[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1215 UT)]
I would be very interested to see an HPCT interpretation of yesterday's vote in Massachusetts. On the face of it, the vote does not reflect particularly high-level goals at work.
Bruce
[Martin Taylor 2010.01.20.09.30]
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1215 UT)]
I would be very interested to see an HPCT interpretation of yesterday's vote in Massachusetts. On the face of it, the vote does not reflect particularly high-level goals at work.
Bruce
I suppose it depends on three things: what the high-level goals might be, what the voters perceive the existing situation to be, and how the voters perceive the environmental feedback paths to work in their imaginations.
How would you test any of these, given that there is no real opportunity to introduce disturbances that would be precise enough to allow "the Test" to be applied even to determine what perceptions were being controlled?
Martin
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.20.0810)]
Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1215 UT)–
I would be very interested to see an HPCT interpretation of yesterday’s vote in Massachusetts. On the face of it, the vote does not reflect particularly high-level goals at work.
I think it resulted from voters realizing that the true path to full employment and prosperity is by going back to the Republican policies that brought us the prosperity of the 1950s and 1990s. The clearly saw that it was FDR that created the post-Hoover mess of the 1930s and the Clinton administration that produced the post Reagan-Bush mess of the first decade of the 2000s. The voters understand that that’s the way economics works: Republican policies are the best for the economy, they just don’t take effect until a Democrat comes into office;-)
I’m not a cynic either, Bruce.
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Fred Nickols (2010.01.20.0957 MST)]
Regarding Bruce's inquiry, I think all we can do is guess at what's going on. We can also engage in wishful thinking. I think this election might be the first of many instances in which the voters simply do what my grandmother said we all had to do from time to time; namely, "turn the rascals out." She was referring to sending a message as a result of voting out the incumbent no matter who it might be and regardless of record. I think the American public is disgusted with Congress - Senate and House - and might well "turn the rascals out." I sincerely hope so. Their loyalties are clearly to their parties, not to the public.
···
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
nickols@att.net
www.nickols.us
"Assistance at A Distance"
-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: Richard Marken <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.20.0810)]
Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1215 UT)--
>
> I would be very interested to see an HPCT interpretation of yesterday's
> vote in Massachusetts. On the face of it, the vote does not reflect
> particularly high-level goals at work.
>I think it resulted from voters realizing that the true path to full
employment and prosperity is by going back to the Republican policies that
brought us the prosperity of the 1950s and 1990s. The clearly saw that it
was FDR that created the post-Hoover mess of the 1930s and the Clinton
administration that produced the post Reagan-Bush mess of the first decade
of the 2000s. The voters understand that that's the way economics works:
Republican policies are the best for the economy, they just don't take
effect until a Democrat comes into office;-)I'm not a cynic either, Bruce.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.20.0915)]
Fred Nickols (2010.01.20.0957 MST)–
Regarding Bruce’s inquiry, I think all we can do is guess at what’s going on. We can also engage in wishful thinking. I think this election might be the first of many instances in which the voters simply do what my grandmother said we all had to do from time to time; namely, “turn the rascals out.” She was referring to sending a message as a result of voting out the incumbent no matter who it might be and regardless of record. I think the American public is disgusted with Congress - Senate and House - and might well “turn the rascals out.” I sincerely hope so. Their loyalties are clearly to their parties, not to the public.
Right, so they vote the rascals out by voting in the worst of the rascals in, a guy who seems to have absolutely no interest in the public good and complete loyalty to the party of “no”.
It reminds me of what I said to Linda one time when she asked why I was so reluctant to take public transportation when we were going around San Francisco. I said “I don’t mind the transportation but have you seen the public”?
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Bruce Gregory 92010.01.20.1800 UT)]
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.20.0810)]
I’m not a cynic either, Bruce.
I never thought for a minute that you were!
