Economics Paper

[From Rick Marken (2004.04.09.1130)]

I found an economics paper that is relevant to the analysis I've been doing
of the relationship between investment and growth. The paper is called
_Saving, Growth, and Investment: A Macroeconomic Analysis Using a Panel of
Countries_ by Orazio P. Attanasio, Lucio Picci and Antonello E. Scorcu. It
was published in The Review of Economics and Statistics, May, 2000 (82,
182-211) and is available as a download at

http://taddeo.ingentaselect.com/vl=852557/cl=67/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/cgi?ini=bc
&body=linker&reqidx=0034-6535(20000501)82:2L.182;1-

What they find (using data from 123 countries!!) is what I found: the
current level of investment is _negatively related_ to the subsequent levels
of growth. They refer to a lagged correlation as a Granger cause so they say
that "investment rates Granger cause growth rates with a negative sign". I
find it reassuring that others have found what I've found. I haven't read
the whole paper in detail but it is interesting that they say, near the end
of the paper, that "By far the most difficult piece of evidence to interpret
is the negative Granger causation running from investment to growth rates"
(p 199). I think control theory might be able to help them understand the
observed relationship between investment and growth. I think the explanation
may be as simple as recognizing that the aggregate producer controls for
producing to meet demand.

The authors also report finding a positive relationship between prior
savings rates and subsequent investment rates, which is what is expected
under the assumption that savings are basically collateral for investment
loans.

Best

Rick

···

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

From;Bill Williams 9 April 2004 2:10 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.04.09.1130)]

So, the master of social policy, they guy who brought us the argument that
pedophiles would make good police officers has found new life as an
equivocation theorist.

Breathing new life into dead arguments isn't that difficult if you
understand how to make use of equivocation. Take for instance the _Leakages_
thesis-- which attributes the economic ills thought to be characteristic of
a capitalist economy to money escaping from circulation by leaking off
somewhere. There have, however, been questions raised about where the
leaking money has been going.
ANd, I am not too sure myself where it could have been going all these
years. Where ever that is, there must be a big pool of it the accumulated
leakages. But this is still a mystery.

However, I have learned by reading the national inquirer where the leakages
are going to be headed in the future.
In the past I've been an opponent of TCP's economic arguments, but recently
I've seen that the leakages argument can in fact be put to good use in
opposing a wasteful boondoggle-- the Mars project. And, the proof of it is
this. When the leakages thesis is applied to this proposal to spend massive
amounts of money ON Mars it is easy to see that money that is going to be
spent ON Mars isn't money that is going to be spent ON earth. Do you get
it? Money spent _ON_ Mars is literally money that is leaking out of the
Earth's economy and sneaking off to be spent ON Mars. This massive leakage
can be expected to create a massive depression back here on Earth. It
stands to reason doesn't it? Money that in spent ON Mars can be spent ON
earth.

Maybe if Rick could get ahold of a pair of the dearly departed princess lady
diana's sunglasses he could read the definitions concerning macro economnic
variables. And, then he might find that TCP defined "investment" in his
uniquely charming but inthralling unfamiliar way.We are now upto by my
count four different ways ( by actually use ) of defining investment. The
possibilities this provides for are not limitless, but do they rise as the
factorial of the different definitions?

But, Rick is unceasingly inventive, if not to say unneccearily original.
Now he proposes that aggregate investment is financed out of, or on the
basis of prior aggregate savings. Shows how much Rick knows about
macro-economic variables. Now I really thought the idea of making
pedophiles into police officers was a greatly funny idea-- but prior savings
and subsequent investment-- now that besides being impossible in the
aggregate, is a really dangerous idea. Funny, but dangerous.

Almost as funny as Bob Clarke.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.04.09.1330)]

Bill Williams (9 April 2004 2:10 PM CST)--

Rick Marken (2004.04.09.1130)--

So, the master of social policy, they guy who brought us the argument that
pedophiles would make good police officers has found new life as an
equivocation theorist...

What in the world led to all this?

Regards

Rick

···

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

From[Bill Williams 9 April 2004 7:25 PM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.04.09.1330)]

What in the world led to all this?

Just one more, correction some more of your "giant leaps in the wrong
direction." I could be wrong but I think Bill Powers may have gotten the
savings investment sequence more or less sorted out. And, Bill Powers is
really lots better at constructing detailed critiques, devastatingly better,
if memory serves me right.

