Economic Test Bed

CSGnet Archive CSG2003
1

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.05.1503 MST)]

The multi-control-system reorganization problem is temporarily stuck on
hold while I wait for an idea, so I'm going to let it go for a while and
turn to something else.

If we can put aside suspicions that I am trying to promote my late father's
ideas, I still would like to see the concept of a Test Bed Model for
Economics being worked on. The idea behind this is to eliminate all
conjectures about the psychology of economics, and build a working model of
the mechanical aspects of transactions, money, credit, savings, taxes,
interest, and whatever else is important. It sounds tedious but it's
perfectly possible. Current computers are so fast and have so much memory
and disk space that we could handle quite respectable sizes of economic
systems, at least to the level of sectors.

Then, once we have this Test Bed working to keep track of all transactions
and other dealings, we can start plugging in various people's ideas about
how human beings behave in this system. I've already done a bit of it for
the control-system model of Economic Man, but it would be possible to test
other ideas, too. For example. Keynes proposed that spending is simply a
function of income: the more money you make, the more you spend. It
wouldn't be hard to program a model consumer with properties like that into
the Test Bed and see what happens. He also had ideas about how people's
liquidity preferences influence interest rates. That can be tested, too.
Ideally, we should be able to test anybody's economic theory with this model.

My idea is to start simple with a few consumers and producers, get
something working, and then start adding all the details, testing as we go
to make sure everything works properly. The model I have so far has no
retail sales, no banks, no government, no interest on credit (although it
does allow borrowing) and only one kind of good and one wage. There is a
reserve for capital investment but no use is made of it. Workers vary the
hours they work to control their incomes. Managers adjust prices to control
inventories, and adjust payments of capital distributions to control
monetary reserves. All these properties are tentative and can be altered
until the details are realistic.

I did start work on a multi-consumer, multi-producer model, in which there
are about 20 categories of goods, with each of 50 manufacturers making 3 of
the 20 products (selected at random). Consumers (several thousand) have
reference levels for these 20 goods, with a range of reference levels for
each good. Manufactures do their own adjusting of prices and production
rates, and so on.

However, the basic Test Bed project doesn't need for the consumers or
managers to be in the model; all it needs is a way to keep the books and
the physical flows of goods and money straight. If consumer A buys good B
from manufacturer C, the Test bed will transfer the right amount of money
from consumer to manufacturer, transfer the right goods from the right
manufacturer's inventory to the consumer's possession, check the current
price to make sure the ratio of goods to money is right on each
transaction, calculate interest if money is borrowed and taxes if there are
any, use up goods that are consumed or depreciated, and in general do all
the things that computers do very fast and accurately and people make
mistakes at. All the economic theorist then has to do is to make proposals
about how managers, owners, lenders, borrowers, and consumers behave. The
test bed will act enough like a real economy to let us see the
consequences. At least that's the aim.

It could be that a lot of this already exists, although my web searches
haven't turned up anything really similar. Perhaps a more thorough search
would be profitable. The most familiar-looking models I have seen are those
done by the Congressional Office of the Budget, if that's the name. But
nobody, of course, has it set up to allow different theories of human
nature to be plugged in. And I didn't see any signs that the models would
allow computing real-time behavior -- but I could have missed that.

I really think that a Test Bed can be developed, and that it can even,
eventually, be adjusted to become a consensus on the basic mechanics of an
economy. People with different economic ideas, after all, must agree at
least on certain basics, like the fact that when goods appear in one place
they must have come from some other place like an inventory or a production
line, and that when one person pays money it disappears from his assets and
appears in someone else's. There have to be many other points on which just
about all economists would agree.

Any reactions to this concept?

Best,

Bill P.

2

Bill,

I guess my first question would be "Who do you know who really
wants an "Economics Testbed?" If you've got time on your hands
nd feel like making the effort to get such a model running for
some purposes of your own that's one thing. But, it seems to me
that you may be mistakenly assuming that there are readily availible
people somewhere who are interested in "testing economic ideas."
If there is going to be a "test" concerning economic ideas, maybe
the assumption that somewhere there is a perception that economic
ideas should be subject to test ought to be the first item that
is subject to test.

I've known for a long time that that there have been people who
are of the opinion that the criteria of truth should be an _a
priori_ standard. Ludvig Von Mises is an example of a frankly
_a priori_ theorist. In _Epistemological Problems of Economics_
196O he says,

  p. 24. "There can be no doubt whatsoever concerning the
  aprioristic character of these disciplines [concerned with
  the science of human action]."

    "...the elementary laws of value are valid without exception
  for all human action. p. 27.

    (That is no Giffen effect, all demand functions slope downward.)

   "... no kind of experience can ever force us to discard or modify
    a priori theorems. They are not derived from experience; they are
    logically prior to it ... p. 28.

    "[ economic theory is built] on a foundation that further reasoning
     cannot shake." p. 28.

There is a very much larger group of economists who, while they do
not in public defend an _a priori_ status for economic theory, as a
practical measure would not, I am convinced, be prepared to actually
subject fundamental economic propositions to a test.

  (That is no Giffen effect, all demand functions slope downward.)

There are a few, a very few, heterodox economists who are opposed to
an unregulated capitalism. I had thought that these people had abandoned
_a priori_ theorizing. However, I learned this Summer that like the
orthodox at least some segments of this group rather than having
abandoned _a priori_ theorizing have in stead only shifted the
assumptions which they afirm regarding which "further reasoning cannot
shake."

  (That is no Giffen effect, there are no demand functions.)

Economic theory is a matter of system concepts, and as best I can tell,
as one should expect of system level concepts, they are not typically,
or even very infrequently, subject to change merely on the basis of
a "test."

Economic theory, you should understand, is a concept that is far
more important than truth. Economic theory resides in the realm of
belief.

And, consider what the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski 1948 has
to say about belief.

     ... any drawing of conclusions, or arguing by the
     law of logical contradiction, is absolutely futile
     in the realm of belief, belief savage or civilized.
     Two beliefs, quite contradictory to each other on
     logical grounds may coexist, while a perfectly
     obvious inference from a very firm tenent may be
     simplely ignored. p. 220

Magic, Science and Religion and other essays
  
What Malinoski says about "the realm of belief" certainly rings
true to me. And, if one enters into this realm there are no rules.
None at least in the sense that there is any basis for an
expectation that consistent or predictable behavior will be
observed after entering into this "realm of belief." Note what
Malinowski says, "drawing of conclusions, or arguing by the
law of logical contradiction, is absolutely futile in the realm
of belief." The thing is that "in the realm of belief" the stakes
are so high that all the rules, such as they are, are subject
without notice to change.

Now, as I understand it you are proposing, or at least considering
rolling your "econmics test bed" into this domain of belief in
which there are no rules. It looks to me like a massive category
mistake. Say there is a junior faculty member not yet having been
awarded tenure who contructs a "testbed." Suppose that the
chair of the department is a Chicago School graduate who is
convinced that all demand functions by logical neccesity must
slope downward. Now control theorists agree, last time I checked,
that it is possible that some commodities may exhibit Giffeness.
The question is, suppose the chair's assumptions get cranked
into the testbed-- what happens next? A) The junior faculty
member is awarded a special accelerated Swedish Bank Prize--
everyone knows that there is actually no such thing as a Nobel
Prize in economics. B) The junior faculty member is suspected of
being Bruce Gregory and shot for criminal irony. C) The department
chair and Chicago School economist comes to Jesus and becomes a
socialist. D) There is a massive explosion and what is left of
the remains of the economics department is last seen on course
for Alpha Centuri.