Bruce
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1809 UT)]
[From Fred Nickols (2010.01.20.0957 MST)]
Regarding Bruce's inquiry, I think all we can do is guess at what's going on. We can also engage in wishful thinking. I think this election might be the first of many instances in which the voters simply do what my grandmother said we all had to do from time to time; namely, "turn the rascals out." She was referring to sending a message as a result of voting out the incumbent no matter who it might be and regardless of record. I think the American public is disgusted with Congress - Senate and House - and might well "turn the rascals out." I sincerely hope so. Their loyalties are clearly to their parties, not to the public.
I think you are right, Fred. I also think this is bad news for the Democrats, since there are more of them in office than the other rascals. It is hard for me to see anything constructive happening in Washington for many moons. It also reminds me that voters do not take the long view; they want results right now. Global warming? That's for somebody else to worry about down the road. I try to remind myself that Athens was a democracy with it sentenced Socrates to death...
Bruce
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.20.1010)]
Bruce Gregory 92010.01.20.1800 UT)
Rick Marken (2010.01.20.0810)–
I’m not a cynic either, Bruce.
I never thought for a minute that you were!
Oh, you’re just being cynical;-). I am obviously very cynical. How could one not be after this election?
Best
Rick
[From Martin Lewitt (2010.01.20.1122 MST) ]
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1809 UT)]
[From Fred Nickols (2010.01.20.0957 MST)]
Regarding Bruce's inquiry, I think all we can do is guess at what's going on. We can also engage in wishful thinking. I think this election might be the first of many instances in which the voters simply do what my grandmother said we all had to do from time to time; namely, "turn the rascals out." She was referring to sending a message as a result of voting out the incumbent no matter who it might be and regardless of record. I think the American public is disgusted with Congress - Senate and House - and might well "turn the rascals out." I sincerely hope so. Their loyalties are clearly to their parties, not to the public.
I think you are right, Fred. I also think this is bad news for the Democrats, since there are more of them in office than the other rascals. It is hard for me to see anything constructive happening in Washington for many moons. It also reminds me that voters do not take the long view; they want results right now. Global warming? That's for somebody else to worry about down the road. I try to remind myself that Athens was a democracy with it sentenced Socrates to death...
SHOULD you want to see anything "constructive" happening in Washington? "Voters" are closely related to those who would be running anything constructed in Washington, so those running things may ALSO not be taking the long view. Decision makers with short term horizons are perhaps better constrained and do less damage when seeking local optimums as cogs in that emergent phenomon called markets. They respond to price signals and must make a profit in the long run, because they can't subsidize prices that are below costs for long.
I am reminded that those decision makers that so disillusioned you in Athens, came out of Africa into occupied territory. Neanderthal and Home erectus are no longer with us and Homo sapiens effective population size has been kept whittled down to 10000 to 18000. Human's don't appear to like much diversity.
Global warming? I can't argue that there is wisdom in the crowd, but not taking the long term view is serving the individuals well in this instance. There is no model independent evidence that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is in the high range (2 to 4+ degrees C) needed for IPCC warnings to be of concern. So the fearmongers are ahead of the evidence. Furthermore, there are analyses to show that the individuals and the descendants who would inherit their economic base, would better off focusing on getting wealthy than on the planet or their human collective identity, even if the worst projected fears come to pass.
Progressives seem oblivious to their anti-democratic tendencies. They are prone to cults of personality for leaders such as Castro, Kennedy, Chavez and Obama. The have that fascist fascination with the "street", mass action "democracy" as in support of Zelaya in Honduras, or at the world trade conferences or at Copenhagen. They devisively emphasize and exploit collective identities such as race, ethnicity and class. They favor central planning and control, short sightedly forgetting that they may lose the next election and that it was unwise to produce such concentrations of power. Perhaps this is why historically, they have tended to cancel the next election or produce one party systems.
The American founders were perhaps wise to produce a control system that constrained these human organisms with checks and balances and restricted them to seeking short sighted local optimums. At least in the US, conservatives are "conserving" classical liberalism, and the fanatical collective identity they are prone to is a check on government power and excesses. Progressives are not really "liberal'.
