martin sullivan is chief economist at tax and alice says now it's time for today's big deal. welcome to a spooky hollowing edition of the big deal now let's start this all off by talking about prisoner's dilemma one of the most famous examples of game theory and practice now here's a refresher of how it works from every office drones favorite cartoon dilbert. tell us what happened and will recommend a light sentence nice try but i happen to understand a little thing called the prisoner's dilemma is that still you have no physical evidence of a crime scene so you can only convict is if one of us rats out the others and since we're all aware of that fact no one will read out anyone and will be free and a matter of minutes. i'll tell kurt i told him not to chop but he. said. now the study flagged by the atlantic tested undergrads at stanford with a simple prisoner's dilemma set up with money as prizes now here's the catch for half of the participants they called it community game the other half played wall street game and guess what happened the students playing wall street game

sullivan, from the federal point of view, there are remedies available to the federal government if there's been an injustice at the state level; is that correct? like in any case the trayvon martin case, the case here in illinois the justice department could, if they choose, pursue federal action; is that correct? >> absolutely. >> do you agree with attorney general holder's decision not to pursue a federal civil rights case in the trayvon martin? >> i do. based on the standard that needs to be satisfied in order to move forward with the case like that. the federal government would have to demonstrate that at the moment of the violent encounter, mr. zimmerman behaved as he did as a function of racial -- and i'm not sure that the sufficient evidence there for the federal government to go forward. so i tend to agree with that case on that what that decision on that base is also and on a more pry additional basis that the federal government should be cautious and exercise discretion in going in and upsetting a state verdict. >> that's a very -- i agree with you i hope i'm not hurting your reputation in the legal community. >> you have enhanced my reputation, senator. >> i'm honored

sullivan, from the federal point of view, there are remedies available to the federal government is based in an injustice that the state level. is that correct? like in any case, the trayvon martin case, the case in illinois, the justice department. if they chose pursue federal action, is that correct? >> absolutely. >> t. agree with attorney general holder's decision not to pursue a federal civil rights case in the trayvon martin? >> idea. based on this standard that needs to be satisfied order to move forward with a case like that. the federal government would have to demonstrate that the moment that the violent encounter, mr. zimmerman behaved as he did as a function of racial animus. and i am not sure that there is sufficient evidence there for the federal government to go forward. i tend to agree with that case. with the decision on that basis and also a more prudential basis that the federal government should be cautious and exercise discretion and going in and of setting the verdict. >> i agree with you. i hope i'm not hurting your reputation in the legal command key. >> even enhance my reputation, senator. >> i think that's a pretty reasonable view because i think there'