ShareThis Page

Game of Thrones: What you don't know could get you killed

| Saturday, Aug. 19, 2017, 5:06 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Samwell Tarly knows more than the maesters of the Citadel. Littlefinger knows more than Arya. And Bran knows more than anyone in “Game of Thrones.”

The imbalance in knowledge is what economists call “asymmetric information” — when one party in a transaction knows more than the other and can exploit the advantage. It can be bad for economies. And it's certainly bad for the people of Westeros as the threat of Whitewalkers drew closer in the seventh season's fifth episode, Eastwatch.

The episode ended with Jon Snow leading six others beyond the Wall. They're on a possible suicide mission to capture a wight — a reanimated corpse controlled by the Whitewalkers. Why? Because of the imbalance of the knowledge, the group hopes to prove that the threat is real to Queen Cersei in order to unite Westeros' warring factions against a common and demonic enemy. Little do they know that Cersei is already prepared to call a truce, providing only more evidence about the challenges caused by asymmetric information.

The Associated Press' economics team digs into this problem with Moody's Analytics economist Adam Ozimek in the latest episode of “The Wealth of Westeros.” Later, author and journalist William Cohan joins the show to discuss the connections between “Game of Thrones” and Wall Street.

“Asymmetric information” is often a cause of markets failing. Think about sub-prime mortgages that Wall Street firms sold to investors as safe. Or used cars where the dealership knows more than the buyer — the example cited by George Akerlof in his Nobel Prize-winning paper on the issue. This problem makes it difficult to foster any sense of trust. Economists have developed ways to handle an imbalance of information, but Westeros lacks those strategies.

Consider Samwell Tarly's frustration with the council of maesters.

He killed a Whitewalker with a dragonglass blade while stuck north of the Wall, so he knows that they're a legit threat. But now he's at the Citadel training to be a maester, where the most valuable books that might contain secrets for defeating this threat are kept under lock-and-key. Nor can Tarly convince the maesters that Whitewalkers are real.

“Definitely for the maesters this is a problem,” Ozimek said. “It gets at kind of the closed-off and cloistered nature of knowledge and information in this economy. ... The role of information gathering and the role of spreading knowledge and sharing knowledge is held almost exclusively within the maesters.”

This means that the maesters distrust any outside voices.

So what does Tarly do? He steals the relevant books and hightails it out of town on a horse-drawn cart. He's ready to share whatever knowledge he might glean, even though the public might be just as doubtful as the maesters.

But even Tarly is subject to asymmetric information. He departs unaware that Daenerys ordered one of her dragons to flambe his father and brother to death for refusing to follow her as queen. So Tarly isn't just a maester dropout. He's now the lord of the family estate, Horn Hill.

Storytellers have relied on dramatic irony since Ancient Greece. But “Game of Thrones” is really detailing a fundamental challenge that markets are struggling to address — what to do when information is far from perfect and carefully guarded instead of shared.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.