The Economic Crisis and its Implications for The Science of Economics
May 1 - 4, 2009
Perimeter Institute
The Perimeter Institute conference on economics is being organized in an effort to better evaluate the state of economics as a predictive and descriptive science in light of the current market crisis. We believe that this requires careful, dispassionate discussion, in an atmosphere governed by the modesty and open mindedness that characterizes the scientific community. To do this we aim to bring leading economists and theorists of finance together with physicists, mathematicians, biologists and computer scientists to evaluate current theories of markets, and identify key issues that can motivate new directions for research.
The conference will begin on May 1, 2009, with a day of invited talks by leading experts to a public audience of around 200 on the status of economic and financial theory in light of the crisis. We will then continue for three days of focused discussion and workshops with an invited group of around 30, aimed at defining research agendas that address that question and beginning work on them.
To register for this conference, please click here.
International Organizing Committee:
Mike Brown, ex CFO Microsoft, ex Chair NASDAQ
Richard Freeman, Harvard University
Bill Janeway, Senior Advisor and Partner at Warburg Pincus LLC and Cambridge University
Stuart Kauffman, University of Calgary
Zoe-Vonna Palmrose, University of Southern California
Lee Smolin, Perimeter Institute
Eric Weinstein, Natron Group
The Economic Crisis and its Implications for The Science of Economics
I thought this perspective should be brought forward outside of the usual current politico and economic commentators who are speaking about what shall be done, and what remedies should be instituted. Some insight other then those who speak for, who have been elected or hire by our federal and provincial pundits.
Time and symmetry in models of economic markets
These notes discuss several topics in neoclassical economics and alternatives, with an aim of reviewing fundamental issues in modeling economic markets. I start with a brief, non-rigorous summary of the basic Arrow-Debreu model of general equilibrium, as well as its extensions to include time and contingency. I then argue that symmetries due to similarly endowed individuals and similar products are generically broken by the constraints of scarcity, leading to the existence of multiple equilibria.
This is followed by an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the model generally. Several of the weaknesses are concerned with the treatments of time and contingency. To address these we discuss a class of agent based models.
Another set of issues has to do with the fundamental meaning of prices and the related question of what the observables of a non-equilibrium, dynamic model of an economic market should be. We argue that these issues are addressed by formulating economics in the language of a gauge theory, as proposed originally by Malaney and Weinstein. We review some of their work and provide a sketch of how gauge invariance can be incorporated into the formulation of agent based models.
Eric Weinstein's talk on “Gauge Theory and Inflation(link)
Abstract: The close relationship between geometry and fundamental physics can be seen from surveying the basic equations underlying the known forces of nature. What has made these repeated appearances of gauge fields and curvature tensors particularly striking in recent years is lack of any comparable applications outside of the Standard Model and General Relativity. In this talk we will pose the question of whether Yang-Mills theory is simply a unifying principle with application well beyond its current use by exhibiting unreasonably effective applications of Gauge Theory beyond those familiar in the Natural Sciences. Armed with these examples, we will then revisit the question about what is most truly special about the Standard Model and Relativity.
I give up.
Would one of the above posters please explain to me what this thread is about?
Small words, please.
Work that is "outside the box" currently being done by scientists to offer solutions for how the economy can/should be interpreted and dealt with. It will be way above your head UNionist(union leaders with science degrees?), yet, I would say that the future of people should be directed here, so that they understand that new models need to be developed, that are not in context of the curreent understandings and applications.
The event displayed here should be considered by those union leaders who want to stay advance and are willing to partcipate in the refomations needed in society. These aplications here are done withoiut regard to compassionate pleas for understanding, yet, as cold and austere as it may seem, it is relvant that we can find the most simplistic interpretation that is applicable across society, that are "just" in relation to what ever garb these scientists equalitatively clothe the answers in those new model applications.
How many scientists do you know that are currenty not practising their trades, but are contribuitng to the work force under different titles?
Best,
Symmetry in economics is synonymous with self regulating free market voodoo and invisible hand baloney, or what's falling down around our ears today. Those economists are no longer referred to as neoliberal witch doctors. Now theyre called "neoclassical" economists. It's more dignified.
Hi Fidel,
Symmetry in economics is synonymous with self regulating free market voodoo and invisible hand baloney, or what's falling down around our ears today. Those economists are no longer referred to as neoliberal witch doctors. Now theyre called "neoclassical" economists. It's more dignified.
A knee jerk reaction?:) I'm no different and ready to pounce, yet try to stay in tune with what happening on the frontiers. I'll have to dig deeper myself to under these applications. I do not think as a "science hobbiest" that I qualify.
I think if you take the time you might agree that something had to be done.
Best,
Beware of Fat Cats in Government Suits (link)Oh probably. My knee has jerked before. I wonder if their Richard Freeman of Harvard is this one?
I believe the late Kenneth Galbraith would have called this a display of "conventional wisdom", implying that we should take the language and the expectations of the mathematical models with a ton of salt. bbb
Oh probably. My knee has jerked before. I wonder if their Richard Freeman of Harvard is this one?
I am not sure Fidel.
Knowing that Larry Summers is up there in positon with Obama, as past previous president of Harvard, is this some relation that we should worry about?
I'll have to find out about that Richhard Freeman.
Best
I thought that Fidel's finding cast light on the real world of economic thought, spec.
Buy low, sell high! And lie like a trooper.
I just don't understand how much the academic economist has to be paid to stay silent on it - and be creative for public edification. b b b
I thought that Fidel's finding cast light on the real world of economic thought, spec.
Buy low, sell high! And lie like a trooper.
I just don't understand how much the academic economist has to be paid to stay silent on it - and be creative for public edification. b b b
I am not sure George. I am of the ilk too, that is not very trusting.
The Money Trust TO THE JOKER:HERE I HOLD A GOLD COIN
What a false illusion thou art to human mind ! How cruelly thou deceivest thy possessor and those who covet thee ! Thou buyest for me by thy betrayal of mankind. Thou didst tax my energy to gain thee, and thy discount has lost to me and my fellow-men the greatest blessings of a continent, as well as the principal products of our toil. Few indeed are they who know and understand thy seductive power. We shall expose thy falseness so that our children shalt not be deceived by thee.
General Observations-Charles Lindbergh,
Banking and Currency and the Money Trust
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the fact remains that we have to live. I would like a model that finds balance for us all. Dialogue under this pretense is the hope that what is found "self evident" is the "quality"(link) to me is written out in relation to the science, all but forgotten. IN that sense, publicly this is an effacing aspect of thinking that science may have the answer, while in it's own pretense lacks that same quality. I am not sure.