Bill Williams

Joan Robinson said "Economics is a serious business." Joan Robinson is
also dead.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Bill Powers
Sent: Fri 12/5/2003 4:54 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Economic Test Bed

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.05.1503 MST)]

The multi-control-system reorganization problem is temporarily stuck on
hold while I wait for an idea, so I'm going to let it go for a while and
turn to something else.

If we can put aside suspicions that I am trying to promote my late father's
ideas, I still would like to see the concept of a Test Bed Model for
Economics being worked on. The idea behind this is to eliminate all
conjectures about the psychology of economics, and build a working model of
the mechanical aspects of transactions, money, credit, savings, taxes,
interest, and whatever else is important. It sounds tedious but it's
perfectly possible. Current computers are so fast and have so much memory
and disk space that we could handle quite respectable sizes of economic
systems, at least to the level of sectors.

Then, once we have this Test Bed working to keep track of all transactions
and other dealings, we can start plugging in various people's ideas about
how human beings behave in this system. I've already done a bit of it for
the control-system model of Economic Man, but it would be possible to test
other ideas, too. For example. Keynes proposed that spending is simply a
function of income: the more money you make, the more you spend. It
wouldn't be hard to program a model consumer with properties like that into
the Test Bed and see what happens. He also had ideas about how people's
liquidity preferences influence interest rates. That can be tested, too.
Ideally, we should be able to test anybody's economic theory with this model.

My idea is to start simple with a few consumers and producers, get
something working, and then start adding all the details, testing as we go
to make sure everything works properly. The model I have so far has no
retail sales, no banks, no government, no interest on credit (although it
does allow borrowing) and only one kind of good and one wage. There is a
reserve for capital investment but no use is made of it. Workers vary the
hours they work to control their incomes. Managers adjust prices to control
inventories, and adjust payments of capital distributions to control
monetary reserves. All these properties are tentative and can be altered
until the details are realistic.

I did start work on a multi-consumer, multi-producer model, in which there
are about 20 categories of goods, with each of 50 manufacturers making 3 of
the 20 products (selected at random). Consumers (several thousand) have
reference levels for these 20 goods, with a range of reference levels for
each good. Manufactures do their own adjusting of prices and production
rates, and so on.

However, the basic Test Bed project doesn't need for the consumers or
managers to be in the model; all it needs is a way to keep the books and
the physical flows of goods and money straight. If consumer A buys good B
from manufacturer C, the Test bed will transfer the right amount of money
from consumer to manufacturer, transfer the right goods from the right
manufacturer's inventory to the consumer's possession, check the current
price to make sure the ratio of goods to money is right on each
transaction, calculate interest if money is borrowed and taxes if there are
any, use up goods that are consumed or depreciated, and in general do all
the things that computers do very fast and accurately and people make
mistakes at. All the economic theorist then has to do is to make proposals
about how managers, owners, lenders, borrowers, and consumers behave. The
test bed will act enough like a real economy to let us see the
consequences. At least that's the aim.

It could be that a lot of this already exists, although my web searches
haven't turned up anything really similar. Perhaps a more thorough search
would be profitable. The most familiar-looking models I have seen are those
done by the Congressional Office of the Budget, if that's the name. But
nobody, of course, has it set up to allow different theories of human
nature to be plugged in. And I didn't see any signs that the models would
allow computing real-time behavior -- but I could have missed that.

I really think that a Test Bed can be developed, and that it can even,
eventually, be adjusted to become a consensus on the basic mechanics of an
economy. People with different economic ideas, after all, must agree at
least on certain basics, like the fact that when goods appear in one place
they must have come from some other place like an inventory or a production
line, and that when one person pays money it disappears from his assets and
appears in someone else's. There have to be many other points on which just
about all economists would agree.

Any reactions to this concept?

Best,

Bill P.

3

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.06.0620)]

Bill,

I guess my first question would be "Who do you know who really
wants an "Economics Testbed?"

Wonderful post. Thank you, Bill.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

4

from [David Goldstein (2003.12.06.0655 EST)]
About [Williams, Bill (2003.12.06.01100]

Hello Bill,
It is lonely to be pioneer.
I guess this is why it is necessary to have a regular job and do PCT
work as a hobby for now. I imagine that most pioneers had to do
something like this.
By hobbies are things we love, aren't they?
And that is why we do them.
David
David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet)
[mailto:CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Williams, William D.
Sent: Saturday, December 06, 2003 1:10 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Economic Test Bed

Bill,

I guess my first question would be "Who do you know who really
wants an "Economics Testbed?" If you've got time on your hands
nd feel like making the effort to get such a model running for
some purposes of your own that's one thing. But, it seems to me
that you may be mistakenly assuming that there are readily availible
people somewhere who are interested in "testing economic ideas."
If there is going to be a "test" concerning economic ideas, maybe
the assumption that somewhere there is a perception that economic
ideas should be subject to test ought to be the first item that
is subject to test.

I've known for a long time that that there have been people who
are of the opinion that the criteria of truth should be an _a
priori_ standard. Ludvig Von Mises is an example of a frankly
_a priori_ theorist. In _Epistemological Problems of Economics_
196O he says,

  p. 24. "There can be no doubt whatsoever concerning the
  aprioristic character of these disciplines [concerned with
  the science of human action]."

    "...the elementary laws of value are valid without exception
  for all human action. p. 27.

    (That is no Giffen effect, all demand functions slope downward.)

   "... no kind of experience can ever force us to discard or modify
    a priori theorems. They are not derived from experience; they are
    logically prior to it ... p. 28.

    "[ economic theory is built] on a foundation that further reasoning
     cannot shake." p. 28.

There is a very much larger group of economists who, while they do
not in public defend an _a priori_ status for economic theory, as a
practical measure would not, I am convinced, be prepared to actually
subject fundamental economic propositions to a test.

  (That is no Giffen effect, all demand functions slope downward.)

There are a few, a very few, heterodox economists who are opposed to
an unregulated capitalism. I had thought that these people had abandoned

_a priori_ theorizing. However, I learned this Summer that like the
orthodox at least some segments of this group rather than having
abandoned _a priori_ theorizing have in stead only shifted the
assumptions which they afirm regarding which "further reasoning cannot
shake."

  (That is no Giffen effect, there are no demand functions.)

Economic theory is a matter of system concepts, and as best I can tell,
as one should expect of system level concepts, they are not typically,
or even very infrequently, subject to change merely on the basis of
a "test."

Economic theory, you should understand, is a concept that is far
more important than truth. Economic theory resides in the realm of
belief.

And, consider what the anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski 1948 has
to say about belief.

     ... any drawing of conclusions, or arguing by the
     law of logical contradiction, is absolutely futile
     in the realm of belief, belief savage or civilized.
     Two beliefs, quite contradictory to each other on
     logical grounds may coexist, while a perfectly
     obvious inference from a very firm tenent may be
     simplely ignored. p. 220

Magic, Science and Religion and other essays

What Malinoski says about "the realm of belief" certainly rings true to
me. And, if one enters into this realm there are no rules. None at least
in the sense that there is any basis for an
expectation that consistent or predictable behavior will be
observed after entering into this "realm of belief." Note what
Malinowski says, "drawing of conclusions, or arguing by the
law of logical contradiction, is absolutely futile in the realm
of belief." The thing is that "in the realm of belief" the stakes are so
high that all the rules, such as they are, are subject
without notice to change.