It seems to me, just a perception mind you, that your crank is dragging in
the dirt. Do you really want to step on it by bringing in the sequence
causation business regarding the necessity of prior savings in order to
fianc� investment? In a macro context? As a preliminary exercise, just try
asking yourself, are sales equal to purchases or have you come up with a new
way of configuring transactions?

Just came from a seminar, and you know what,? People were shouting at each
other about this very issue. You will be pleased to know that I held of the
reputation of the CSGnet-- knowing me as you do it will come as no surprise
that other guys lost their cool and stormed out.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.04.10.0840)]

Bill Williams ( 9 April 2004 2:10 PM CST) --
Bill Williams (9 April 2004 7:25 PM CST) --

Was it the Attanasio et al paper on _Saving, Growth, and Investment_ that upset you or was it just the fact that I posted something about economics? We seemed to be going along so well there for a while. If your problem is with the paper, I'd very much like to hear your critique of it.

Regards

Rick

···

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

[From Marc Abrams (2004.04.10.1351)]

From;Bill Williams 9 April 2004 2:10 PM CST]

However, I have learned by reading the national inquirer where the
leakages are going to be headed in the future.
In the past I've been an opponent of TCP's economic arguments, but
recently I've seen that the leakages argument can in fact be put to

good

use in opposing a wasteful boondoggle-- the Mars project. And, the

proof > of it is this. When the leakages thesis is applied to this
proposal to

spend massive amounts of money ON Mars it is easy to see that money

that

is going to be spent ON Mars isn't money that is going to be spent ON
earth. Do you get it? Money spent _ON_ Mars is literally money that

is > leaking out of the Earth's economy and sneaking off to be spent ON
Mars. > This massive leakage can be expected to create a massive
depression back

here on Earth. It stands to reason doesn't it? Money that in spent

ON

Mars can be spent ON earth.

This is an interesting perspective from an economist. Exactly what parts
of the Mars Mission will be built by Martians on Mars? Is this another
example of 'outsourcing'? I guess all the engineers, scientists,
technicians, manufacturer's, secretary's and administrative people that
would be employed in making this happen are part of a 'leisure' class
that needs to find work doing 'meaningful' things like working for
nothing to help others who are unwilling to help themselves.

I think teaching economics is a waste of money BW. I'd rather see the
money spent on teaching kids how to read and write. I think your time
would be better spent in a reading rainbow program.

Marc

Considering how often throughout history even intelligent people have
been proved to be wrong, it is amazing that there are still people who
are convinced that the only reason anyone could possibly say something
different from what they believe is stupidity or dishonesty.

Being smart is what keeps some people from being intelligent.

Thomas Sowell

From;Bill Williams 9 April 2004 2:10 PM CST]

However, I have learned by reading the national inquirer where the
leakages
are going to be headed in the future.
In the past I've been an opponent of TCP's economic arguments, but
recently
I've seen that the leakages argument can in fact be put to good use in
opposing a wasteful boondoggle-- the Mars project. And, the proof of

it

is
this. When the leakages thesis is applied to this proposal to spend
massive
amounts of money ON Mars it is easy to see that money that is going to

be

spent ON Mars isn't money that is going to be spent ON earth. Do you

get

it? Money spent _ON_ Mars is literally money that is leaking out of

the

Earth's economy and sneaking off to be spent ON Mars. This massive
leakage
can be expected to create a massive depression back here on Earth. It
stands to reason doesn't it? Money that in spent ON Mars can be spent

ON

···

earth.

******************************************************

From[Bill Williams 10 April 2004 4:00 PM CST]

[From Marc Abrams (2004.04.10.1351)]

I think teaching economics is a waste of money BW.

And, your opinion of the benefit/cost ratio for teaching psychogy is ??

I'd rather see the money spent on teaching kids how
to read and write.

And, I'd sure rather see kids learn to read and right than see the money
spent teaching psychology, when all the psycholgoists are all going to end
up arguing about economics anyway.

I think your time would be better spent in a reading
rainbow program.

I think you have been talking to Bruce Gregory too much again. I can not
tell from what you say, if you think I should be teaching the kids to read,
or if what your are saying is that I am myself am in need of remedial
instruction in reading.