Best,
Ah! It looks like R. Freeman of Harvard and the one I pointed to are two different people altogether.
Spectrum et al, if you are not aware of Banketeering http://www.rudemacedon.ca/banketeering.html then you are not aware of the real source of the problem. Getting to the root is necessary before talking about solutions.
couldn't root out your banketeering, sd. Must have gone to the Caymans.
"The global financial crisis has revealed the need to rethink fundamentally how financial systems are regulated. It has also made clear a systemic failure of the economics profession."
Abstract: "The economics profession appears to have been unaware of the long build-up to the current worldwide financial crisis and to have significantly underestimated its dimensions once it started to unfold. In our view, this lack of understanding is due to a misallocation of research efforts in economics. We trace the deeper roots of this failure to the profession’s insistence on constructing models that, by design, disregard the key elements driving outcomes in real-world markets. The economics profession has failed in communicating the limitations, weaknesses, and even dangers of its preferred models to the public. This state of affairs makes clear the need for a major reorientation of focus in the research economists undertake, as well as for the establishment of an ethical code that would ask economists to understand and communicate the limitations and potential misuses of their models."
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/papers/
Go to Dahlem Report: Economic Crisis, etc.
Here's more from the pages of Monthly Review ... on the Education of Alan Greenspan ....
"In his effort to account for the complete failure of foresight at the Fed, Greenspan explained that the supposedly sophisticated asset pricing models that he and others in the financial community had relied on had been based almost exclusively on the experience of the last two decades during a period of rapid financial expansion, and had failed to incorporate the negative shocks visible from a longer-term historical perspective. As Greenspan himself put it, “The whole intellectual edifice...collapsed in the summer of last year because the data inputted into the risk management models generally covered only the past two decades, a period of euphoria. Had instead the models been fitted more appropriately to historic periods of stress, capital requirements would have been much higher and the financial world would be in far better shape today” (“Greenspan Testimony on Sources of Financial Crisis,” Wall Street Journal, October 23, 2008; see also “Greenspan Says He Was Wrong on Regulation,” Washington Post, October 24, 2008).
The extreme short-sightedness of building models on “a period of euphoria” and ignoring “historic periods of stress” meant that the historical reality of capital accumulation was simply written out of the analysis. As Marx explained, overproduction of capital inevitably leads to periods of massive devaluation, by which the system prepares the ground for a further expansion. “Business is always thoroughly sound, and the campaign in fullest swing, until the sudden intervention of the collapse” (Capital, vol. 3, chapter 30). "
http://monthlyreview.org/nfte081201.php
It's the system, stupid.
This opinion paper is the outcome of one week of intense discussions within the working group on ‘Modeling of Financial Markets’ at the 98th Dahlem Workshop, 2008.
In fact, if one browses through the academic macroeconomics and finance literature, “systemic crisis” appears like an otherworldly event that is absent from economic models. Most models, by design, offer no immediate handle on how to think about or deal with this recurring phenomenon.2 In our hour of greatest need, societies around the world are left to grope in the dark without a theory. That, to us, is a systemic failure of the economics profession.In a recent review of Michael Perelman's "Railroading Economics: The Creation of the Free Market Mythology," Carlos J. Castro notes the following:
"The problem is that they have an ideology and believe it is a theory. The firm belief of microeconomics is that if the world worked like the theory, that is, if it were a free market, then there would be efficiency and economic growth, and everybody would be better off. But this is a belief, not a fact. The free market just produced a major housing bubble and a banking crisis, as Marxist political economy had predicted, and this crisis will mean more hardship for millions of working people around the world. A scientific ethos requires that if the theory does not explain the facts, the theory is wrong."
The theory is wrong. But why would market fundamentalists change their views? It's a religious belief and, therefore, whatever scientific claims notwithstanding, it won't be subject to a proper evaluation.
Coase theorem(link)
This theorem, along with his 1937 paper on the nature of the firm (which also emphasizes the role of transaction costs), earned Coase the 1991 Nobel Prize in Economics. The Coase theorem is an important basis for most modern economic analyses of government regulation, especially in the case of externalities. George Stigler summarized the resolution of the externality problem in the absence of transaction costs in a 1966 economics textbook in terms of private and social cost, and for the first time called it a "theorem". Since the 1960s, a voluminous literature on the Coase theorem and its various interpretations, proofs, and criticism has developed and continues to grow.
Modigliani-Miller theorem (link)
The Modigliani-Miller theorem (of Franco Modigliani, Merton Miller) forms the basis for modern thinking on capital structure. The basic theorem states that, in the absence of taxes, bankruptcy costs, and asymmetric information, and in an efficient market, the value of a firm is unaffected by how that firm is financed.[1] It does not matter if the firm's capital is raised by issuing stock or selling debt. It does not matter what the firm's dividend policy is. Therefore, the Modigliani-Miller theorem is also often called the capital structure irrelevance principle.
Modigliani was awarded the 1985 Nobel Prize in Economics for this and other contributions.
Miller was awarded the 1990 Nobel Prize in Economics, along with Harry Markowitz and William Sharpe, for their "work in the theory of financial economics," with Miller specifically cited for "fundamental contributions to the theory of corporate finance."
Noether's theorem (link)
Noether's theorem (also known as Noether's first theorem) states that any differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law. The action of a physical system is an integral of a so-called Lagrangian function, from which the system's behavior can be determined by the principle of least action. This seminal theorem was proven by Emmy Noether in 1915 and published in 1918.[1]
It was easy for me to see the reatcionary and initial actions to combat the decline of a recession were rooted in previous recessionary times of the thirties, and such simpicity, was to combat it in that same way.
If one is prepared to only work in generalities of the current situation, I would expect that nothing will change. IN this "state of conflict" there is no doubt it brings one face to face with the circumstance. If one wants to stay in that state, then fine, continue to work those generalities.
Explain yourself and what you would do different.
You've offered nothng new. Stupid
Gauge theory (link)
The root of the problem had to be identified in terms of an "E8 object" and it's constituents, and thusly, the complexity of that economic situation understood in a global perspective in relation to that root problem. That "is" the "perfect symmetry" in this case?
Gauge theory
Many powerful theories in physics are described by Lagrangians which are invariant under certain symmetry transformation groups.
All transactions.
This then is a illuminative vision according to a complex relation of data which is related to the symmetry of money(coin.) A reference then to Charles Lindberg in an attempt to combat the illusions that are perpetuated.
How is this money conserved in the system and travelled through all phases? ;)
Best,
Spec:
"Knowing that Larry Summers is up there in positon with Obama, as past previous president of Harvard, is this some relation that we should worry about? "
-----------------------------------------------
Larry is meeting with Steve (or Tony) and Jim down in Washington, trying to save the remnants of the Canadian auto industry. That makes the quoted sentence the one relevant sentence in all of your ramblings...even though you did not give it context, and could be musing about Larry the sexist former pres. of Harvard.
