Comments on Harry Clarke “More on Rio, BHP-Billiton & Chinalco’s rejected love”, June 2009, http://www.harryrclarke.com/2009/06/09/more-on-rio-bhp-billiton-chinalcos-rejected-love/
People are talking about the monopoly issue and the Cournot Nash model just like they can be applied anywhere without a need to be modified. It is laughable for such a naivety.
Don’t you think it might be more appropriate to use a strategic model of strategic gaming by monopoly and monoposony (not sure the spelling is correct)? There is a need for a little bit more advanced economics, perhaps. Let’s be more realistic.
China is much bigger than Australia. It is unlikely that Australia will benefit from strategic gaming with China. So it may be in Australia’s interest not to play that game and build trust with the Chinese to benefit both.
Just thinking one side can move and the other side, the bigger one doesn't is misleading to not only other people, but self-cheating as well. Let's be mature, alright?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment