Economic Control

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.16.0830)]

Marc Abrams (2004.09.15.1619)]

The next column contains the rate of change in GNP during each
quarter (except the first) computed as dGNP/dt = [GNP(t)-GNP(t-1)]/GNP(t),
where t indexes the quarter in which GNP is measured. Note that there is
no measure of dGNP/dt for the first quarter because you need to know the
prior GNP value to calculate the rate of change in GNP during the quarter.

In my Calculus class dGNP/dt signifies the derivative of GNP.

It's the derivative, not of GNP, but of the function relating GNP to time:
GNP = f(t). Since we don't know f() we can't find dGNP/dt analytically. So
we have to estimate it based on the data.

Your equation above does _not_ represent the derivative of the GNP

It is the formula economists use to estimate the value of the derivative of
GNP = f(t) at time t. The formula estimates economic growth (or recession),
which is the derivative of GNP = f(t) at time t. Economists typically write
this equation differently that I did. The economists' formula is:

dGNP/dt = [GNP(t)/GNP(t-1)] -1 (1)

This is mathematically equivalent to my version, reported above:

dGNP/dt = [GNP(t)-GNP(t-1)]/GNP(t) (2)

I think it would be a good exercise for you to prove that equations (1) and
(2) are equivalent.

When you read in the papers that "GNP grew at a rate of 3.2% last quarter",
what is being reported is an estimate, using equation (1) or (2), of the
derivative of the function that relates GNP to time during an instant (dt)
in the middle of the last quarter (t).

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.16.1319)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.16.0830)]

It's the derivative, not of GNP, but of the function relating GNP to time:
GNP = f(t). Since we don't know f() we can't find dGNP/dt analytically. So
we have to estimate it based on the data.

Rick, I wish you would think this through more clearly. How can you figure
out the derivative function f'(x), if you don't know what f(x) is?

This is _NOT_ the derivative, nor is it the _RATE OF CHANGE_. This is an
_AMOUNT_ of change and it's called a _DIFFERENCE EQUATION_. It tells you the
_difference_ in the _amount_ from one period to the next. It does _not_
specify the _RATE_, or the velocity (to use a loose term) of the gain or
loss in the accumulation. A rate determines how quickly something is
changing, not by how much.

Check out _Principles of Systems_, Jay W. Forrester, Productivity Press.

System Dynamics is based on the concept of this very notion of stocks or
levels (integrals) and rates (derivatives).

One interesting aspect is that Forrester does away with using derivatives
entirely, using algebraic equivalents and determining the levels through the
use of difference equations and simulations. A rate can be fully determined
by a level and a constant.

Forrester contends that true differentiation does not take place in the real
world and that integrals are nothing more than _averaged_ rates of change or
accumulations over a period of time

Rick, as much as you might think I'm out to bust you hump, I'm not. But how
can we have a dialogue when each of us sees the world from such different
perspectives.

The notion that aspects of our economy are 'controlled' is pretty
self-evident to me, since we as individuals are 'controlled' I would suspect
emergent behavior amongst us could be as well. But when you take something
like the GNP (Total Gross Output) of an economy, isn't that like looking at
a crowd of people and trying to attribute the purpose of each by the
observed behavior of a few (since you can't possibly observe _everyone_)
over a relatively short period of time?

How far back can you go with quarterly GNP data? Have you tried correlating
anything else to the GNP numbers over very long periods of time?

Showing the differences you did in the 5 quarters hardly gives me a good
understanding of what 'normal' fluctuations might be in the numbers and
whether the magnitude of change is important, and what kind of significance
should be attributed to the differences.

It is the formula economists use to estimate the value of the derivative
of GNP = f(t) at time t. The formula estimates economic growth (or
recession), which is the derivative of GNP = f(t) at time t. Economists
typically write this equation differently that I did. The economists'
formula is:

dGNP/dt = [GNP(t)/GNP(t-1)] -1 (1)

This is mathematically equivalent to my version, reported above:

dGNP/dt = [GNP(t)-GNP(t-1)]/GNP(t) (2)

I think it would be a good exercise for you to prove that equations (1)
and (2) are equivalent.

Rick, the question is not _equivalency_. These are _not_ _derivates_, I hope
you understand that.

This does not change your argument nor does it change the point you are
trying to make, but you need to understand you are talking, _not_ about how
fast something is changing, but about how _much_ something is changing.

When you seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between the two (Rates &
Stocks), your argument, no matter how valid, takes on credibility problems.
Can you see how that can happen?

For instance, you say above, "the formula estimates economic growth (or
recession)..." A recession does _NOT_ indicate shrinkage of the economy. It
is a _slowdown_ of growth, _not_ a _reversal_. So, during a recession the
economy is still growing but it's just at a slower rate. Economic 'growth'
can be described as a derivative _if_ you talk about the rate of change or
how quickly the debt or deficit is growing or shrinking. Both the debt and
deficit are stocks, as is the GNP. That is, they are all _accumulations_
over time of integrating processes.

When you read in the papers that "GNP grew at a rate of 3.2% last
quarter",
what is being reported is an estimate, using equation (1) or (2), of the
derivative of the function that relates GNP to time during an instant (dt)
in the middle of the last quarter (t).

What ever floats your boat Rick. I think we've just about exhausted this
subject. I have nothing more to say on the matter, but before you try and
get your 'economic' stuff published I think you might want to re-think some
of your ideas.

Marc

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1520)]

Marc Abrams (2004.09.16.1319)]

How can you figure out the derivative function f'(x), if you don't know
what f(x) is?

Through direct computation based on data, using formulas like the ones I
gave you. This is basically the way a speedometer, using mechanical (analog)
rather than mathematical computation, continuously computes your car's
speed, which is the derivative of the function that relates the car's
position to time.