You are having us on, spec., in a forum where the central idea is that mainstream economists should be taken out and shot with a ball of their own shit, which would be difficult in your case, given your diarrheal tendency.
NDP MP Tony Martin and senator Hugh Segal were in New York for the USBIG Conference first week of March.
One of the overarching themes of the conference was the current economic crisis. There was a sense that the economic crisis calls for bold solutions, which could lead to greater openness to basic income. But there was also a sense of urgency, that basic income is necessary to respond to the major crises of our time, economic and environmental.
Stanley Aronowitz, in particular, argued that we can’t expect to return to full employment. Moving forward, we will have to find ways to structure our economy differently.
Another theme was the need to bring basic income out of our circle and into the political and public mainstream. Hugh Segal spoke of the need to stop “preaching to the choir,” while Tony Martin referred to Martin Luther King, Jr., arguing that we need to change the wind – the political context in which basic income is addressed.
I agree, if we have full employment with our obsolete capitalist economies of today, we would choke on the pollution and accelerate dangerous climate change. Debt driven capitalism requires continuous growth, otherwise bubble economies are the result. And someone has to burst the bubble with higher interest rates at some point. Now they seem to be at the point where jigging bank interest rates alone is comparable to doing CPR on a corpse and crossing their fingers in hopes that it will work.
George,
THe things I have not forgotten are my roots, nor the place that I occupy in society. THis babble section is a nice way in which to speak to those who want to "open their minds" to what is coming or is unfolding. Work to bring forward "a just systemic process" that deals humanitarily with all levels of our societies.
IT's not I who developed "those possibilities" but those who saw the conflict( the injustice) and thought to find resolve. They are people of science who saw in their trade, relevance, to apply it to the current conditions.
Who is so flexible to take the "science jargon" to such conditions in our society? Or the ability? Degration to "verbal slight of diarrhea, stupid"[sure I'm gulity] is a good indicator of the absence of such an ability?:) I am not always certain.
Because you just do not have "the ability in this "time and space" to even conceive of that larger vision...you must withdraw from, with the most appropriate rehtoric of your essence:) One would hope such digestion would not boil over in such a way, but then, again a lightbulb works good if it has a switch, to cleanse oneself of the old, to bring on opportunity for the new.
Larry Summers and his "expose" is not the issue. BUt yes, these would define his charcter to some degree. HIs disembarking from his position.
Of course, I am amazed about his new porfolio. THis has gotten away from the issue, not pointed to it's relevance. That is being "superficial" while I am giving advance notice of work that is being done that has more depth. Work that is relevant to my roots. So I suggest Union Leaders, while I am not. I hold strong to democratics institutions.
There are many who are writing on the economy without substance today who are "mechanically speaking" as some sceinitist do "upholding that lineage of work and obervation. It's time for a change. The only way to do that is get your feet wet and become "emersed psychologically" in the conflict in order to find a way out. Inventors of a sort, you might say.
Thinking outside of the box "is" being very explicit.
Best,
I agree, if we have full employment with our obsolete capitalist economies of today, we would choke on the pollution and accelerate dangerous climate change. Debt driven capitalism requires continuous growth, otherwise bubble economies are the result. And someone has to burst the bubble with higher interest rates at some point. Now they seem to be at the point where jigging bank interest rates alone is comparable to doing CPR on a corpse and crossing their fingers in hopes that it will work.
My own thoughts.
Conglomeration and centralization of power is the understanding of something that has risen to the top of our society. Has gone beyond all borders. Writes its "own figures" for profit loss, while still operating at a profit. Who does not see them "flyng under radar" as a operation in society, while operating without regard to the signs of recession/inflation(non contributory)? Imagine having the audacity, to keep a low profile while "economic failure" is transfered to the homeowners?
Can you name one commodity where this might be the case Fidel? One instititution?
How would one apply such a method as Lincoln did on his historical Green back, to understand how money is conserved? Or, to find attempts by a reserve, who may have sought to stop a Kennedy or, steal a child(Lindberg), who may of have moved to a similar agenda. (Of course speculation of the worst sort here, but may be fuel for some good writer?:)
Best,
Have a listen to Michael Hudson. This is from the program "Guns and Butter" from earlier this week
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/48892
Have a listen to Michael Hudson. This is from the program "Guns and Butter" from earlier this week
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/48892
I want to thank you for bringing this forward for listening. I also want to thank others for bringing the information they brought forward here as well.
While I engage younger minds then myself, older professors with those science degrees, how is it reforms can ever be thought dealt with properly if they did not know of what this information you provide, will unleash upon our societies?
So most definitely this adds importance to the fuel and need for reformation. Becuase of the long range feudal system I can see, how it is important now, that we stave off that eventuality.
That things would decline to the point where local gangs or mafia would overtake others for control of turf, that such a decline had all to be in the recognition of that 1% we are feeding?
Again, I have to remind those who deal with the economic issue that I am no stranger to the labor that forms the backbone of this country. I have been here at babble now enough that you understand my intent is not to giveout what some consider "a running off of the mouth," or some "preaching choir," but to explore how the everyday bloke like me with an interest in science is telling people to watch out for those who may be under the cloak of the neoliberal striped cat, to choose to become yourself, foundational leaders for a just society.
I have forwarded these concerns as you present them to me. What would you think if they fell on deaf ears as well? I am listening to the times.
Best,
It will not be easy for many to recognzie what has transpired but by this same application of such pursuates, are being illustrated in an effort by scientists to provide "new models" for a developing new economic society that is just. Yes, there is reason to fear that a Neoliberalism extremist may be among them, so we must counteract that by "having our own" to watch the process and ensure that such models do not maintain and continue to advantage the top 1% as it has.
Appendix, Pg 316, Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe, by Leon M. Lederman and Christopher T. Hill
Best,
The Science of Economics????????? I did very well in economics at college. Very well indeed. My secret thought as I regurgitated my lessons. It's all bunk.
The Science of Economics????????? I did very well in economics at college. Very well indeed. My secret thought as I regurgitated my lessons. It's all bunk.
Hey, stereo!
Shall I cast the light unto you by saying, that it must have been what was learnt at the Chicago school? And that perhaps, you missed the course on the philosophy of science?
AS well, you do not understand the "gravity of the situation" when looking at all transactions?:) Possibly to young to know?
Best,
I prefer the Marxist tradition of critiquing political economy (challenging ruling-class orthodoxy and emphasizing the politics implicit in "economics"), and this I say as someone who aced micro- and macroeconomics.