Now, as I understand it you are proposing, or at least considering
rolling your "econmics test bed" into this domain of belief in
which there are no rules. It looks to me like a massive category
mistake. Say there is a junior faculty member not yet having been
awarded tenure who contructs a "testbed." Suppose that the
chair of the department is a Chicago School graduate who is
convinced that all demand functions by logical neccesity must
slope downward. Now control theorists agree, last time I checked, that
it is possible that some commodities may exhibit Giffeness. The question
is, suppose the chair's assumptions get cranked into the testbed-- what
happens next? A) The junior faculty member is awarded a special
accelerated Swedish Bank Prize--
everyone knows that there is actually no such thing as a Nobel
Prize in economics. B) The junior faculty member is suspected of
being Bruce Gregory and shot for criminal irony. C) The department
chair and Chicago School economist comes to Jesus and becomes a
socialist. D) There is a massive explosion and what is left of
the remains of the economics department is last seen on course
for Alpha Centuri.

Bill Williams

Joan Robinson said "Economics is a serious business." Joan Robinson is
also dead.

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Bill Powers
Sent: Fri 12/5/2003 4:54 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Economic Test Bed

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.05.1503 MST)]

The multi-control-system reorganization problem is temporarily stuck on
hold while I wait for an idea, so I'm going to let it go for a while and
turn to something else.

If we can put aside suspicions that I am trying to promote my late
father's ideas, I still would like to see the concept of a Test Bed
Model for Economics being worked on. The idea behind this is to
eliminate all conjectures about the psychology of economics, and build a
working model of the mechanical aspects of transactions, money, credit,
savings, taxes, interest, and whatever else is important. It sounds
tedious but it's perfectly possible. Current computers are so fast and
have so much memory and disk space that we could handle quite
respectable sizes of economic systems, at least to the level of sectors.

Then, once we have this Test Bed working to keep track of all
transactions and other dealings, we can start plugging in various
people's ideas about how human beings behave in this system. I've
already done a bit of it for the control-system model of Economic Man,
but it would be possible to test other ideas, too. For example. Keynes
proposed that spending is simply a function of income: the more money
you make, the more you spend. It wouldn't be hard to program a model
consumer with properties like that into the Test Bed and see what
happens. He also had ideas about how people's liquidity preferences
influence interest rates. That can be tested, too. Ideally, we should be
able to test anybody's economic theory with this model.

My idea is to start simple with a few consumers and producers, get
something working, and then start adding all the details, testing as we
go to make sure everything works properly. The model I have so far has
no retail sales, no banks, no government, no interest on credit
(although it does allow borrowing) and only one kind of good and one
wage. There is a reserve for capital investment but no use is made of
it. Workers vary the hours they work to control their incomes. Managers
adjust prices to control inventories, and adjust payments of capital
distributions to control monetary reserves. All these properties are
tentative and can be altered until the details are realistic.

I did start work on a multi-consumer, multi-producer model, in which
there are about 20 categories of goods, with each of 50 manufacturers
making 3 of the 20 products (selected at random). Consumers (several
thousand) have reference levels for these 20 goods, with a range of
reference levels for each good. Manufactures do their own adjusting of
prices and production rates, and so on.

However, the basic Test Bed project doesn't need for the consumers or
managers to be in the model; all it needs is a way to keep the books and
the physical flows of goods and money straight. If consumer A buys good
B from manufacturer C, the Test bed will transfer the right amount of
money from consumer to manufacturer, transfer the right goods from the
right manufacturer's inventory to the consumer's possession, check the
current price to make sure the ratio of goods to money is right on each
transaction, calculate interest if money is borrowed and taxes if there
are any, use up goods that are consumed or depreciated, and in general
do all the things that computers do very fast and accurately and people
make mistakes at. All the economic theorist then has to do is to make
proposals about how managers, owners, lenders, borrowers, and consumers
behave. The test bed will act enough like a real economy to let us see
the consequences. At least that's the aim.

It could be that a lot of this already exists, although my web searches
haven't turned up anything really similar. Perhaps a more thorough
search would be profitable. The most familiar-looking models I have seen
are those done by the Congressional Office of the Budget, if that's the
name. But nobody, of course, has it set up to allow different theories
of human nature to be plugged in. And I didn't see any signs that the
models would allow computing real-time behavior -- but I could have
missed that.

I really think that a Test Bed can be developed, and that it can even,
eventually, be adjusted to become a consensus on the basic mechanics of
an economy. People with different economic ideas, after all, must agree
at least on certain basics, like the fact that when goods appear in one
place they must have come from some other place like an inventory or a
production line, and that when one person pays money it disappears from
his assets and appears in someone else's. There have to be many other
points on which just about all economists would agree.

Any reactions to this concept?

Best,

Bill P.

5

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.06.9511 MST)]

Bill Williams (12.05.03.1109 CST)]

I guess my first question would be "Who do you know who really
wants an "Economics Testbed?"

Well, I: know of one person who does, from inside of whom I am writing.
Perhaps you do, too, considering your interest in a "two-commodity model."
I agree that within the groups you describe, the median attitude is not
likely to include a welcome of tests of beliefs, But I think that in any
group so characterized by its typical properties, there is a distribution,
ranging from far worse than anything you have described to far better. We
can't look for any interest within such a group's middle or its worst
fringe, but it's not impossible that we could peel off a few adherents to
orthodoxy from the other fringe, the better one for our purposes.

One thing to consider is that if someone is ardently in favor of some model
of the economy, it might be that this person would welcome a Test Bed,
being absolutely certain that it would prove him or her right, or prove
opponents wrong.. But I don't think we could count on that. As you say, why
should such a person risk a test?

It would, of course, be convenient if we could think of an investigation of
economic theory that would attract enthusiastic support from the economic
community. Considering how many belief systems there are even just within
economics, however, it doesn't seem too likely that such support would
exist for any idea. My idea of the Test Bed is designed to make it as
non-partisan as possible, so at least we might appeal to a number of
different less-orthodox fringes and get a little support from each. If
there were six major schools of economics, and we got the support of the
most liberal 1/6 of each group, we would suddenly have a plurality.

If you've got time on your hands and feel like making the effort to get
such a model running for some purposes of your own that's one thing. But,
it seems to me that you may be mistakenly assuming that there are readily
availible
people somewhere who are interested in "testing economic ideas."

I hadn't really thought in terms of finding readily available people, no
more than I did when I got interested in control theory via cybernetics. It
was nice to think (however mistakenly) that there were other people I could
work with on such ideas, but that wasn't the reason I was interested. I was
fascinated by the idea that control theory explained things about human
behavior and wanted to know more, for my own sake as much as anyone else's,
maybe more. Same thing for economic theory: it's something that vitally
affects me and others dear to me, and I would really like to understand how
an economy works.

Of course we could always appeal to greed. The person who understands how
the economy actually works, presumably, can manipulate it to his own
advantage better than the person whose understanding is flawed or flatly
incorrect. Correct knowledge is always to be preferred by the entrepreneur
over illusions and misinformation, Aren't businessmen supposed to be the
ultimate pragmatists and unsentimental realists? If a belief is costing you
money, trash it, no matter how attached you are to it, right? Christianity
is for Sundays. Maybe it's not economists we want support from, but
businessmen.

However, for me, just figuring out a good model is the main point of this
-- in company with others who have similar interests if at all possible,
but not just to have their companionship. The matter of trying to get it
right is important to me. There's a lot of satisfaction in making a model
that works, and even works like the real system. In fact, if I get hung up
on other possible satisfactions like fame and fortune, I begin to worry
about making unpopular hypotheses or drawing conclusions that might offend
the wrong committee, and then I can't think freely any more. Think how far
I would have got with PCT if I had worried about what B. F. Skinner or
anyone else in psychology thought.

If there is going to be a "test" concerning economic ideas, maybe
the assumption that somewhere there is a perception that economic
ideas should be subject to test ought to be the first item that
is subject to test.

I don't think I'm in any doubt about that. I certainly perceive that they
need testing, whether anyone else does or not. I can't worry if Herr Doktor
Professor Joe Blow believes his theory is too perfect to need testing. Why
should a nutty idea like that concern us?

I've known for a long time that that there have been people who
are of the opinion that the criteria of truth should be an _a
priori_ standard. Ludvig Von Mises is an example of a frankly
_a priori_ theorist. In _Epistemological Problems of Economics_
196O he says,

  p. 24. "There can be no doubt whatsoever concerning the
  aprioristic character of these disciplines [concerned with
  the science of human action]."

    "...the elementary laws of value are valid without exception
  for all human action. p. 27.

    (That is no Giffen effect, all demand functions slope downward.)

Yes, I have a few of Mises' writings on my hard disc, including that one, I
think. A man for whom the term "self-centered idiot" was surely invented
(that was originally a shorter, 7-letter, term). But as I say, can we let
our interests and efforts be dictated by such people, who must be suffering
some form of mental illness?

I think we should just worry about trying to get it right, and not let
other people's problems rub off on us.

Now, as I understand it you are proposing, or at least considering
rolling your "econmics test bed" into this domain of belief in
which there are no rules. It looks to me like a massive category
mistake.

I think it would be, too. What you're saying is that there is really no
point in trying to introduce a real theory of economics to economists,
because they are impervious to reason, unable to test their ideas against
reality, caught up in irrational belief systems, and capable only of
thinking of their own safety. In short, they are psychotic, or so severely
unbalanced as to be incapable of normal thinking.

But remember the fringes. There must be a "non-lunatic fringe" there with
whom one can have a normal adult conversation. We would be best off, I
agree, avoiding the others.

Well, anyway, I intend to get as far with this Test Bed idea as I can,
though my practical experience is too limited to take it all the way. I
keep asking people if they'd be interested in seeing what I have so far.
George Soros wrote me that I was on the right track, so much so, he said,
that it has already been done. Snotty jerk. Others haven't replied yet, and
probably won't. But what can one do? Trolling for support is just like
fishing. You can say you're fishing for bass, but you wouldn't turn down a
bite from a pike.

I'd settle for a bite from Williams.

Best,

Bill P.

6

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.06.1050)]

Bill Powers (2003.12.06.9511 MST)--

Bill Williams (12.05.03.1109 CST)--

I guess my first question would be "Who do you know who really
wants an "Economics Testbed?"

Well, I know of one person who does, from inside of whom I am writing.

I'm another, of course. I think many others, including economists,
would become interested once the test bed was developed and some actual
economic data was predicted with some accuracy.

Best

Rick

···

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

7

Hey Bill Williams:

Thank you for that delicious essay on the virtues of an economic test
bed. You have twanged the heart-strings of several people on this
list. --Phil Runkel

8

Bill,

The main points you make in your "Test Bed" post are, of course, correct. However, there's something I'd like you to think about carefully.

You say,

"I think we should just worry about trying to get it right, and not let
other people's problems rub off on us."

I'm not so much worried about "other people's problems rub[bing] off on us." as I am the very real possiblity that _our_ problems will start rubbing off on each other.

Consider how you describe some people on the economics scene....

     "In short, they are psychotic, or so severely unbalanced as
      to be incapable of normal thinking."

I think you are exhibiting a serious mistake in how you understand these people and their situation. It isn't, I am convinced, that they are, as you say, "psychotic" or "incapable of normal thinking." It may certainly look that way. But these are people caught in a situation in which the systems level concepts (for which they as economists are responsible) of a world wide economic society are inadaquate and on the edge of breaking down.

And, speaking of "psychotics" I think I got pushed over the edge quite some time ago. Depending upon external circumstance the psychosis may not manefest itself, but then again maybe it will.

If you wish to collaborate in someway concerning economic issues I under certain conditions would be interested. It seems to me that it might be possible to generate some extra-ordinarily valuable results. But, there are concerns that I have regarding which I would want to come to explicit understandings.

David in a post described doing control theory as a "hobby" and I appreciate his point of view. However, a very long time ago I made a calculated risk based upon an assessment that it would be futile to pursue questions in economic theory as a "hobby." It seemed to me that there was a threshold effect involved such that even with a full commitment to the task there was a very real risk that a lifetimes work might end in failure. A failure from the standpoint, not of the opinions of some external audience, but a failure from the standpoint of a candid self-assessment.

When I was an undergraduate I look about and came to the conclusion that David arrived at. Economics was an interesting field, but I thought it would be more prudent for me to have "a real job." So, I took the exams for entrance into the State Departments Foreign Service-- and obtained an inital appointment as an economics officer in the diplomatic service. Then a professor who thought highly of me told me this is silly, you're going to waste your life going abroad, pushing cookies and lying for your country??? He persuaded me to obtain Ph.D., and there was a promise of a position.

He was at the end of his life desperate because he anticipated that the work he'd done was going to be wasted. he understood some, or rather a lot of things about the theory value and human in a very profound way. And, it was largely following up on his efforts that I evenually encountered your work. But, I encountered your work _only_ I am convinced because I pursued the question of economic theory as my primary task rather than a hobby. I'd learned something about electronics-- op-amps and all -- as a hobby. And, I'd been employed as an engineer developing simple control systems for agricultural machinery. But, I did so because I was doubtful if studying Weiner's work from a mathematical standpoint was going to provide the sort of understanding that was required. I had the idea that it was far more important to understand the actual phenomena hands on, rather than the analytic representation. (In retrospect this was naive, but it more or less worked.) And, Herbert Simon couldn't make a go of it from the analytic side. He published a paper or two on economics and control theory and gave it up.
Simon never got to the point of looking at two control loops in conflict which is where control theory begins to be economicly interesting.

To get back a bit closer to some point, what I saying is that I've traveled a long and in someways a very difficult road in my quest for a solution to the problem of economic theory. I've worked out, some of in collaboration with you, and some of it independently a collection of programs that a reasonable person might perceive to indicate that economic theory could be reconstructed on a control theory foundation. I've worked out an organizational scheme to present this material that seems to me to have some appealing features.

However, I'm in somewhat frail health as a result of auto-immune problem with neurological effects and in my view I've already exhausted the last full measure in a physiological sense. There is a genuine sense I don't think I can afford to engage in a collaboration that is likely to disrupt the completion of the work that needs to be done. I view it as important to get what I've already got in hand collected, written-up and published.

In the past when we've differed about issues such as economics or the environment you haven't hesitated in describing me as "crazy." What am
I to do when you behave this way? In the past when you've made such
statements I've gone away. When I return, intially at least you've
been on good behavior. I want to avoid, another repetition in which
having made a committment to collaborate on some effort, you attack
me personally. It isn't that it does me all that much harm. But, I
have a measure of pride, and I dislike in a sense being complicit--
complicit in these sense. When you say that I'm crazy. Does it make
sense for me to reply in kind? Not really. However, to ignore such remarks
isn't really satisfactory either.

After the last episodes, a student here noticed that I wasn't involved
on the CSGnet. And, he said, you must think you can do this stuff on
your own without depending upon Powers. My answer was, "Well, more or
less." And, once you understand the basic feedback look and what it
can do, there are some reasonably good control theory texts that can
be consulted for ideas. Sort of slow going, but its possible.

