Beijing signals it may let Micron out of the penalty box in the Middle Kingdom

Micron's fortunes in China appear to be on the mend after the Middle Kingdom's commerce minister invited the US chipmaker to expand its investments in the region. Speaking with Micron CEO Sanjay Mehrotra this week, Minister of Commerce Wang Wentao said China was willing to work with US and other foreign companies to promote …

[BoPi]

The simulation has been run with the following results for each player:

USA:

Payoff: 3737

Relational Capital: 57

Strength of Relation: 1 (indicating strong relationship between the USA and other nations)

China:

Payoff: 1565

Relational Capital: 23

Strength of Relation: 0.0357 (indicating a high level of suspicion and thus a weaker relation between China and other nations)

The other players (Players 3 to 13) have varying payoffs, relational capitals, and strengths of relation, indicating differing levels of suspicion and relational strength. It's clear from these results that the relational dynamics vary widely across the network, with the USA having the strongest relationships due to a lack of suspicion, while China has incurred some suspicion, likely due to instances of false cooperation.

Player 7 (Russia) has a payoff of 452, but a relational capital of -120, indicating negative relations with other players, matched by a high suspicion level of 120.

Players 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 13 all maintain positive relational capital and have no suspicion.

This simulation provides an abstract representation of how relational dynamics might play out in an international context, with "payoff" perhaps representing economic or diplomatic gains, "relational capital" reflecting the strength of bilateral relationships, and "suspicion level" inversely related to trust.

[martinusher]

I'd be careful with simulations like this (even it if was a real simulation) because of the "GIGO" problem.

A stunning case in point occurred with the abortive Ukraine offensive that was extensively war gamed by NATO simulators before the actual troop deployments. In theory this should have taken into account all sorts of scenarios, working out the optimum strategy to adopt to achieve the desired result with minimal cost. Unfortunately the program inputs were critically flawed -- the assumption was made that once western weapons were deployed the badly trained and motivated Russian troops would just run away. It turned out that the Russians were nothing of the sort so the entire operation turned into a rather nasty meat grinder. (In fact, its been reported that the AFU has ditched the entire NATO combined arms playbook and gone back to (effectively) trench warfare.)

So, without disclosing the meaning behind the scores and variables you run the risk of making useless simulations that are inherently biased towards whoever is paying for the work. In this case the real-world economic numbers don't tally with the simulation's results suggesting a flaw in the logic -- or delusional wishful thinking.