See, while I would push you to escape the duality that exists, there are those that like to hunker down in their positions, as to continue the merry go round.
If you want to break free from the lineage of one's teacher, a Chicago school of thought, or, a parents ideology, to participate in something new, then you need to recognize that while you may have all the education in the world, it does not raise you above that duality. You are only now "mechanically speaking," while ignoring that quality to life.
So, without descending in the feudilistic states of warfare, pretensed under crime, or sanctioned by neoliberalism think tank armies and police forces, it is behooved, that the quality of this struggle, is to recognize that the other part of the duality exists as quality of life. To rise above the societies. That the upper one percent is inclusive under a systemic process that is an equitable humanitarian model for disemination.
It will mean, that Obama will need to turn his back on the Chicago school?If he did, it could cost him his life?
It means that both parties will need to be dragged kicking and screaming to accept the outcome of a model that both sides had choosen to take part in, in order to strive for that "highest ideal state."
We must refuse to become a state in war and governed by neoliberalism police action, while recognizing the decay this represents, all, whilst unaware we have been reduced to such a feudalistic system.
It means "waking up" from our sleep.
Best,
I realize I'm late to the party, but I know about particle physics and gauge transformations somewhat since it's incidental to the theory of weak interactions.
I will say right now that I have absolutely no idea how gauge transformations have any applicability to economics.
The (oversimplified) meaning of a gauge transformation is simply that if you set up equations that describe a physical system, you can move around anywhere you like and the equations will still work. This is somewhat analgous to the Newtonian reference-frame transformations which allow you to use F = ma regardless of where the observer sits relative to the object under study.
(Subject to some limitations, mind)
The difficulty I have with the idea of a gauge transformation being of use in economics is that there would have to be conserved quantities. But nonconservation is the rule, not the exception, in economics. Money supply is most assuredly not conserved. You can print more or less money as desired.
Interest rates are not conserved. Et cetera and so on. If anyone can show a conservation law applicable in economics, I would like to see it.
It will not surprise anyone, I think, if I note that the nonconserved quantities in economics are so myriad precisely because they are set and developed by human beings at will.
By contrast the very existence of conservation laws in the universe has to do with the fact that we humans cannot, by any means whatsoever, upset the quantities on which they depend. Nonconservation of momentum would require that we somehow be able to choose, arbitrarily, a preferred frame of reference. Nonconservation of energy requires a similar arbitrary preference, which we cannot impose.
Hi Everyone:
Sorry if I'm off-topic here, but does anyone know of any good alternative sites for BC politics?
untumble@gmail.com
Dr.Conway, I thought this might be helpful for you to see the whole works. Not often is perspective in science used to arise above what has been normally happening with the economy to see it in a new light. Imagine using the term "Economic Manhattan Project," for us to consider how seriously this undertaking is presented?
May 1 - 4, 2009
Perimeter Institute
Concerns over the current financial situation are giving rise to a need to evaluate the very mathematics that underpins economics as a predictive and descriptive science. A growing desire to examine economics through the lens of diverse scientific methodologies - including physics and complex systems - is making way to a meeting of leading economists and theorists of finance together with physicists, mathematicians, biologists and computer scientists in an effort to evaluate current theories of markets and identify key issues that can motivate new directions for research. Perimeter Institute was suggested to be the gathering point and conference organizers plan to foster a very careful, dispassionate discussion, in an atmosphere governed by the modesty and open mindedness that characterizes the scientific community.
The conference will begin on May 1, 2009, with a day of talks by leading experts to an invited audience on the status of economic and financial theory in light of the current situation. Three days of private, focused discussions and workshops will ensue, aimed at addressing complex questions and defining future research agendas for the world that can help address and resolve them.
Perimeter posted some recommended reading as follows:
Recommended Reading
September 2007
Tobias Adrian and Hyun Song Shin
Cambridge 2008
Michael D. Bordo
Berkeley 2008
Barry Eichengreen
Cambridge 2009
Gary B. Gorton
September 2005
Raghuram G. Rajan
Cambridge 2009
John B. Taylor
This is a follow up to the conference that has already taken place.
The Perimeter Institute conference on economics is being organized in an effort to better evaluate the state of economics as a predictive and descriptive science in light of the current market crisis. We believe that this requires careful, dispassionate discussion, in an atmosphere governed by the modesty and open mindedness that characterizes the scientific community. To do this we aim to bring leading economists and theorists of finance together with physicists, mathematicians, biologists and computer scientists to evaluate current theories of markets, and identify key issues that can motivate new directions for research. The conference will begin on May 1, 2009, with a day of invited talks by leading experts to a public audience of around 200 on the status of economic and financial theory in light of the crisis. We will then continue for three days of focused discussion and workshops with an invited group of around 30, aimed at defining research agendas that address that question and beginning work on them. See: Welcome to the Economic Manhattan Project
As you cannot know both the velocity and position of a given particle, I think you cannot know both the amount and velocity of a given dollar through the economy. Uncertainty applies both in physics and economics. Is the Schroedinger's cat paradox a matter of physics or game theory? Any given market participant is in the box, and I think that the outlook of any given participant in a given market is going to be distorted by subjectivity.
As you cannot know both the velocity and position of a given particle, I think you cannot know both the amount and velocity of a given dollar through the economy. Uncertainty applies both in physics and economics. Is the Schroedinger's cat paradox a matter of physics or game theory? Any given market participant is in the box, and I think that the outlook of any given participant in a given market is going to be distorted by subjectivity.
In the case of today's liberalized financial capitalism, uncertainty is ignored and all but eliminated. Obama has maintained a revolving door relationship between the Wall St lobby and Washington. In this parallel universe of old world science, there is but one unobserved observer, an invisible hand with all too familiar human characteristics. And the fat cat is alive and well-fed always. The fix was in long ago.
I give up.
Would one of the above posters please explain to me what this thread is about?
Small words, please.
It's not rocket science as you might be lead to believe. By the way, I just entered this list of postings, and have not reviewed all the responses.
As a Ph.D. trained in both physics and economics, it may comfort you to know that I have fought a losing battle for 32 years about the RELEVANCE OF CURRENT ECONOMICS TO REAL WORLD PROBLEMS. THAT IS WHAT IS THIS ESOTERIC, INTIMIDATING RHETORIC IS ALL ABOUT.
As a consequence, I along with many others have evolved into the field of ALTERNATIVE FUTURES WITH MULTIPLE SCENARIOS which encompass a wide variety of academic disciplines and styles of thinking.
Economics, in it's desperation to become a "science" has achieved internal [mathematical precision] at the cost of being invalid as a predictor of many social issues
For now I hope this simplified answer may be of some help.