We can continue the discussion. But, I'd like it to be understood that
the economic theory stuff isn't for me anything remotely like a hobby.
And, before, or rather if there is any movement closer to something like writting code, this time, or rather _if_ this time, I want, no I insist,
that there be a clear understanding about some basic issues.
  
Bill Willliams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Bill Powers
Sent: Sat 12/6/2003 7:33 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Economic Test Bed

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.06.9511 MST)]

Bill Williams (12.05.03.1109 CST)]

I guess my first question would be "Who do you know who really
wants an "Economics Testbed?"

Well, I: know of one person who does, from inside of whom I am writing.
Perhaps you do, too, considering your interest in a "two-commodity model."
I agree that within the groups you describe, the median attitude is not
likely to include a welcome of tests of beliefs, But I think that in any
group so characterized by its typical properties, there is a distribution,
ranging from far worse than anything you have described to far better. We
can't look for any interest within such a group's middle or its worst
fringe, but it's not impossible that we could peel off a few adherents to
orthodoxy from the other fringe, the better one for our purposes.

One thing to consider is that if someone is ardently in favor of some model
of the economy, it might be that this person would welcome a Test Bed,
being absolutely certain that it would prove him or her right, or prove
opponents wrong.. But I don't think we could count on that. As you say, why
should such a person risk a test?

It would, of course, be convenient if we could think of an investigation of
economic theory that would attract enthusiastic support from the economic
community. Considering how many belief systems there are even just within
economics, however, it doesn't seem too likely that such support would
exist for any idea. My idea of the Test Bed is designed to make it as
non-partisan as possible, so at least we might appeal to a number of
different less-orthodox fringes and get a little support from each. If
there were six major schools of economics, and we got the support of the
most liberal 1/6 of each group, we would suddenly have a plurality.

If you've got time on your hands and feel like making the effort to get
such a model running for some purposes of your own that's one thing. But,
it seems to me that you may be mistakenly assuming that there are readily
availible
people somewhere who are interested in "testing economic ideas."

I hadn't really thought in terms of finding readily available people, no
more than I did when I got interested in control theory via cybernetics. It
was nice to think (however mistakenly) that there were other people I could
work with on such ideas, but that wasn't the reason I was interested. I was
fascinated by the idea that control theory explained things about human
behavior and wanted to know more, for my own sake as much as anyone else's,
maybe more. Same thing for economic theory: it's something that vitally
affects me and others dear to me, and I would really like to understand how
an economy works.

Of course we could always appeal to greed. The person who understands how
the economy actually works, presumably, can manipulate it to his own
advantage better than the person whose understanding is flawed or flatly
incorrect. Correct knowledge is always to be preferred by the entrepreneur
over illusions and misinformation, Aren't businessmen supposed to be the
ultimate pragmatists and unsentimental realists? If a belief is costing you
money, trash it, no matter how attached you are to it, right? Christianity
is for Sundays. Maybe it's not economists we want support from, but
businessmen.

However, for me, just figuring out a good model is the main point of this
-- in company with others who have similar interests if at all possible,
but not just to have their companionship. The matter of trying to get it
right is important to me. There's a lot of satisfaction in making a model
that works, and even works like the real system. In fact, if I get hung up
on other possible satisfactions like fame and fortune, I begin to worry
about making unpopular hypotheses or drawing conclusions that might offend
the wrong committee, and then I can't think freely any more. Think how far
I would have got with PCT if I had worried about what B. F. Skinner or
anyone else in psychology thought.

If there is going to be a "test" concerning economic ideas, maybe
the assumption that somewhere there is a perception that economic
ideas should be subject to test ought to be the first item that
is subject to test.

I don't think I'm in any doubt about that. I certainly perceive that they
need testing, whether anyone else does or not. I can't worry if Herr Doktor
Professor Joe Blow believes his theory is too perfect to need testing. Why
should a nutty idea like that concern us?

I've known for a long time that that there have been people who
are of the opinion that the criteria of truth should be an _a
priori_ standard. Ludvig Von Mises is an example of a frankly
_a priori_ theorist. In _Epistemological Problems of Economics_
196O he says,

  p. 24. "There can be no doubt whatsoever concerning the
  aprioristic character of these disciplines [concerned with
  the science of human action]."

    "...the elementary laws of value are valid without exception
  for all human action. p. 27.

    (That is no Giffen effect, all demand functions slope downward.)

Yes, I have a few of Mises' writings on my hard disc, including that one, I
think. A man for whom the term "self-centered idiot" was surely invented
(that was originally a shorter, 7-letter, term). But as I say, can we let
our interests and efforts be dictated by such people, who must be suffering
some form of mental illness?

I think we should just worry about trying to get it right, and not let
other people's problems rub off on us.

Now, as I understand it you are proposing, or at least considering
rolling your "econmics test bed" into this domain of belief in
which there are no rules. It looks to me like a massive category
mistake.

I think it would be, too. What you're saying is that there is really no
point in trying to introduce a real theory of economics to economists,
because they are impervious to reason, unable to test their ideas against
reality, caught up in irrational belief systems, and capable only of
thinking of their own safety. In short, they are psychotic, or so severely
unbalanced as to be incapable of normal thinking.

But remember the fringes. There must be a "non-lunatic fringe" there with
whom one can have a normal adult conversation. We would be best off, I
agree, avoiding the others.

Well, anyway, I intend to get as far with this Test Bed idea as I can,
though my practical experience is too limited to take it all the way. I
keep asking people if they'd be interested in seeing what I have so far.
George Soros wrote me that I was on the right track, so much so, he said,
that it has already been done. Snotty jerk. Others haven't replied yet, and
probably won't. But what can one do? Trolling for support is just like
fishing. You can say you're fishing for bass, but you wouldn't turn down a
bite from a pike.

I'd settle for a bite from Williams.

Best,

Bill P.

9

CSGfolk, especially those interested in an Economics Thread;

For some reason there was almost a three hour delay between the time I sent off my previous posting to the list and the point in time when the
post was distributed. I spent most of that time in a seminar held here on Saturday afternoon on Charles Peirce. Actually most of the time in the
seminar is devoted to contemporary topics that Peirce would have been interested had he lived to see recent developments. One such topic that
was mentioned today was a paper that started with example of the Turing digital computational theory and replicated the proofs in the case of
analog computation. Although the proofs constructed are similar there are important differences-- the analog case reportedly generates more
powerful results.

I don't want to give the impression that while sitting in the seminar my mind is occupied most of the time with extraneous topics, but today at
least part of my attention sometimes drifted to the question of economics, control theory and CSG.

At least today my wool-gathering may have resulted in a way to introduce control theory to the world of heterodox economics. A bulletin board
system has been created by what is call the Pluralism or ICAPE association of heterodox economists for the discussion of questions regarding
economic theory, policy and other topics. I mention this because I was invited ("begged" was the word used ) to move a discussion I'd provoked
on another economics discussion list. And, for "moved" you can read thrown out. The discussion that got thrown, and invited elsewhere was
concerned with among other things the adoption in the 1920's by a group of heterodox economists known as institutionalists of behaviorism in
replacement for the orthodox conception of "Economic Man." The discussion ran for something like three months, and at least in my view I
defeated all comers. Not too hard you might say, after all you wouldn't expect the people defending behaviorism today to be the most formidable
competitors in debate.

But, before rushing off to do battle or whatever it is that we might do, I think we ought to discuss things.