This is _NOT_ the derivative, nor is it the _RATE OF CHANGE_. This is an
_AMOUNT_ of change and it's called a _DIFFERENCE EQUATION_. It tells you the
_difference_ in the _amount_ from one period to the next.

It's an amount of change per unit time, which is a rate.

Showing the differences you did in the 5 quarters hardly gives me a good
understanding of what 'normal' fluctuations might be in the numbers and
whether the magnitude of change is important, and what kind of significance
should be attributed to the differences.

The graph I sent showed growth rate in about 48 quarters (14 years), not 5.
The "normality" of the fluctuations in growth rate were not the point. The
point was that there were fluctuations in growth rate but hardly any
fluctuations in the linear increase in the budget surplus to fluctuations in
growth rate are presumably a disturbance.

you need to understand you are talking, _not_ about how
fast something is changing, but about how _much_ something is changing.

I am talking about how much GNP changes per unit time, which is a rate of
change in GNP.

A recession does _NOT_ indicate shrinkage of the economy. It
is a _slowdown_ of growth, _not_ a _reversal_.

Look at the table again. If a recession does not indicate shrinkage in GNP
then what do you call what happens in quarter 5 below?

Quarter(t) GNP dGNP/dt
  1 1000
  2 1001 0.000999 <--- Growth
  3 1003 0.001994 <--- Growth
  4 1004 0.000996 <--- Slowdown/ Growth
  5 1003 -0.000997 <--- Recession

Both the debt and deficit are stocks, as is the GNP. That is, they
are all _accumulations_ over time of integrating processes.

Actually, debt is a stock, because it accumulates, but the deficit is a flow
which increases the size of the debt accumulation. And GNP is also a flow;
it is the rate at which the stock of goods is being increased. Consumption
is also a flow ; it is the rate at which the stock of goods is being
decreased. So when you write a model of the economy, you would model the
state of debt and goods in each cycle as the following accumulations:

debt = debt + deficit - surplus

goods = goods + GNP - consumption

RSM

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

[From Bill Powers (2004.09.16.1632 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1520) --

So when you write a model of the economy, you would model the
state of debt and goods in each cycle as the following accumulations:

debt = debt + deficit - surplus

goods = goods + GNP - consumption

I think you got carried away by symmetry. What goods are you talking about?
From the look of the second equation this would refer to composite
producers' inventory, but that doesn't jibe with GNP adding to it and
consumption subtracting from it. GNP and consumption are rather closely
related, aren't they, like being the same thing? I think it would mean more
to say

goods = goods + production - consumption.

Then goods would refer to inventories and production and consumption would
be rates at which goods and services are produced and sold (there is no
inventory of services, of course, but most services involve comsumption of
supplies of some kind).

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.16.1630)]

Bill Powers (2004.09.16.1632 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1520) --

goods = goods + GNP - consumption

I think you got carried away by symmetry. What goods are you talking about?

Good point. I guess I'm thinking of inventory.

From the look of the second equation this would refer to composite
producers' inventory, but that doesn't jibe with GNP adding to it and
consumption subtracting from it. GNP and consumption are rather closely
related, aren't they, like being the same thing?

That's not my understanding. I think of GNP as the dollar value of all goods
and services _produced_ in a particular time interval. So it's all goods and
services (including capital goods and services) that are available to be
consumed. Inventory is the dollar value of GNP that is not consumed.

I think it would mean more to say

goods = goods + production - consumption.

I think this says exactly what my equation says, unless it's true that GNP
is not a measure of production of goods and services.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken
MindReadings.com
Home: 310 474 0313
Cell: 310 729 1400

This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and
may contain privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies
of the original message.

From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.16.1907)]

Rick, you have finally convinced me that I need to go and straighten out my
calculus professor right away, before he teaches another semester of this
mush. He doesn't know the real deal like you do.

I am eternally grateful for your outstanding understanding in the
differences between stocks and rates, and your especially incisive
understanding of derivatives and integrals.

Your understanding of economics is just as thorough and mind boggling as
your grasp and understanding of the calculus. Very few that I know, have the
mastery of both subjects or as thorough a grasp you do. Your analysis of the
GNP, which is an older version of the GDP is so instructive that I have
decided to throw out the economic texts I own and just save your posts for
anyone who might want to have an analytical look at our economy.

Thanks Rick, Adam Smith would never be able to pull the wool over your eyes,
no siree, and thank god for that.

And you don't even have to post back and thank me. I already know I'm an
asshole.

Marc

···

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.17.1520)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.16.2030)]

Marc Abrams (2004.09.16.1907)--

And you don't even have to post back and thank me. I already know I'm
an
asshole.

Your only problem -- which is a very common one -- is that you control
for being right with far higher gain than you control for being
educated.

RSM

···

---
Richard S. Marken
marken@mindreadings.com
Home 310 474-0313
Cell 310 729-1400

From [Marc Abrams (2004.09.17.0216)]

[From Rick Marken (2004.09.16.2030)]

> Marc Abrams (2004.09.16.1907)--

> And you don't even have to post back and thank me. I already know I'm
> an
> asshole.

Your only problem -- which is a very common one -- is that you control
for being right with far higher gain than you control for being
educated.

As usual Rick, you probably speak from a great deal of personal experience
with respect to these matters so I appreciate the sharing of some of your
painful personal self-awareness with me.

When did you first come to the realization you were more interested in
being right then in being educated?

Unfortunately you are neither, but I do know you will continue to try and be
right so I wish you lots of luck.

I know it's irritating as hell to have some high school drop-out explain the
proper meaning of a derivative to you, but you'll get over it.

BTW, the definition of a derivative is the same for an economist as it is
for a mathematician, neither of which you are close to being.

Marc