Jeffrey M Doyle, Ph.D.
There was no broadly consenusal economic analyists that accuately predicted the economic crisis before it unfolded nor accurtatley described it as unforlded agreed on prescription for dealing with it now. . Different economists and differetnifn schools of economics may use scientific tools such as mathematicla analyis, but economics is not a science, certainly ot a hard science like physics or mathematics. That, I gsther esd whay the conference wad about- the incacccuracy in predictnng and describing the economic crisis that is the hallmark of bad or soft science.
Thank you for those Plain and Elegant words.
There was no broadly consenusal economic analyists that accuately predicted the economic crisis before it unfolded nor accurtatley described it as unforlded agreed on prescription for dealing with it now. . Different economists and differetnifn schools of economics may use scientific tools such as mathematicla analyis, but economics is not a science, certainly ot a hard science like physics or mathematics. That, I gsther esd whay the conference wad about- the incacccuracy in predictnng and describing the economic crisis that is the hallmark of bad or soft science.
Christ, that's painful to read! Don't you have a spell-checker?
Models and Pseudo-models: Economists' Artifice
Surely during this long period, some mathematicians believed that the problem was just too difficult. They were wrong, of course. Given the ideas the models were based upon, the problem wasn't too difficult, it was impossible. All models based upon false assumptions make their problems impossible to solve. When Kepler realized the impossibility of any solution based on Aristotle's assumptions, he discarded them and found the solution that had eluded mathematicians for two millennia.
The theory of celestial spheres, introduced by ancient Greeks, was the mainstay of the geocentric system. Copernicus and the others were somehow unable to dismiss a theory that was officially accepted. Our economists act just like Copernicus. They should ask whether they can't get things right because all of their ideas about economy are wrong. If they are, continuing to apply them will never get anything right. No number of models, no matter how complicated and interesting intellectually, will suffice. Paraphrasing Gibbon, "Are economists sacrificing the happiness of millions to a fond partiality to a worthless idea since most of the crimes that disturb the internal peace of society are produced by the theory's confining to a few the possession of those objects that are needed by all?" Edward Gibbon and Adam Smith were contemporaries. That's how long this question has been crying out for an answer. How much longer must humanity wait?
If you use Firefox, right click your mouse and see "check spelling" there. Click on it and it will highlight the words spelled (spelt:) wrong. Click on misspell word "underlined in red" and it will give you the alternative, for which you accept.
If you use Firefox, right click your mouse and see "check spelling" there. Click on it and it will highlight the words spelled (spelt:) wrong. Click on misspell word "underlined in red" and it will give you the alternative, for which you accept.
Thanks. Will try it.
There was no broadly consenusal economic analyists that accuately predicted the economic crisis before it unfolded nor accurtatley described it as unforlded agreed on prescription for dealing with it now. . Different economists and differetnifn schools of economics may use scientific tools such as mathematicla analyis, but economics is not a science, certainly ot a hard science like physics or mathematics. That, I gsther esd whay the conference wad about- the incacccuracy in predictnng and describing the economic crisis that is the hallmark of bad or soft science.
I rather liked it. Read like middle english. Nice. Can hear the lithping, in particular I like this: "That, I gsther esd whay the conference wad about..."
They're just trying to be helpful, Pete. They're not nit-picking jackasses all of the time.
Not really. I really like the fact that Peter is not one of those posters who nitpicks about his posts, and furiously bangs them out at high speed without checking for errors. Given the speed at which these typos suggest he is writing at, his thought are pretty clear, his grammar excelent. Full marks. Bang it off and be done. So what if you have to wade through some mistyping? And as in the case of the "Middle English" above, its sometimes even charming.
Mots peopel haev no prolbmes redaing throuhg wodr jumbels becasue tehy idenfity the wrod as whole, and stopped redaing wodrs phoneticly sylable by sylabel when they were chidlren, maikng sense of the words in context as well. People react to typos mostly because it contravenes a certain officious sense of propriety.
Keep banging away Peter and fuck the spell check. Fast and furious. Its a post on a message board, not a university thesis.
Cueball, what kind of advice is that?
After that "stream of consciousness writing" has unfolded and you feel okay with it, what's it take to run a spell checker afterword?
Best,
Who cares, I can read it. So can you. So what. He's obviously flying along at insane keyboard speeds. No need to make an issue of it because most people stopped reading sylable by sylable long ago, capturing the meaning of words instantly as icons, and making sense of sentences by context and content.
Peter is a good writer, and you can see that his hand connect almost instantly with his thoughts, and they just spill out in clear and meaningful manner, hence the first comment on that typo-filled passage was: "Thank you for those Plain and Elegant words."
Well I just got booted offline b/4 i could finish my message
As the poster who used the phrase "Thank you for those Plain and Elegant words" I was simply trying to say that English grammar and syntax are not my primary determinants of a person's intelligence, common sense or Value as a contributor.
The Ivy Covered Buildings of Academia are full of "Educated Assholes" who have the common sense of an earthworm and the manners of a constipated sow.
This thread is degenerating from it's original noble purpose. SAD.
Sorry for my bad presentation - I needed to be brought up on that.
Let the thread flow back to its purpose, which I understand to be discussing to what extent economics can be considered a science, particularly given its inadequacies in predicting and describing the economic crisis. Part of that discussion could involve the difference between "hard" science (physics, mathematics, engineering?) that deals with certain forces that can be accurately charted and the "soft" sciences (history, sociology, economics) that deal with complex unpredictable humans
Peter, I don't have all the answers either. But your suggestion re comparing the "hard" and "soft" sciences is a really good STARTING POINT!
You would hardly believe the number of people I know that had to go through econometric hoops, even though it had nothing to do with the objective of the Ph.D Dissertation.
Let me know if U WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THIS FURTHER
SINCERELY,
JEFFREY
I think the poor around the world are beginning to realize that things just dont improve for them with capitalist globalization. On the news the other night, getto dwellers of Dharavi, India's largest slum, are refusing to be moved from their slum in making way for real estate developers. One man and his family began making pottery and rose a bit above the average situation of grinding poverty there. He realizes that if he has to move out of his slum dwelling, he wont be able to make pottery in any kind of volume in an apartment building. The squatters of Dharavi have the new liberal capitalism pegged for what it really is.
Peter, I don't have all the answers either. But your suggestion re comparing the "hard" and "soft" sciences is a really good STARTING POINT!
You would hardly believe the number of people I know that had to go through econometric hoops, even though it had nothing to do with the objective of the Ph.D Dissertation.
