[From Kenny Kitzke (2009.09.28.1300EDT)]
Yeppers. Holy cow! Paul Krugman makes Bill Powers feel (perceive himself) as a “silly amateur and has shown me what my place in economics is, which is definitely on the periphery.”
I have been stating the same for weeks. Fred and Krugman have done what I could not. Hooray. The result is more important to me than my feelings that resulted from Bill’s denials, retorts and accusations of my intentions and fears of destroying my own economic beliefs.
BP says, “What I have to offer is not economic theory, but PCT.” Wow. I wish I had thought of that. After arguing and arguing against Bill trying to make a PCT-based economic model and suggesting that economists who understand economic systems (like Krugman, but certainly not Kitzke) be the ones to create the new model with Bill’s help, Bill suddenly concludes, “This article shows me that the most effective move I can make is to get Krugman (and any others like him) to understand the PCT model of human agents and leave it to them to apply it to creating a new economics.” Suddenly, we have a blinding glimpse of the obvious as perceived by others.
BP says, “I’ll work, in my spare time, on a letter to Krugman. In the meantime
I’d appreciate some digging, by those who know their way around, to
find the best way to make sure Krugman or someone who filters his
mail gets the letter I’m going to write. People in the public eye
have to defend themselves against too -easy access, because they’d be
drowned in correspondence otherwise. Fred Nichols, Frank Lenk, Dag
Forssell, anybody else, do you have any suggestions?”
Here is an unsolicitated suggestion. Call Krugman and request an hour meeting face to face with a CSG team, to offer him an opportunity to contribute to a revolutionary new model of the economy and present the plan for developing it to the next G-20. In the offer, include the fee you are willing to provide this expert for expending his time and expertise on a project that you (and a few others) think is important. Of course, a letter from Bill may do the trick…or it may enter the circular file.
I suggested approaching the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh to gain proposal support for funding such an effort. They have the resources but not the knowledge or desire. That opportunity is gone. They know their way around though. They even have a web site. Why not use it?
In a message dated 9/28/2009 12:42:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:
···
[From Bill Powers (2009.09.28.1019 MDT)][
Fred Nickols (2009.09.28.0834 EST) –
I note that the link broke in forwarding it. Here’s a tinyurl to
the NY Times piece:
http://tinyurl.com/ycqyc75
Wow. Holy Smokes. I had no idea that Paul Krugman had the capacity
for such a broad grasp of economics, though I have admired his
columns and I knew he had a Nobel Prize. He makes me feel like a
silly amateur and has shown me what my place in economics is, which
is definitely on the periphery. Thanks very much, Fred, for bringing
this article to our attention.
I am going to try to recruit Krugman into The PCT Persuasion. What I
have to offer is not economic theory, but PCT. The basic problem with
economics is not that economists don’t understand economics, but that
they don’t understand how people work. The “rationality” theories are
just a stab in the dark and have no reality for most people. The
Market Magic theories are just fantasies. This article shows me that
the most effective move I can make is to get Krugman (and any others
like him) to understand the PCT model of human agents and leave it to
them to apply it to creating a new economics.
As wrong as economists have managed to be, it’s obviously not because
they’re stupid; it’s because they’ve been using the wrong model of
human nature. Anybody who tried to understand economics by using a
rationalist model or a stimulus-response model of human actors(which
are nearly the same things despite the cognitive sound of
“rationalist”) would come up with wrong theories that fail to predict
the major occurances in the economy, because they would misunderstand
the behaviors they’re seeing.
I’ll work, in my spare time, on a letter to Krugman. In the meantime
I’d appreciate some digging, by those who know their way around, to
find the best way to make sure Krugman or someone who filters his
mail gets the letter I’m going to write. People in the public eye
have to defend themselves against too -easy access, because they’d be
drowned in correspondence otherwise. Fred Nichols, Frank Lenk, Dag
Forssell, anybody else, do you have any suggestions?
Best,
Bill P.
–
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
“Assistance at A Distance”
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: “nickols@att.net” nickols@ATT.NET
–
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
“Assistance at A Distance”
[From Fred Nickols (2009.09.28.0828)]
This is from another list but it points to some info that might be
useful in the
economics discussion on this list.
Fred Nickols
-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
To: ODNet odnet@lists.odnetwork.org
Subject: [Odnet] On the Failure of Economics
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 02:29:50 +0000
The link below is to the New York Times Magazine for a few weeks back,
in which Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate from Princeton, provides an
overview of Adam Smith, John Mayanrd Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, and
Milton Friedman as the main anchors of current economic theory.
It’s a long read, but well worth it if you’ve forgotten most of what you
learned in micro and macro in college.
He describes two differing, and I’d even say, warring, economic
philosophies and their different perspectives on this current Great
Recession. He writes that, amazingly, one school of economics believes
that the people who are currently unemployed are choosing to be out of
work . . . maybe so that they can get more favorable mortgage terms and
that there’s is nothing wrong with the economy that has caused this
people to be unemployed. Sounds astounding, but in the world of
economists, I guess there’s always, "on the other hand . . . "
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/06/magazine/06Economic-t.html?scp=1&sq=how%20did%
20economists%20get%20it%20so%20wrong&st=cse
I’d be interested in what you have to say about this . . .
Gee, this is science fiction, isn't it?