But, I think your notion regarding people who devote themselves and their
lives, and their children and their grandchildren lives as well to
destroying us by making victims out of themselves by refusing to help
themselves is an idea that has enormous potential in the fields of the truck
farms of the valley in California among the green card crews. If we could
only explain to these people that reading and writing is not really for them
maybe they would stop trying to make the rest of us feel bad. then we could
lift our eyes to, well the Mars project comes to mind doesn't it. But, did
I miss something. Didn't we once teach not just reading and righting, but
rithmetic as well? But, never mind, we already know-- going to Mars that
is, won't cost anything anyway. So what's the point?
You are probably right, but i know you are right, but I mean you are also
probably correct as well, that it is a waste of time, and money too for that
matter, teaching people economics that is. But, tell me something, if we
don't teach people economics how is anybody going to know that the
economists are lying to them?

What???

You mean they already know?

OK. I guess that simplifies everything. But, I have an idea that might
simplify things even further. Suppose we make it a rule that none of the
directors, and the board remembers of the Federal Reserve Banks can have an
I.Q. higher than 80. Then we'd have to simply everything so that these I.Q
limited folks could manage things. This would probably save money. And,
there has been a wide spread suspicion that it has been the banks that have
been responsible for the leakages out of the money supply. This at least
was the thesis developed by the great poet Ezra Pound. See

Surette, Leon 1999 _Pound in Purgatory: From Economic Radicalism to
Anti-Semitism_

Banking and SocialCredit

Economics and Mythopoeia

Modernism and Fascism

Social Credit and Fascism

The Keynesian Revolution and Social Credit

The ABC of Economics and the New Deal

Modernism, Postmodernism, and Fascism

Silvio Gesell and Irving Fisher

An Increasing Eclecticism

Arthur Kitson

The Jewish Conspiracy

From Rome to Washington

Volitionist Economics

My point is not so much that Pound was a fascist, which is a minor point in
the larger story, as that Pound was crazy. And, he got crazy as a result of
his attempt to figure out what was going on. And, this was a tragedy. It was
just too much for Pound. However, if we made 80 points the cut off point
for bank officials, the upper cut-off that is, then the labyrinth of smoke
and mirrors surrounding economics would collapse. And, it would be easy to
figure out how a bank worked. And, the further side effect would be that
then it wouldn't be so hard figuring out what the hell is going on.

Bill Williams

[Rick Marken (2004.04.11.1030)]

Bill Williams (10 April 2004 4:00 PM CST)--

And, I'd sure rather see kids learn to read and right than see the money
spent teaching psychology, when all the psycholgoists are all going to end
up arguing about economics anyway.

One of the many things I like about PCT is that it transcends the artificial boundaries that currently exist between disciplines, particularly those in the life and social sciences. There are currently intellectual and/or bureaucratic boundaries between clinical and experimental psychology, biology and psychology, psychology and sociology, sociology and political science, economics and everything else, and so on. PCT transcends all these divisions because it is about living systems at all levels of organization: biological, behavioral and social.

PCT control theorists are as comfortable, say, talking with experimental psychologists about research on hierarchical relationships between biological control systems as they are talking with clinical psychologists talking about therapies involving the method of levels. A control theorist, whether trained as an engineer, sociologist, clinical psychologist, economist, experimental psychologist or political scientist, develops models of food intake control, eye movement control, crowd behavior, broom balancing, cooperative control or demand curve aberrations without worrying whether these models fit their original field of training. I think that PCT would incline one to open the doors between disciplines – or, better yet, to ignore them – rather than to slam them shut.

Regards

Rick

···

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

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.12.0930 MST)]

Bill Williams 10 April 2004 4:00 PM CST --

What's the matter, Bill? Do you really want to get back in that groove?

Best,

Bill P.

From[Bill Williams 12 April 2004 12:15 PM CST]

Bill Powers asks,

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.12.0930 MST)]

Bill Williams 10 April 2004 4:00 PM CST --

What's the matter, Bill? Do you really want to get back in that groove?

There is nothing that is, as you say "the matter." Not with me, at any rate.

It isn't a "matter" of my wanting to get back in the "grove." Although I

Don't mind if that is what you want. Rather it is a "matter" of your still

being stuck in a ditch.

