Emma Tyler, Chapter 2, Question #6

In Chapter 2 of Naked Economics, Charles Wheelan covers the broad topic of incentives and how they effect the choices that consumers and producers make. The one example that was particularly illuminating for me regarding the broader topic was that of the "prisoner's dilemma" mentioned on pages 44 and 45. Wheelan illustrates with this example how incentives and greed are very closely linked. In the situation of the  prisoner's dilemma, both prisoners have been "arrested on suspicion of murder" and their options are to either 1) one prisoner rat the other out for the murder (either prisoner could do this) gaining the snitch a light 3 year sentence and the accomplice a life sentence, 2) both confess to the murder- gaining a 25 year murder sentence, or 3) neither give any information about the murderer and both get off with a 5 year sentence. What ends up happening is both confess to the other being the murderer, so bothe end up with the 25 year sentence, as opposed to the possible 5 year sentence they could have gotten if they had both shut up. Sometimes greed and working with only your own best choice in mind then both you and anyone else involved closely with your situation  with be worse off. It seems that Wheelan is saying that we should always act with our rational  personal self interest but also equally think about the effects that our actions can have on others around us. It seems difficult to act  in this way because sometimes one would  have to make some decisions which at first would  not be benefitical for him/her but would benefit others and thus them later in life, but it seems extremely difficult to think in this way.