Bill Williams

10

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.05.1656 MST)]

Consider how you describe some
people on the economics scene…

 "In short, they are psychotic, or so

severely unbalanced as

  to be incapable of normal

thinking."

I think you are exhibiting a serious mistake in how you understand these
people and their situation. It isn’t, I am convinced, that they
are, as you say, “psychotic” or “incapable of normal
thinking.” It may certainly look that way. But these are
people caught in a situation in which the systems level concepts (for
which they as economists are responsible) of a world wide economic
society are inadaquate and on the edge of breaking down.

First you must understand how I and most people I know use such terms. I
would never, and most people would never, say to someone “You’re
crazy” if they seriously thought the person was having true mental
problems. As a retort, a comment like this just means “You can’t
mean that,” or “I don’t believe what you just said.” It is
not a diagnosis of mental disorder. Thus, your Green visitor said you
were crazy to propose that certain shortages could be fixed by
technology, which, I am confident, did not mean this person thought you
were suffering from a mental problem. It meant “You’re wrong to
believe that.” And when I commented that if you maintained that all
shortages could be fixed by technology, you were “at least a little
bent,” as I recall what I said, I meant that I agreed with the Green
guy that you were wrong, but I didn’t think you were as wrong as he
thought you were. “A little bent” means weaker
disagreement than “You’re crazy.” Neither one is an accusation
of being mentally ill.

And, speaking of
“psychotics” I think I got pushed over the edge quite some time
ago. Depending upon external circumstance the psychosis may not manefest
itself, but then again maybe it will.

If you’re serious about this, I will of course not use certain terms
loosely. I’m not bothered by people who suffer psychoses and I would not
mock them for their problems. I have known quite a few people who would
probably have been diagnosed as psychotic, and found that I could get
along with them quite well. Also, I found that psychotic episodes came
and went, with quite normal times between them, so any problems
associated with such episodes could be put aside with no difficulty when
they were over. You see, if I really did think a person was
“crazy,” that person would have my sympathy and support, and I
would most definitely not call him names.
And conversely, you can take it that if I ever do call you crazy again,
or even bent, it will be exactly because I do not think you are
mentally crippled, and therefore hold you accountable for what you
say.

As to economists whom I do not know personally, I think that they are
probably sane, too (though one never can tell), so my remarks about them
are meant to call attention to the unreasonableness and hubris of their
attitudes, for which I hold them responsible. Not that they care what I
hold them responsible for – but I feel free to make my opinion known, as
long as I’m not kicking someone when he’s down.

If you wish to collaborate in
someway concerning economic issues I under certain conditions would be
interested. It seems to me that it might be possible to generate some
extra-ordinarily valuable results. But, there are concerns that I
have regarding which I would want to come to explicit understandings.

David in a post described doing control theory as a “hobby” and
I appreciate his point of view.

I believe David was referring explicitly to me, not you. I have always
made my living doing things other than PCT, and have conducted all my
writing and experimenting in my spare time, with no institutional
support. So “hobby” is not an inappropriate description of PCT
as it figures in my life. You, on the other hand, have a doctorate in
economics and have, at least from time to time, earned your living
teaching it, which takes your work out of the hobby category.

In the past when we’ve differed
about issues such as economics or the environment you haven’t hesitated
in describing me as “crazy.”

I think that happened exactly once, and the phrase was “a little
bent”, with the meaning explained above.

What am I to do when you behave
this way? In the past when you’ve made such statements I’ve gone
away. When I return, intially at least you’ve been on good behavior. I
want to avoid, another repetition in which having made a committment to
collaborate on some effort, you attack me personally.

What you can do initially is to interpret my words more colloquially, so
it doesn’t seem that I’m making personal allegations about your mind or
character. That interpretation is under your control. On the other hand,
if you’re telling me that certain of your reactions are out of your
control (regardless of explanations or interpretations), then all you
have to do is call for a time-out and we can wait for normal relations to
resume.

We can continue the
discussion. But, I’d like it to be understood that

the economic theory stuff isn’t for me anything remotely like a hobby.

Of course, and I hope you have edited your understanding of what David
said appropriately.

And, before, or rather if there is
any movement closer to something like writting code, this time, or rather
if this time, I want, no I insist,

that there be a clear understanding about some basic
issues.

Sure. Spell them out. It’s possible that I will agree to them, or most of
them. I don’t sign blank checks, though.

Best,

Bill P.

11

from [Darth Vader (2003.12.06.2200)

Sorry to intrude into this thread but I simply couldn't resist. This is
simply to near and dear to my heart

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.05.1656 MST)]

Bill Williams said:

>Consider how you describe some people on the economics scene....
>
> "In short, they are psychotic, or so severely unbalanced as
> to be incapable of normal thinking."
>
>I think you are exhibiting a serious mistake in how you understand these
>people and their situation. It isn't, I am convinced, that they are, as
>you say, "psychotic" or "incapable of normal thinking." It may certainly
>look that way. But these are people caught in a situation in which the
>systems level concepts (for which they as economists are responsible) of

a

>world wide economic society are inadaquate and on the edge of breaking

down.

You responded with:

First you must understand how I and most people I know use such terms. I
would never, and most people would never, say to someone "You're crazy" if
they seriously thought the person was having true mental problems.

I think you missed Bill W's point. Notice the _or_ in his statement above,
and also notice his use of quotes. I don't think he or anyone else thinks
you were saying that these people were 'clinically'psychotic. What you don't
seem to be able to do and to grasp, is the distinct difference between
_seperating_ the person from the idea. You seem to critisize the _person_
for thinking a certain way rather than simply disagreeing with an _idea_
that person might have. It has cost you friendships and will continue to
hound you as long as you insist on attacking the _ways_ people think instaed
of focusing in on _what_ they think.

As a retort, a comment like this just means "You can't mean that," or "I

don't

believe what you just said." It is not a diagnosis of mental disorder.

You can dish it out, you just can't take it. Did you ever stop to consider I
was commenting on an _idea_ (your hierarchy just doesn't seem to work)
rather than the person (Boy, what a jerk you are for thinking that way). But
I can see how you believe the latter, since that is the way _you_ do it.

If you're serious about this, I will of course not use certain terms
loosely.

And if he isn't? It isn't the _terms_ Bill. Why not try and stick to the
ideas, rather than the person?

What you can do initially is to interpret my words more colloquially, so

it

doesn't seem that I'm making personal allegations about your mind or
character. That interpretation is under your control. On the other hand,

if

you're telling me that certain of your reactions are out of your control
(regardless of explanations or interpretations), then all you have to do

is

call for a time-out and we can wait for normal relations to resume.

It's _always_ the other guys problem isn't it Bill? Yeah, right.

from somewhere in the galaxy,

DV

12

Bill,

It is apparent to me that you read what I said very accurately. This may serve to improve communications between us.

You say,

First you must understand how I and most people I know use such terms. I
would never, and most people would never, say to someone "You're crazy" if
they seriously thought the person was having true mental problems.

It is good that you explained this. And, I don't at all doubt what you say. But I do find it puzzling. As you say, If a person is genuinely "crazy" you wouldn't think of calling them crazy. It is only when you are confident that a person isn't really "crazy" that you'd consider under some circumstances calling them "crazy." When I have observed people doing this, it has always seemed to me that they were calling the other person "crazy" inorder to somehow gain an unfair advantage in an argument. And, that seemed to imply that the person being called "crazy" was considered incredibly stupid.

