaned" from hostile actors for things like oil business. That kind of operations would be made because the hostile actors wanted to deny to get the benefit from those natural resources. And in that case, the operation can be made by using mercenary soldiers, what keeps the shield of the government clean. The field operatives could be selected from the countries, which cannot be connected to the main actor, and that makes this kind of military "dirty business" very addictive. 

This is the idea of the theory, which is acting as a base in the thing, that is called as "economical and social Darwinism". In this version of Darwinistic evolution the companies and states, what is wealthy can survive. The rest of them are facing bankruptcy. The benefit of the state is a benefit to the leaders of the state, and this the thing in the gaming in economical and political areas. When the leaders of the state or companies are making alliances they are expecting to get something fro that alliance.

If we think things like games in stock marketing from the base of the game theory, the idea of those actions is to maximize the benefit of the companies, and when the companies have high profits and high standards, which means that the work has high quality, that would bring benefit especially for the leaders of the company. When we are thinking about the field of economics, we must realize that in the capitalistic model should the company have competitors. The competitor guarantees, that the company makes good work and this drops the not qualified operators out of the markets.

But the competitor guarantees also that the workers are making a good job. Because if the workers don't handle their jobs, the competitor would get the next job, and that is a really bad thing for the company. But the thing is that the leaders of the company can always get new jobs easily because the mistakes in the working area are made by the workers. Or at least this is the thing, what the leaders would say.

When we are thinking about political leadership, there are always people, who want to get points from the top. That means that those actors are always looking for the highest possible actor for supporting their benefit. This makes things like changing the constitution and the regalia of the state actors so difficult. The thing is that if the president has similar opinions as we have, that person has not too much regalia.

But when we are opposition for the president or head of the state or the president's decisions do not please us, we always want to change the constitution. This is the problem with leadership. If the leader is on our side, there is no problem with the power, what this person uses. This makes this kind of things so difficult. In the real world is always somebody, who tells everything to the boss, because that kind of things is bringing the benefit for that person's political career. 

When we are thinking about the benefit of political leaders, we must realize that those people are like "common leaders". They are making decisions about common things, and that saves them very often. They are not any special researchers or experts. And if somebody has some other opinions, they are saying that "would you come to make things on my place"?

There are many other decisions, what the politician must do, and that means that the thing, what might be dear for me, might be only one decision for that day. And this is the thing in politics. The mission of the politician is to share the limited resources of the state. During that thing, those persons must read the papers, what are brought in the front of them.

But sometimes politician must get publicity because those persons need votes when they are looking for the next season in the parliament or some other political institution. And in those cases, the politician might propose things, what are against that person's interest or benefit. In those cases, the politician can think that maybe somebody else would fall the suggestion, what would bring votes, but is against politicians personal benefit.