And, Bill, it _is_ my perception that you are one that is still in the
ditch.

Consider what you said in this thread recently.

... I have often suspected that the myth about investment driving growth

may have something to do with the fact that the first thing an

entrepreneur

does after persuading a lot of people to invest their money in his

enterprise is to vote himself a very large salary plus bonuses. In that way

if he happens to lose all that money, at least he comes out a winner (since

the corporation, not he, is liable for blowing all the cash).

As it happens I am not an entirely uncritical fan of capitalism. However,

this sort of argument is not one that even Marx would have taken seriously.

Marx, at least, had an appreciation for the very real strengths of the

system to which he was opposed. And, he attempted to make use of the most

up-to-date economic understandings in his analysis of the capitalist system.

That is why he chose to use the caption "scientific socialism" for his

approach to economic questions. Marx, what ever his mistakes had a fair

understanding and appreciation for economic analysis.

What you are doing in the above is engaging in self-indulgent moralizing.

Everyone I think who has considered for any length of time the nature of

a capitalist economy is aware that those who direct and control the

existing order are inclined to favor and see to their own interests

first of all. What if anything does this routinely assumed feature of a

capitalist society have to do with how income is determined? Your argument

is one that was abandoned by nearly everyone who once held it in the late

1930's. The reason for this arguments abandonment was the emergence of the

Keynesian analysis. You along with your dad are still fighting a battle

That took place between the under-consumptionists ( you and your dad's

Position ) and the over-investment theorists. One side argued that

consumption drove the economy, the other side that investment was the

source of economic growth.

Now, Keynes to whom your comment concerning the "myth" that investment

drives growth is directed developed an analysis that integrated both

investment and consumption expenditure into a single explanation. It

is an analysis the application of which has managed to regulate the

level of employment and income in the central core of the world

economy -- that is principally the United States ever since WWII. The

goals which this regulation has pursued may not suit you, but the

regulation has been on the whole quite successful in terms of generating

the conditions that those in control have wished for.

You and your dad have for some reason adopted an animus against the

Keynesian analysis that is so extreme that it prevented your dad from

understanding how the Keynesian system functions. You retain this

animus. You from time to time make snide remarks-- like the one about

Keynes' developing the user cost analysis as a way of justifying the

capital depreciation write-offs for corporations. What your comment

indicates is that you have almost no understanding of of the economic

culture in which you live. Your position really does approximate in

some ways the befudlement of my "chief head designer" in my "Runnning

Naked in the Forest" fable.

When I see you express this animus, and it does pops up periodically,

I intend to pound it down. I will use reason, and ridicule and what

ever else is handy and effective. Given the way you approach these

questions-by way of a massive exercise of equivocation-witness your

Mars argument. Or, your continued use of an argument concerning

Investment which combines three different items which are not a part

Of private net investment, it seems apparent that you are not

concerned with even elementary consistency in pursuing the economic

Issue. In countering disingenuous arguments I am finding Fables to be

one of the most devastating means of all of exposing your fallacies.

Once a fable enters ones mind it is like a pink elephants- the its

can be extremely hard to run them off.

You go on to say,

      I sometimes wonder whether the story of economics, once we get

      all the smokescreens out of the way, is not going to turn out

      to be extremely simple.

Going at the way that you are going about this you won't ever get

close of figuring stuff out.

It is unfortunate that you have adopted this attitude-- that the

economists, all economists, as far as I can tell are in your opinion

servants of a ruling class engaged in a constant and consistent

effort to keep the rest of the population in a benighted servitude.

What utter nonsense. There are lots of people, me included, doing

The best that we can to do economics in a way that is critical and

of service to the population as whole rather than to the vested

interests who are plundering it.

Beyond that, what you are saying is an attack upon my intellectual

integrality. And, I am not going to ignore it. Now it is an attack

that is directed toward a feature of myself about which I do not

feel especially vulnerable. You in attacking are being foolish.

You are of the opinion that the answer to the economic question is

as you say, "extremely simple." I after having spent most of a

life time in studying the economy and economic theory I am of the

opinion that finding an answer to the economic question is going

to require a fair measure of sophistication. Actually, it is the

sort of sophistication that you exhibit when you are actually

engaged in the modeling. If you stick to the modeling I am confident

that you are, eventually going to arrive at some correct answers.