Let me know if U WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE THIS FURTHER
SINCERELY,
JEFFREY
Some discussion on this site would be good. I assume you are into scenario planning-somewhere around Club of Rone and the Rise and Fall of Great Powers?
Forget the crisis, fells. Wall Street has just solved it.
The New York Times reports this morning:
"After the mortgage business imploded last year, Wall Street investment banks began searching for another big idea to make money. They think they may have found one.
The bankers plan to buy "life settlements," life insurance policies that ill and elderly people sell for cash - $400,000 for a $1 million policy, say, depending on the life expectancy of the insured person. Then they plan to "securitize" these policies, in Wall Street jargon, by packaging hundreds or thousands together into bonds. They will then resell those bonds to investors, like big pension funds, who will receive the payouts when people with the insurance die.
The earlier the policyholder dies, the bigger the return - though if people live longer than expected, investors could get poor returns or even lose money.
Either way, Wall Street would profit by pocketing sizable fees for creating the bonds, reselling them and subsequently trading them. But some who have studied life settlements warn that insurers might have to raise premiums in the short term if they end up having to pay out more death claims than they had anticipated.
The idea is still in the planning stages. But already "our phones have been ringing off the hook with inquiries," says Kathleen Tillwitz, a senior vice president at DBRS, which gives risk ratings to investments and is reviewing nine proposals for life-insurance securitizations from private investors and financial firms, including Credit Suisse.
"We're hoping to get a herd stampeding after the first offering," said one investment banker not authorized to speak to the news media.
In the aftermath of the financial meltdown, exotic investments dreamed up by Wall Street got much of the blame. It was not just subprime mortgage securities but an array of products - credit-default swaps, structured investment vehicles, collateralized debt obligations - that proved far riskier than anticipated.
The debacle gave financial wizardry a bad name generally, but not on Wall Street. Even as Washington debates increased financial regulation, bankers are scurrying to concoct new products.
In addition to securitizing life settlements, for example, some banks are repackaging their money-losing securities into higher-rated ones, called re-remics (re-securitization of real estate mortgage investment conduits). Morgan Stanley says at least $30 billion in residential re-remics have been done this year."
And so it goes. (Vonnegut)
Glad Peter took it in stride. I do recognize the "creative intent" writers like to induce.:)
I remember listening to Nobel prize winning economist Robert Mundell on CBC Morningside a number of years ago. His horrific acceptance of the inevitability of at least 10% of people living in poverty for all time, prompted me to respond:-
"How appropriate to have Robert Mundell on your Haloween show. He ended goulishly with the statement "..there will always be poor people..." 10% was his declared norm. I could picture him sitting in your studio wearing his grim reaper outfit condemning billions of people for centuries hence to miserable lives of abject poverty. He described the thrill he gets from fitting mathematical models to economic activity, yet has failed to grasp the simple model of global injustice. His example of Bill Gates obscene accumulation of wealth explains clearly why there are poor people today. It does not explain why there always needs to be poverty.
Awarding Robert Mundell a nobel prize has put the credibility of nobel awards in doubt. Although the credibility of most economists is in serious doubt at the best of times."
It is time we woke up from this permanent halloween nightmare of accepting that 1 in 10 people are poor and that we can do nothing about it.
I have seen little, in the intervening period, from most economists, to improve my opinion of their economic models. Models that have more to do with alchemy, perpetual motion machines or the Ponzi scheme economic equivalents.
Fortunately, I'm not an economist.:) Tried looking for the article. Any idea under what heading?
While one can know about Newton's "other interests" he still sought to live his life according to science in his "other forms of research?"
I remember listening to Nobel prize winning economist Robert Mundell on CBC Morningside a number of years ago. His horrific acceptance of the inevitability of at least 10% of people living in poverty for all time, prompted me to respond:-
"How appropriate to have Robert Mundell on your Haloween show. He ended goulishly with the statement "..there will always be poor people..." 10% was his declared norm. I could picture him sitting in your studio wearing his grim reaper outfit condemning billions of people for centuries hence to miserable lives of abject poverty. He described the thrill he gets from fitting mathematical models to economic activity, yet has failed to grasp the simple model of global injustice. His example of Bill Gates obscene accumulation of wealth explains clearly why there are poor people today. It does not explain why there always needs to be poverty.
Awarding Robert Mundell a nobel prize has put the credibility of nobel awards in doubt. Although the credibility of most economists is in serious doubt at the best of times."
It is time we woke up from this permanent halloween nightmare of accepting that 1 in 10 people are poor and that we can do nothing about it.
I have seen little, in the intervening period, from most economists, to improve my opinion of their economic models. Models that have more to do with alchemy, perpetual motion machines or the Ponzi scheme economic equivalents.
There is intelligent life in this thread after all!
I think youre more disappointed in the politicos in North America's two-four old line parties running things into the ground for the last 30 years and more with neoliberal capitalism. Wall Street and bay Streeters don't buy economists so much as they buy whole stoogeocracies every four years.
To suggest that "this", what we have here in Canada and the US, is the way it is around the world in general is false and misleading.
Canadian William Krehm quotes Frances Hutchinson describing the "Stalinization" of economic theory in 1990's USA and Canada with history of economic thought particularly targeted.
You are right on point.
Jeffrey
Everyone's in a box. Out of the box, we see this. First, Krugman and Keynes might be 'liberals', but that is a labelling trick you need to be careful of, and don't go running to them or quoting them when the big bad laissez-faire gang come marauding (laissez-faire basically means the big guys do as they like, and you shut up or we'll lay a beating on you), as they won't help with anything really useful beyond some kind of soma to lessen the pain. They are both also capitalists, benefitting from the capitalist system (one might even say flunkies) - capitalists light, perhaps, but still capitalists. Think of 'good cop bad cop' - you might have a carrot in your hand from the good cop, but you're still going to jail. And with capitalists light running things, as they did for a few years after the last huge meltdown the serious capitalists caused in '29, your masters might treat you a little better as they get you back under control when you're showing some small signs of 'this is freaking enough, you guys!!!', but you will still be powerless peasants in the capitalist system, which, basically by definition, requires a few wealthy capitalist-masters controlling the serious 'capital' and a great herd of powerless workers manning their factories and businesses producing that capital.
(Out of the box, as an aside, you need to get a bit better grip on what 'capital' actually is - it is not just money or property, although it can be either and is somewhat fluid, able to transfer from one to the other - but serious 'capital' is essentially the 'excess wealth' produced by workers beyond their daily subsistence - in a (true) 'socialist' system, we somehow arrange for that excess wealth to be stored in some kind of communal storehouse for 'our' use in the future - in a 'capitalist' system, the 'owners of production' claim that excess production for themselves, and the peasants just keep going to work, day after day after day - like a milkcow or something - never realising any benefit from their labour beyond some kind of bare subsistence - it's a too-long story for a short comment, but that's the basic situation.)
