In regards to the tragedy of the commons, I wonder if the Nash equilibrium ever yields such detrimental results that cooperation becomes necessary. For example, over fishing is an example of the Nash equilibrium where fishing companies take all they can get. Yet, once there are no longer enough fish for everybody to benefit, do the companies fish until extinction or scale back and allow multiple companies to cooperate and succeed? I find these problems very interesting because it also applies to what I am learning in political science. Most major world conflicts arise from countries acting for their maximum benefit and refusing cooperation. Similarly, I wonder if free rider problems can solve themselves or if an outside factor such as repercussions are needed to alleviate the problem. Or, once all others of the group realize how the free rider is benefiting then nobody benefits because no-one is there to do the work. I also believe that some people do not cooperate strictly out of stubbornness. It can be difficult to give away what could have been yours to see somebody else- usually a competitor- walk away with what you gave. For example, watching free riders benefit off of your hard work or throwing some younger fish back and watching the next fisherman pull them in. I understand the authors point about issuing threats and needing them to be capable, but it think that in many cases the issuing of threats is what limits communication and cooperation. Overall this piece was very interesting and I look forward to applying it to real world situations.