Your intuitions about the economy are, however, extra ordinarily

mis-informed. You could say comically misinformed

From the way I look at it you are the one who is in the ditch with

mud in your eyes. Maybe there is not much I can do if that is the

way you like go about your effort to understand the economy. But, I

can without too much effort expose that attitude for it is. And, I

can have some fun at your expense while doing so.

Bill Williams

Bill Williams

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Powers" <powers_w@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2004 10:32 AM
Subject: Re: Economics Paper

[From Bill Powers (2004.04.12.0930 MST)]

Bill Williams 10 April 2004 4:00 PM CST --

What's the matter, Bill? Do you really want to get back in that groove?

Best,

Bill P.

[Martin Taylor 2004.04012 14:06]

From[Bill Williams 12 April 2004 12:15 PM CST]
> [From Bill Powers (2004.04.12.0930 MST)]
> I sometimes wonder whether the story of economics, once we get
> all the smokescreens out of the way, is not going to turn out
> to be extremely simple.
You are of the opinion that the answer to the economic question is
as you say, "extremely simple." I after having spent most of a
life time in studying the economy and economic theory I am of the
opinion that finding an answer to the economic question is going
to require a fair measure of sophistication.

I don't think these two statements are as contradictory as they
sound. Without trying to read the mind of either Bill, the way I
would put it is that the basic elements of economic analysis may turn
out to be extremely simple (perhaps as simple as determining the
precise conditions for a transaction to occur, perhaps not), but the
relationships that turn this kind of element into an analysis of a
full economy may require a lot of sophistication.

It may well be that the unitary analytic element of economics is
simpler than the definition of the atomic structure of 96 or 116
elements, but the analytic structure of the economy is more complex
than the interactions of chemicals that can be constructed from those
elements.

Another way that the two statements may not be contradictory is in
the approach Boltzmann took to a particular class of interactions
among atoms and molecules: statistical mechanics. The statistical
mechanical analysis of some properties of macroscopic quantities of
"stuff" is much simpler than would be the tracking of all the
possible inter-atomic or inter-molecular interactions. Perhaps a
Boltzmann of economics will appear to take macro-economics beyond
Keynes, as Boltzmann took thermodynamics beyond Clausius and Gibbs.
Then it may be true that economic analysis is both simple in
structure and complex in practice.

Actually, it is the
sort of sophistication that you exhibit when you are actually
engaged in the modeling.

Precisely. The modelling elements are very simple, but it takes skill
to discover their modes of interaction and avoid misleading results
that can occur with poor modelling technique.

From the way I look at it you are the one who is in the ditch with
mud in your eyes.

I guess where the mud is depends which frog is looking at which toad.
Speaking from the viewpoint of a heron on the bank, I really don't
care how much mud is in either eye, so long as I can eat them both!

  And, I

can have some fun at your expense while doing so.

Could you also try to make it fun for the bystanders, too?

Martin

From[Bill Williams 12 April 2004 2:50 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2004.04012 14:06]
>From[Bill Williams 12 April 2004 12:15 PM CST]
> > [From Bill Powers (2004.04.12.0930 MST)]

Martin starts with Bill Powers suspecting that Economics may be very
simple-- once the smoke screens are out of the way.

> > I sometimes wonder whether the story of economics, once we get
> > all the smokescreens out of the way, is not going to turn out
> > to be extremely simple.
>You are of the opinion that the answer to the economic question is
>as you say, "extremely simple." I after having spent most of a
>life time in studying the economy and economic theory I am of the
>opinion that finding an answer to the economic question is going
>to require a fair measure of sophistication.

I don't think these two statements are as contradictory as they
sound. Without trying to read the mind of either Bill, the way I
would put it is that the basic elements of economic analysis may turn
out to be extremely simple (perhaps as simple as determining the
precise conditions for a transaction to occur, perhaps not), but the
relationships that turn this kind of element into an analysis of a
full economy may require a lot of sophistication.

I agree with Martin in this respect. But, Martin omitted the part about the
smokescreens. And, I must insist that not all economists are engaged
in creating illusions to prevent people from understanding how the
economy functions. ANd, Bill is still pursuing his animus concerning
Keynes. It is a story that was decided long before I was born, and it
is boring.