Modern 'economists' are either complete fools or complete traitors, it's hard to go anywhere else when you understand what is happening in our world, and the economic basis of pretty much everything nowadays (they can be well-meaning fools, but still supporting the system that enslaves us all). We can leave the fools as unworthy of much attention, but for the traitors, the big thing is the central lie they all propagate, primarily by omission, and by confusing the situation with a cornucopia of complicated but meaningless 'equations' - the single most important factor of modern political economics (and, as the man said, make no mistake about it, modern 'economics' is 100% about politics, which is the main reason they disconnected the words a hundred or so years ago, to conceal this) - the single most important fact is (drum roll!! -) money!!
You need to think about this a bit, or maybe a lot - it is all about money - but where does that money come from? The one central fact of our modern world, which is, it is no secret, controlled by money, is that that money is created almost entirely by private banks, for private profit, with essentially no serious government regulation. The bills and coins in your wallet that you use for day-to-day stuff is created by the government - and is about ~5% of our 'money supply' - the rest is various forms of electronic money, which is created entirely by the banks as loans, and which they demand and get 'interest' on - every year. Endless interest on our money supply. And when you grok that fully, pretty much everything else becomes clear. In a society based on money, he who controls the money, controls everything else. And they are not exercising that control for 'your/our' benefit. And this is the one thing our 'economists' refuse (or are too indoctrinated - the 'fool' segment) to deal with.
The second major (and very much related) problem with modern 'ecomomists' is their insistence on living in some fantastical wonderland where everyone is some kind of honest robot, dealing in mathematically countable ways as they do their daily business - but the most salient fact of life in capitalistland is not the fact that most of us are honest citizens and workers and consumers, but that we are being run by a bunch of crooks, scamming us every way they can think of through their control of the money we all use for our daily transactions - and if 'economists' will not even acknowledge this in their theories, let alone try to devise some explanations about how this central dishonesty works through our economies, then the chance of any useful analysis of what is happening is zero.
I won't take up more time or space getting into details here - I've written a longer piece that gets into the first part of it all, the private money creation bit, a bit more here - Global Financial Meltdown: Forces beyond our control, or the greatest scam ever?
http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greatest-sting-ever.html - but if anyone has any comments etc (beyond the simplistic name-calling any talk of monetary reform usually elicits from apologists for their capitalist masters), I'll try to answer them.
I think that economic Liberals have been very laissez-faire, even since the 1930's and 40's. William Beveridge only found the political will to implement his ideas for welfare state among British Labour. In 1930's Canada, the depression raged on through Tory and Liberal rule with no end to economic and social decay and rot in sight. The Mackenzie King Liberals only nationalised the Bank of Canada after being pressured to by the CCF, and after decades of playing follow the leader with second-hand ideology emanating from the US even then.
And today, political Liberals are lost as to who to look to for advice and which country of economic Darwinism to emulate. Their entitlement mind set, like Tories, tells them to continue hitching Canada's economic wagon to the USA's fortunes as their eyes light up at thoughts of tidy commissions for pawning off what's left of the country for peanuts. But the path ther recent predecessors have put the country on isnt all that appealing to Canadian voters today. Not when they are forced into the corner theyve been in since being swept from power in 2006. Liberals will wait and see what happens in the US, like they did in the 1930's. Meanwhile, not enough Canadians, at least not in the numbers that would amount to a phony majority, are all that impressed with the Liberals, once again.
You should be careful Dave of who you are suggesting are capitalistic pawns and voices demonstrating for and against "the value of the monetary system" when it might of needed a revisionist assigned to the process:) Basically, what every you call "them," they are really "good people" that have just lost sight of an ideal toward a "Just society" and that what has to be done, is to find the roots of, and discover where one might of gone wrong?
Is it in excess? How do you rise above"this fervour?"
Studying alternative views from a science perspective does provide for some understanding of the inherent nature disguised in the mathematical structure. But to some, it is a "dissociative ill" with the social norms of living honestly and with integrity. Some might not know how ever to respond socially from the abstract to the social norm, yet science again can provide focus from "different angles" with which to approach this problem.
The degree to which the critics of "economics" on this thread have managed to avoid reference to the real world, is a measure of their fealty to the abstract. Rejection of the preoccupation with mathematical models was the late J.K.Galbraith's strength. He refused to believe that it could be made to represent realilty. And, of course, events of the past year have proved him right.
This thread starts out in thrall to the idea of a "super" dependency on mathematical models, a "scientific" approach to economics that will solve the world's problems, apparently. A meeting was to take place at the holy of holies, the Perimeter Institute.
Did anyone note what took place at the PI, May 1-4 ? Was it upstaged by Hawking's announcement that he was interested in new revelations about his black-hole theory? Did the economics forum disappear into that hole?
What's the prattle about science? A couple of people here have properly labelled it a "mug's game" (Keynes).
Come on George, is this really necessary? I posted the article in March for May.
You might enjoy a read by Howard Burton called, " First Principles" that might also help some to recognize what an opportunity has been presented here as Canada's research institution which brings us to the front of research and development. Not only in terms of development but "sensitive to the creative freedoms" in a highly structure science society.
That conference is a blip in time yet significant from the perspective of a future that might address "the ills within an ole economic structure" that has gone on beating for some decades now. Some of those ideas were listed.
Of course science is being done there, and whether this is one conference that was sensitive to the times, it's intentions was nothing more then to gather thought and education in one spot too, "talk about the issues"( the urgency was spelt out in relation). In a manner, that was presentable from different venues, as they do in perspective research into theoretics of physics and such.
There are quite a few more names being attached to PI and that should draw interest as well, but Susskind or Hooft are not the issue, as Stephen Hawkings isn't.
Maybe there is another problem here? A distrust? The beginning of this institution?
I never cease to be amazed with the writing of one Canadian who has written about Canadian finance and the state of banking for a number of years. William Krehm has been advocating that money creation and banking in Canada be transformed to a public utility for years. Although perhaps not to quite the same extent as Willem Buiter has recently.
Thoroughly Modern Marx Leo Panitch
Ironically, one of the most radical proposals making the rounds today has come from an economist at the London School of Economics, Willem Buiter, a former member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee and certainly no Marxist. Buiter has proposed that the whole financial sector be turned into a public utility. Because banks in the contemporary world cannot exist without public deposit insurance and public central banks that act as lenders of last resort, there is no case, he argues, for their continuing existence as privately owned, profit-seeking institutions. Instead they should be publicly owned and run as public services. This proposal echoes the demand for "centralization of credit in the banks of the state" that Marx himself made in the Manifesto. To him, a financial-system overhaul would reinforce the importance of the working classes' winning "the battle of democracy" to radically change the state from an organ imposed upon society to one that responds to it.
