[Kenny Kitzke (2009.09.23.1400EDT)]
You correctly detect skepticism, but it is not a wee bit. It is a overwhelming skeptism. And, I have not tried to hide it, or make a show as Fred accuses the summit experts of doing. No, I am starting a new subject thread titled Chasing the Wind to address what I perceive as an improbable if not impossible dream: that of making a model for the science of economics which would even allow making predictions of results from various actions on controlled economic variables.
For now, please re-read my post. I did not get the idea (or express one) that you or Rick already have a new PCT based model of the economy. My words below are pretty clear, “what needs to be done to create such a model.” If that is inaccurate, please straighten me out.
In the Chasing the Wind thread, I will challenge you about your purpose and your meager start. You are a big, smart boy and I know you don’t mind a fair minded challenge to your knowledge or beliefs. If others want to climb on board you economic model train besides Rick, that is fine. I wish you well. But, as you suggest, there has not been a ground swell of enthusiasm so far. Could it be that most on the Net are more concerned with human control systems and not economic systems?
In a message dated 9/23/2009 10:43:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:
This is quite a week in Pittsburgh. My city is hosting the G-20 Summit. On September 24 and 25, Unfortunately, they have not heard about Rick Marken and Bill Powers who could inform them of what needs to be done to create such a model. Even if they had read all our CSG posts on this subject, do you think they would invite them (or me) to address them with a blank sheet of paper?
[From Bill Powers (2009.09.23.0819 MDT)]
Kenny Kitzke (2009.09.23.900EDT) –
Do I detect a wee bit of skepticism here, Kenny? I don’t know where you got the idea that either Rick or I have such an economic model – I’m still at the stage of saying, “Hey, guys, how about we get started trying to develop an economic model?” And I’m showing some crude back-of-the-envelope sketches of possible ways to start. Maybe the lack of enthusiastic responses reflects the same doubts you seem to have about the possibility of doing this.
I suspect not. And, I suspect they would claim that Rick and Bill simply do not understand how economic systems work to model them. Would they have a point?
Certainly, just as much point as we would have in saying the same things about them. If anyone understood how economic systems work, would we be in the same mess?
For not knowing how economic systems work, it must be luck that the USA is the largest economic power in the world? Is that your claim? Do you know what country is in second place and how close they are? What effect do tax rates have on those measurable results? Surely, Rick is an expert on this.
Do they know which economies in what nations are expanding or contracting and why? Do they know what policies or variables governments can or do control that leads to growth?
No. Nobody does.
How in the world do you know that? Without a model, the USA has grown to dominate the world of national economic power in less than a century. Are you claiming luck? Are you claiming a random reorganization of economic beliefs until we found something that works?
It’s far too complicated for the unaided human mind to figure out how it works. That’s why we need a model.
This seems like a horse before the cart argument. If with our pea brains we can’t comprehend how the complex economic system works in theory, how will those pea brains develop a model sophisticated enough to do what our minds can’t?
Could you predict how a person will move his hand in a tracking task, without a model?
I don’t think there is a model that can predict what a human will do with their hand in a tracking experiment, especially if you do not know what purpose will exist in that human in the future. And, that purpose is a property of the tracker not the experimenter.
Well, sure, in a sort of sloppy approximate way that wouldn’t be very useful. But could you predict the tracking errors the person will make? My model does that with pretty fair accuracy, and nobody on earth could do that without a model, not me, not nobody. You don’t start out by understanding the economy and then translate that knowledge into a model.
Please respond to the above. I think your model is only fairly accurate when the purpose is known. But, us humans have something called free will and will not adopt your modeled purpose unless they want to do so.
You start by representing each separate simple relationship in the real economy as one element of a model. When you have enough elements defined, you can connect them together and turn the model on and see what happens. Only then can you claim to understand anything about how the economy works.
That is so Don Quixote that I can’t believe you wrote it. Can’t know anything? Perhaps can’t know everything. But, I suspect that having a model that explains even a small portion of the economy will take so long that you or I will not be around to witness it. As far as expanding that model so it can predict with any useful accuracy what happens in any real-world global economic system, that may take billions of years. ha
I think you might have a somewhat mistaken idea of what a model is, as I use the term anyway.
Best,
Bill P.
Oh, that could be. Many disagreements among humans, even among economists, stem from having different understandings of what words mean. I doubt PCT will actually solve that problem, one I perceive as far less complex than the economic system. Hopefully some time tomorrow, I will start the Chasing the Wind thread and suggest why other applications of your marvelous theory of human behavior would be far more relevant to the “prosperity” or well-being of mankind. We shall see, my friend.
···