Anyway, I thought I'd explained to you the circumstances in which I thrown out of the place I was teaching, the loss of my family, other stuff, and how I ended up flying for the commuter airline. As a part of that sequence I seemed to have lost some part of the usual emotional reactions including some sorts of fear. The cummuter management initially thought it was really great that I didn't cancel flights because of severe weather. And, management was always telling the pilots not to cancel flights. Then it began to worry them because I _never_ cancelled a flight. Finally the owner in a crew meeting made a threat that when he replaced the old uniforms he was going to buy us skirts and pantyhose because we cancelled so many flights. And, then he pointed to me and said, "All except for Williams, and he is crazy." Actually, that time I didn't mind being called crazy because it was so much nicer than what he wass calling the other guys. Partly as a result I decided one night that the best solution to the accumulation of problems was to crash the airplane on purpose in order to avoid an accident. I did so because I figured it would be easier to explain the crash than to explain an accident. The result, however, wasn't quite what I expected. They didn't blame me for crashing the airplane. But I was subject to criticism for, as they said, "Not having sense enough to tear the fucking wing off." They would rather the airplane been totalled so they could collect the insurance. But, nobody said anything to me. How was I supposed to know?

I think there may be a lot to be said for simplicity and directness in efforts to communicate. It seems obvious to me that if what you are attempting to do is to communicate, then saying what you genuinely mean is more likely to be successful than saying what you don't mean. I think this is especially applicable when you are attempting to communicate with me.

This may be a good point to stop. I think the "hobby" question somehow
good confused, but there may be an important point that shoulc be
clarified. But, it will have to wait...

Bill Willliams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Bill Powers
Sent: Sat 12/6/2003 6:44 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Economic Test Bed

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.05.1656 MST)]

Consider how you describe some people on the economics scene....

     "In short, they are psychotic, or so severely unbalanced as
      to be incapable of normal thinking."

I think you are exhibiting a serious mistake in how you understand these
people and their situation. It isn't, I am convinced, that they are, as
you say, "psychotic" or "incapable of normal thinking." It may certainly
look that way. But these are people caught in a situation in which the
systems level concepts (for which they as economists are responsible) of a
world wide economic society are inadaquate and on the edge of breaking down.

First you must understand how I and most people I know use such terms. I
would never, and most people would never, say to someone "You're crazy" if
they seriously thought the person was having true mental problems. As a
retort, a comment like this just means "You can't mean that," or "I don't
believe what you just said." It is not a diagnosis of mental disorder.
Thus, your Green visitor said you were crazy to propose that certain
shortages could be fixed by technology, which, I am confident, did not mean
this person thought you were suffering from a mental problem. It meant
"You're wrong to believe that." And when I commented that if you maintained
that all shortages could be fixed by technology, you were "at least a
little bent," as I recall what I said, I meant that I agreed with the Green
guy that you were wrong, but I didn't think you were as wrong as he thought
you were. "A little bent" means weaker disagreement than "You're crazy."
Neither one is an accusation of being mentally ill.

And, speaking of "psychotics" I think I got pushed over the edge quite
some time ago. Depending upon external circumstance the psychosis may not
manefest itself, but then again maybe it will.

If you're serious about this, I will of course not use certain terms
loosely. I'm not bothered by people who suffer psychoses and I would not
mock them for their problems. I have known quite a few people who would
probably have been diagnosed as psychotic, and found that I could get along
with them quite well. Also, I found that psychotic episodes came and went,
with quite normal times between them, so any problems associated with such
episodes could be put aside with no difficulty when they were over. You
see, if I really did think a person was "crazy," that person would have my
sympathy and support, and I would most definitely not call him names.

And conversely, you can take it that if I ever do call you crazy again, or
even bent, it will be exactly because I do not think you are mentally
crippled, and therefore hold you accountable for what you say.

As to economists whom I do not know personally, I think that they are
probably sane, too (though one never can tell), so my remarks about them
are meant to call attention to the unreasonableness and hubris of their
attitudes, for which I hold them responsible. Not that they care what I
hold them responsible for -- but I feel free to make my opinion known, as
long as I'm not kicking someone when he's down.

If you wish to collaborate in someway concerning economic issues I under
certain conditions would be interested. It seems to me that it might be
possible to generate some extra-ordinarily valuable results. But, there
are concerns that I have regarding which I would want to come to explicit
understandings.

David in a post described doing control theory as a "hobby" and I
appreciate his point of view.

I believe David was referring explicitly to me, not you. I have always made
my living doing things other than PCT, and have conducted all my writing
and experimenting in my spare time, with no institutional support. So
"hobby" is not an inappropriate description of PCT as it figures in my
life. You, on the other hand, have a doctorate in economics and have, at
least from time to time, earned your living teaching it, which takes your
work out of the hobby category.

In the past when we've differed about issues such as economics or the
environment you haven't hesitated in describing me as "crazy."

I think that happened exactly once, and the phrase was "a little bent",
with the meaning explained above.

What am I to do when you behave this way? In the past when you've made
such statements I've gone away. When I return, intially at least you've
been on good behavior. I want to avoid, another repetition in which having
made a committment to collaborate on some effort, you attack me personally.

What you can do initially is to interpret my words more colloquially, so it
doesn't seem that I'm making personal allegations about your mind or
character. That interpretation is under your control. On the other hand, if
you're telling me that certain of your reactions are out of your control
(regardless of explanations or interpretations), then all you have to do is
call for a time-out and we can wait for normal relations to resume.

We can continue the discussion. But, I'd like it to be understood that
the economic theory stuff isn't for me anything remotely like a hobby.

Of course, and I hope you have edited your understanding of what David said
appropriately.

And, before, or rather if there is any movement closer to something like
writting code, this time, or rather _if_ this time, I want, no I insist,
that there be a clear understanding about some basic issues.

Sure. Spell them out. It's possible that I will agree to them, or most of
them. I don't sign blank checks, though.

Best,

Bill P.

13

[From Bill Powers (2003.12.07.0921 MST)]

It is apparent to me that you read what I said very accurately. This may
serve to improve communications between us.

I shudder to think what the outcome might have been if I had continued to
be taken in by your reasonable-sounding posts. Your mistake in posting Marc
Abram's vicious words -- including your request to be reminded of them if
you ever forget -- has saved us from the worst clash of all, somewhere in
the not very distant future.

I'm not brave enough, or fool enough (only a fool feels no fear) to carry
this doomed attempt to collaborate any further. It's over.

Bill P.

14

[From Bruce Nevin (2003.12.7 14:00 EST)]

···

At 11:01 PM 12/6/2003 -0600, Williams, William D. wrote:

I think there may be a lot to be said for simplicity and directness in efforts to communicate. It seems obvious to me that if what you are attempting to do is to communicate, then saying what you genuinely mean is more likely to be successful than saying what you don't mean. I think this is especially applicable when you are attempting to communicate with me.

This is my strong preference as well. Thanks for stating it.

         /Bruce Nevin

15

David,

I welcome the opportunity to clarify a misundertanding my comments about control theory and hobby's.

I recognize, in one sense, the practicality of what you are saying. However, I am saying something quite different. It has seemed to me that the possiblity of applying control theory in economics demands that developing the applications assume the role of a primary or principle reference level. If I am correct in this judgement no amount of time spent pursuing the possiblity of revising economic theory in control theory terms as a hobby is going to generate any progress at all. And, that is what I mean by a threshold effect. Unless the effort is sufficiently intense the materials required are not going to be assembled, the neccesary understandings acquired, and the work carried out to a succesful conclusion. At least this is my perception of the situation. If what you want is to obtain a fundamental understanding of the economic process then it is extremely unlikely that it is going to be possible to reach such an understanding in the absence of a fundamental commitment to such a project. And, such a committment it seems to me carries with it some implications about how best to proceed. It is possible that my conclusions in this regard are mistaken, in my own perception, however, I think i have good reasons for how I think about these issues. Such as:

First: attacks upon a collaborators personal character are likely to prevent useful work being carried on.