Debt, is a economic form of slavery. The Green back was a lesson of a "fiat currency" circulated? Is it a distinction then between "real gold" and paper fabrications?
"You might enjoy a read by Howard Burton called, " First Principles" that might also help some to recognize what an opportunity has been presented here as Canada's research institution which brings us to the front of research and development. Not only in terms of development but "sensitive to the creative freedoms" in a highly structure science society."
Howard Burton was "let go". Unfortunately, because in the early days, he worked to bring the Perimeter's work to the Great Unread.
The Canadian government, unfortunately, failed to respond to the appeals of the Perimeter Institute's founder and benefactor, the creator of the Blackberry and RIM, Mike Lazaridis. He thought that keeping Nortel's scientific findings in the country, rather than selling them abroad, made a lot of sense for this country. But THE ECONOMIST PM, Steve, is a made in America, born again free market economist, who would not dream of interfering with the workings of the holy of holies. The market and our maker will yet save us all. (The science of Christianity).
Have you ever tried to figure out how such a mind works with such contradictory evidence, Fidel?
I take it the Great Unread is society?
Yes, I heard about the Nortel issues as well. As Lazardis felt I too feel that there is something on the Horizon in terms of change coming in technologies and am quite excited about it. Yet, could I place my finger on it. No not really. Contributing to the ground bed of "creative opportunities" is a good way of "giving back" what one may have profited by, and I see nothing wrong with these intentions.
Having access to the library of lectures at PI and other institutions is one way of contributing back to society what happens in the halls of education. I think this is a good thing, for those hobbyists like myself who try and stay in tune with the thinking of our leaders in science this is one way of opening the doors to access of information(libraries, Google or wiki). Disseminating information, creates for a much broader possibility for new things to emerge, you see?
To contribute on the start up of a "whole institution" is indeed a grander thought when taking in the possibility some of the people you and I have mentioned, are working to perfect their dreams in science. Imagine Hooft, Susskind, and and Hawking, lead by the institutions new leader Turok. If you have ever read Steinhardt you will understand Turok's influence brought to bear.
Plato's influence is posted on the entrance to the north and south doors of PI. Some might never understand what that means knowing that abstractness can underlay real events, and that it is a matter of bringing abstractness back to reality for examination.
Let no one destitute of geometry enter my doors."
Plato was perhaps only trying to keep away the riffraff?
No George, it is a lesson I am giving about what is detached in our thinking, that has many feeling mistrustful of the direction of society when talking about science and how these can mingle with societies understanding of these issues of economics
This is a historical relation that moves forward in time, to where today, we are uncertain of the same things that have historically played out before from perspective. So while we talk about economics here, it a much broader issue in relation to what science can contribute to the issues of the day.
Lee Smolin - Symmetries in Economic Models and their Consequences
See Also:Security and Prosperity For What it Appears?
Lee Smolin's article on arXiv.
Having read it, I find it amusing that the language of economics can be recast in the language of physics. That said a lot of it is hard going, mathematically, though the language he uses is familiar to me, having seen things like conserved currents in quantum electrodynamics.
I think caution should be taken in placing too much emphasis on the math. The ultimate goal of economics is to describe the monetary interactions of humans and how phenomena rooted in the exchange of goods, services, assets and money have broader repercussions (simple example: What happens if everybody saves money? You induce an economic recession, explained by the paradox of thrift.)
Having read it, I find it amusing that the language of economics can be recast in the language of physics. That said a lot of it is hard going, mathematically, though the language he uses is familiar to me, having seen things like conserved currents in quantum electrodynamics.
I think caution should be taken in placing too much emphasis on the math. The ultimate goal of economics is to describe the monetary interactions of humans and how phenomena rooted in the exchange of goods, services, assets and money have broader repercussions (simple example: What happens if everybody saves money? You induce an economic recession, explained by the paradox of thrift.)
Hi Dr Conway
In bold isn't this what eventually happens when the economy undergoes a correction and we see the events that we do, to realize, that people are now nervous about how they are going to be able to care of themselves? So priorities change, your dollars in your pocket become "more accountable."
BEYOND REDUCTIONISM: REINVENTING THE SACRED
Kauffman presently holds a joint appointment at the University of Calgary in Biological Sciences and in Physics and Astronomy, and is an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Philosophy. He is also an iCORE (Informatics Research Circle of Excellence) [1] chair and the director of the Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics.
BEYOND REDUCTIONISM
Stuart Kauffman - The Evolution of Economic Wealth and Innovation
I think this is indeed the effort that translation occur from new proposals, to what finally happens to the individuals who partakes of this economic endeavor. I find "specialization can give perspective" that would not normally be granted the person on the street, but that it is equally important to understand how these economic factors mathematically can play a part in our everyday lives.
The idea of economic correction itself?
(click on Image for larger viewing)
Fidel once offer the perspective of Kurzweil and the singularity . Now, how would this mean anything if there was not some comparison in phenomenological relation that we might push perspective forward?
At what times do we find such a thing taking place that all kinds of new things are introduced to send the system too, already in chaos and find this is an opportunistic time to advance mathematical proposals into the system to see entropic valuation materialize to the person on the street?
A location perhaps, housing the possibilities of the "neurological synapse" considered to be the "white board of creative possibilities?"
Best,
This Nobel Prize award was of interest to me.
Leonid Hurwicz
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2007
"for having laid the foundations of mechanism design theory"
Eric S.Maskin
I first started to come to the conclusion in regards to the "social construct" and the relationship it had to the mathematical environmental when I saw the movie, "The Beautiful Mind." It was based on the story of John Nash.
A Theory is Born
PBS: Game Theory Explained
Game theory got its start with the work of John von Neumann in the 1920s, which culminated in his book with Oskar Morgenstern. They studied "zero-sum" games where the interests of two players were strictly opposed. John Nash treated the more general and realistic case of a mixture of common interests and rivalry and any number of players. Other theorists, most notably Reinhard Selten and John Harsanyi who shared the 1994 Nobel Memorial Prize with Nash, studied even more complex games with sequences of moves, and games where one player has more information than others.
I wanted to saved a little time, for I would be sure that this highlight in bold would draw attention? So, I thought to preempt it.
You have to understand where symmetry "begins and is possible" to understand that such a place, can exist in the minds of those who go there and become part of the process. This does not define those with agendas, but also recognizes that if we partake as watchers of this process, we can be assured that citizens are given their full rights and respect while capitalism seeks to have it's mandate.