It may well be that the unitary analytic element of economics is
simpler than the definition of the atomic structure of 96 or 116
elements, but the analytic structure of the economy is more complex
than the interactions of chemicals that can be constructed from those
elements.

Another way that the two statements may not be contradictory is in
the approach Boltzmann took to a particular class of interactions
among atoms and molecules: statistical mechanics. The statistical
mechanical analysis of some properties of macroscopic quantities of
"stuff" is much simpler than would be the tracking of all the
possible inter-atomic or inter-molecular interactions. Perhaps a
Boltzmann of economics will appear to take macro-economics beyond
Keynes, as Boltzmann took thermodynamics beyond Clausius and Gibbs.
Then it may be true that economic analysis is both simple in
structure and complex in practice.

>Actually, it is the
>sort of sophistication that you exhibit when you are actually
>engaged in the modeling.

Precisely.

Unlike Bill Powers' view of economics and econmists, I am making a
distinction where a distinction is neccesary. Bill has these intutiions
about
the economy which are, lets say unfortunate. And, then there is the
modeling. It seems to me that the modeling may geneate some useful
results. But, the modeling is mixed in with this intuintive commentary
which is of an entirely different character.

The modelling elements are very simple,

Here I think that I would disagree. I would disagree in the sense in which
these elements may appear simple. But, almost no one in psychology
or social theory (including economcs) is aware of the principles that
underly these modelling elements. Rick, for instance when he pr;oposes
data that support the idea that prior saving is neccesqry for investment
indicates a lack of awarenss of these simple elements. I've been over a
period of years been suggesting to Bill that he ought to expand the apendix
to B:CP so that we'd have a text in which they elements are explicitly
enunciated.

but it takes skill

to discover their modes of interaction and avoid misleading results
that can occur with poor modelling technique.

Yes, indeed.

>From the way I look at it you are the one who is in the ditch with
>mud in your eyes.

I guess where the mud is depends which frog is looking at which toad.
Speaking from the viewpoint of a heron on the bank,

I like it the way you slyly appropreate for you self an all seeing
Olympian
persepctive.

I really don't

care how much mud is in either eye, so long as I can eat them both!

All I can say is watch out!

> And, I
>
>can have some fun at your expense while doing so.

Could you also try to make it fun for the bystanders, too?

I really have been trying my best. Some people got a lot of laughs out
of my "Running Naked in the Forest" fable. And, then Rick, as far as
I know inadvertently, in his thesis that pedophiles[hiles would make good
police officers made a memorable contribution. Michelle was well on
her way to running Rick into a really deep ditch, when Bill Powers
spoiled all the fun. And, I liked my suggestion that we should by law
require that bank managers should be morons. I didn't realize until
later that it was an unconscious parody of Ricks assertion that serial
killers would make good police officers.

As a more sober answer to your question, the sort of economics that
TCP's exposed-- it wasn't his creation by anymeans. He borrowed it
from a very large literature that developed during the depression era
as attempts to explain the Great Crash and Depression, has become
joined with a determined effort on the part of a reactionary business
community to discredit Keynes, and the system of analysis that Keynes
represents. Ordinarily the attack upon Keynes comes from authoritarian
or opportunistic elements. TCP's came at these issues, for the most
part from a populist and somewhat egalitarian position. He, mistakenly,
saw in Keynes a representative of the business community, which
shows how little he understood regarding economic issues and politics.
Bill's position is even more egalitarian and populust than his dad's but
his understanding of the economic issues and the role of economic
theories in these issues may be even more clouded by misconceptions
than his dad's. The difference is that Bill Powers' has a good grasp of
modeling. However, this grasp of modeling is not something that is
widely shared in the CSG community. Rick for instance doesn't
understand it well enough to apply it outside psychology with any
degree of reliability. As Bill Powers stated the H. Econimuck model
was "a giant leap in the wrong direction." And, Rick's grasp of reality
in general is so shaky that he comes up with the Pedophiles would
make good police officers sort of stuff. So, I remember-- Boston a
few years ago. Rick gave his "giant leap in the wrong direction to, as
best as I could tell, a unanimous and warm applause. The audience
wasn't equipped to see what nonsense Rick was presenting as PCT
economics. Now as I perceived it that audience didn't enjoy my
presentation nearly as much as Ricks. You could say that they didn't
find what I had to say to be a lot of fun. For one thing if I was right
then they had been taken in by a bunch of sceintistic nonsense. And,
that is, as far as I am concerned still the issue. In Boston Bill Powers
made an emphatic deliration that his dad had it right. That question
is still the issue.