Second: Questions about economics are systems level constructs and as I understand it this potentially means that ideas about logic, truth and all can become distorted in a defense of pre-conceived ideas and _a priori_ loyalties.

Third: the idea of theory is itself, as I understand it, a system level construct. As such the concept of theory potentially becomes a potentially explosive issue in and of itself. The very word theory, I've read, derives from the same root as theator, and thus is close to notions of drama, poetics and fable. The potentially dangerous element comes in when the question comes down to _which_ story or theory is going to be designated as the controlling principle in a given situation.

Fourth: The physicist Louis Alverz was advised by his father, who was an succesful and innovative surgeon at the Mayo clinic, that it was a good idea every week or two to take an afternoon and think about the inclusive nature of the projects and goals involved in the work that was being carried on. Given the complexities and all to evident difficulties bound up in econmic inquiry, it seems to me that this method of thinking about what you are doing is the only prudent way in which to proceed.

That is when almost 20 years ago that despite the control theory Giffen model being a fundamental theoretical innovation, what was needed to compete with orthodox economic theory was a much more fully worked out body of work. What I needed to do if the work was to become persuasive was to create a domain in which an economist could in a sense live. If you will take a look at my reply to Bruce Gregory in the Love and Hate thread, I've listed parts of what I've been doing.

This may not be fully reponsive to your post, but I think it may begin to indicate why I don't view the hobby type approach to econmic theory as a viable option.

Bill Williams

···

from my perspective: Perhaps the only two worthwhile products of the work I did to the completion of a ph.D disertation was first an identification of the problem of the Giffen paradox as a fundamental question the solution of which might provide the basis for a new conception of the economic process, and second that the description of this process would neccesarily have to take the form of a system of simultaneous equations of time rate. It took 13 years before I found Powers and the problem was solved. If you haven't been through the grind of conventional Ph.D program in economics, if will be difficult for you to immagine how much of a disturbance the control theory based analysis often has upon an orthodox economist. Ordinarily they quickly quickly adjust and find reason why the effect isn't important. But, if you watch carefully you can often see their eyeballs bounce when they first comprehend what is involved. And, what is involved is for them the potential distruction of their professional world view that is their primary system level construct.

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of David M. Goldstein
Sent: Sun 12/7/2003 6:49 AM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re.: Economic Test Bed

from [David Goldstein (2003.12.07.0653)]

Dear Bill Williams, Bill Powers and others interested in this thread:

The following very short post received a few comments. I wish to clarify
where I was coming from.

"Hello Bill,

It is lonely to be pioneer.

I guess this is why it is necessary to have a regular job and do PCT
work as a hobby for now. I imagine that most pioneers had to do
something like this. But hobbies are things we love, aren't they? And
that is why we do them. David David M. Goldstein, Ph.D. "

I was proposing a certain attitude that I though might help you not be
so frustrated. It has helped me.

I know that you are a Ph.D. Economist and are in an academic setting.
You have a pressure to publish. You would like to work on PCT and HPCT
topics in your role as an Economist. However, the administrators come
from a different view. The students who are just trying to jump through
hoops, become frustrated because you are doing something so different
than their other teachers.

I am a Ph.D. Psychologist and am in a clinical setting, a residential
treatment center for adolescents. I have a pressure to provide clinical
services.

Sometimes practical considerations encourage me to back off from
applying PCT ideas at the adolescent residential children's center. For
example, I instituted a Post Critical Incident Counseling with
residents. They could correct some of the penalty they received by
talking about the incident with a therapist. Residential Living Staff
perceived this an undermining their authority.

I modified the approach and tried to get the residents to talk to the
Residential Living Staff; I created a special form that staff could use
to discuss an incident. What happened is that the Resident Living Staff
never wanted to use it. So I stopped pushing them to use it. I also
dropped the Post Critical Incident Counseling. It was creating a
conflict between the Clinical Staff and Residential Living Staff.

Then there was a Medicaid driven mandate to discuss incidents with
residents in which the residents were personally restrained by staff
because the residents were being a danger to self or others. There was a
Debriefing Form that followed the questions of the Post Critical
Incident Counseling. I find that the staff will check the yes/no boxes
but not write in any description of what the resident acually says. I
have come to the conclusion that the staff need in-service training in
listening to residents when the residents do the debriefing. The staff
idea of debriefing is to engage in monologues in which they preach to
the residents.

Perhaps I should rephrase, the above. I have found that I have to be a
lot more subtle, indirect and clearly show that the PCT approach has
practical value. Most staff are not interested in neuroscience or theory
driven approaches. At treatment team, I try to model the kind of
questioning and listening that is based on PCT. When new information or
insights happen, then the staff seem more interested in finding out
about PCT.

In addition to a regular job at the treatment center, I have a part-time
practice in psychology. Within my private practice, I am more my own
boss. I clearly express the PCT view to peole when I work with them. I
have published a website, www.dmghelpcenter.com, where the PCT view is
directly and explicitly expressed. Even here, because most of my clients
are paid by managed care, I have to conform when I write up my reports.
In my day-to-day interactions I am free to apply PCT in any way that I
want to. Of course, it has to make sense to the clients and they have to
think it is worthwhile and valuable.

Maybe the moral of the story is that one has to become his/her own boss.
The problem is that we all have to earn a living. Is PCT a marketable
quantity yet?

The Economic Test Bed idea seems to have the potential of being an
application software to test out economic ideas. Could this be useful to
a business in order to improve the bottom line? In order to help make
business decisions? If so, then I could see you being a consultant and
having something unique to offer to businesses. You could be your own
boss. However, in the meantime, you are earning a living doing what you
have to do.

David

David M. Goldstein, Ph.D.

16

Bill,

You are mistaken in saying the collaboration is over, it never got started.

Perhaps as you say, just as well.

Bill Williams

17

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.07.1325]

···

On Sunday, December 7, 2003, at 11:43 AM, Williams, William D. wrote:

Bill,

You are mistaken in saying the collaboration is over, it never got
started.

It's the _attempt_ at collaboration that Bill P. said was over, though
I don't believe it because Bill is a truly forgiving person.

Best regards

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

18

[From Bruce Gregory (2003.12.07.1650)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.07.1325]

It's the _attempt_ at collaboration that Bill P. said was over, though
I don't believe it because Bill is a truly forgiving person.

How come you're allowed to be sardonic. Or are you just naive? Bill
_never_ forgets as far as I can tell.

Bruce Gregory

"Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no
one was listening, everything must be said again."

                                                                                Andre Gide

19

from [Marc Abrams (2003.12.07.1655)]

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.07.1325]

It's the _attempt_ at collaboration that Bill P. said was over, though
I don't believe it because Bill is a truly forgiving person.

And what is Bill going to 'forgive' Bill of? Talking with me?

Marc

20

Rick,

What is it that you think Bill is entitled to forgive?

Bill Williams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Rick Marken
Sent: Sun 12/7/2003 3:24 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Economic Test Bed

[From Rick Marken (2003.12.07.1325]

On Sunday, December 7, 2003, at 11:43 AM, Williams, William D. wrote:

Bill,

You are mistaken in saying the collaboration is over, it never got
started.

It's the _attempt_ at collaboration that Bill P. said was over, though
I don't believe it because Bill is a truly forgiving person.

Best regards

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