I think your concern might better be expressed in terms of whether or
not the dispute is educational, rather than whether the audience enjoys
what they see. My prediction would be that if Bill Powers pursues the
modeling, that process will eventually generate a structure that is
correct. If he is more interested in spouting off and pontificating about
the economy then the result will be quite different. My guess is that he
will attempt to do both. This is contradictory. But then Bill Powers has
some deep seated contradictions. Nothing I can do about that.

But, despite having commented from time to time from the sidelines
in this ongoing saga, you have never expanded to any extent as to your
views as to how questions of this sort ought to be resolved. If the Heron
is willing to come down from the perch on the bank and get its feathers
covered in mud, you are, at least as far as I am concerned, most
welcome.

However, keep in mind as Rick Marken so accurately said, "Ecnomics
is not for the faint hearted." Even Rick gets it right once in a while, or
at least once in a very great while.

Bill Williams

[Martin Taylor 2004.04.12.23.00]

From[Bill Williams 12 April 2004 2:50 PM CST]
I think your concern might better be expressed in terms of whether or
not the dispute is educational, rather than whether the audience enjoys
what they see.

Oh, yes. Educational, or better, advancing our understanding through
critical development of the research. That's the real point. I'm just
concerned that, from the sidelines, there have been long sessions in
which the "fun" has been more in the rhetoric than in the education.
It's been a bit like the caricatured Oxbridge academic, for whom the
argument is worth more than the result.

But, despite having commented from time to time from the sidelines
in this ongoing saga, you have never expanded to any extent as to your
views as to how questions of this sort ought to be resolved. If the Heron
is willing to come down from the perch on the bank and get its feathers
covered in mud, you are, at least as far as I am concerned, most
welcome.

Actually, I hadn't considered the Heron as an Olympian, so much as an
interested observer, who finds value in both protagonists, but for
different reasons. One eats what is of value to be eaten.

There's two questions here, not one. One is about how to develop
science through e-mail, the other is about reconciling views of
economics.

I don't really know how one best develops the science, other than by
concentrating on the specific details of disagreement, and avoiding
mention of peripheral matters such as the history (unless, of course,
it is the history that makes the disagreement resistant to
resolution). One of the more salient things I remember from graduate
school was a dictum from the professor teaching the History of
Psychology course. He said that when two schools of thought contend
strongly, it usually turns out that they are both right, except in
their pronouncements that the other school is wrong.

As for economics, I think you know that I have my own notions as to a
"simple" basis that constrains any realistic macroeconomics, and that
my notions have very little relation with the foundational
assumptions over which the two Bills dispute. Bill W has read what's
on economics on my Website at
<http://www.mmtaylor.net/Economics/index.html&gt;\. As they stand, my
notions of economics have nothing to do with PCT, so it's not
appropriate to discuss them here. I can, however, imagine how the
concept might be developed into a PCT-based economic system. But I'm
not in any position to try modelling how it would pan out. All I'm
asking is that the dialogue be as specific (or as entertaining or
educational) as is feasible.

Martin

From[Bill Williams 12 April 2004 10:50 PM CST]

[Martin Taylor 2004.04.12.23.00]

It's been a bit like the caricatured Oxbridge academic, > for whom the

argument is worth more than the result.

Dam, I've been found out.

First Bill Powers spoils the fun by warning Rick of the fate that awaits him
if he continues to let Michelle lead him down that dark path, and now Martin
exposes my caricature of an Oxbridge academic. Isn't there a rule
somewhere that when one is in full pursuit of game that it is bad manners to
be a spoil sport and foul the trace?

Now mind you, economic is a serious business, but it should also be kept in
mind that laughter is the most devastating weapon.

Bill Williams

And, speaking of Oxbridge academics, we recently hosted some of the folks
from U.K for a conference here. They were charmed when one of our guys led
off the discussion for our side with, "And, that argument is a crock of
shit."