-- Martin
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1950 UT)]
[From Martin Lewitt (2010.01.20.1122 MST) ]
SHOULD you want to see anything “constructive” happening in Washington? “Voters” are closely related to those who would be running anything constructed in Washington, so those running things may ALSO not be taking the long view. Decision makers with short term horizons are perhaps better constrained and do less damage when seeking local optimums as cogs in that emergent phenomon called markets. They respond to price signals and must make a profit in the long run, because they can’t subsidize prices that are below costs for long.
You’re right of course. Markets solve all problems. How silly of me to have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me.
Bruce
[From Martin Lewitt (2010.01.20.1122 MST) ]
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1950 UT)]
You're right of course. Markets solve all problems. How silly of me to have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me.
Hardly, but they do impose practical economic constraints, require economic sustainability and communicate incentives and propagate distortions nonlinearly. For instance, if you hold interest rates artificially in low in a system where tax policy favors inflexible debt financing while double taxing equity financing, the incentives transmitted to decision makers can result in an unstable pyramid of debt.. Markets are an emergent phenomenon in human societies, and unless you are willing to coercively suppress all possible outlets for market behavior you had best regulate with possible market responses in mind, and not be surprised when incentives and distortions have consequences. In mass societies, central planners may have values, which don't optimize the values of individuals as well as they can themselves with the opportunities and information available to them. There is little doubt that they have better information about their own preferences and are likely to be more productive following their own preferences than those of others.
Markets can't solve all problems, but when problems are solved via market mechanisms, voluntary incentives rather than coercion are involved in most of the intercourse.
-- Martin
Whoops, that time should have been circa 1400 MST
Martin Lewitt wrote:
···
[From Martin Lewitt (2010.01.20.1122 MST) ]
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1950 UT)]
You're right of course. Markets solve all problems. How silly of me to have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me.
Hardly, but they do impose practical economic constraints, require economic sustainability and communicate incentives and propagate distortions nonlinearly. For instance, if you hold interest rates artificially in low in a system where tax policy favors inflexible debt financing while double taxing equity financing, the incentives transmitted to decision makers can result in an unstable pyramid of debt.. Markets are an emergent phenomenon in human societies, and unless you are willing to coercively suppress all possible outlets for market behavior you had best regulate with possible market responses in mind, and not be surprised when incentives and distortions have consequences. In mass societies, central planners may have values, which don't optimize the values of individuals as well as they can themselves with the opportunities and information available to them. There is little doubt that they have better information about their own preferences and are likely to be more productive following their own preferences than those of others.
Markets can't solve all problems, but when problems are solved via market mechanisms, voluntary incentives rather than coercion are involved in most of the intercourse.
-- Martin
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.22.1445)]
Martin Lewitt (2010.01.20.1122 MST) –
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1950 UT)]
You’re right of course. Markets solve all problems. How silly of me to have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me.
Hardly, but they do impose practical economic constraints, require
economic sustainability and communicate incentives and propagate
distortions nonlinearly.
Saying
that a market “imposes”, “requires”, and “communicates” suggests that
markets are purposeful agents. This is a bit too much anthropomorphism
for me. I think a market is just the activity of a collection of
actual purposeful agents: people. It looks like the behavior of this collective of agents is controlled by market “forces” (the impositions, requirements and communications of which you speak) but I think these “forces” are just disturbances to the variables that the agents are trying to control. So the apparent effect of market “forces” (such as the apparent effect of the “force” of supply on price) on behavior is just the S-R behavioral illusion of PCT.
An example of what I think is going on is shown in my model of the Giffen effect (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Economics.html), where a change in the price of a good (the apparent “stimulus”) appears to cause a change in the amount of the good purchased (the apparent “response”). The apparent S-R relationship is not actually a causal relationship; rather, it is a side effect of the efforts of the agent to control savings (keep it above 0) and caloric intake. The nature of the S-R relationship changes in a rather surprising way when savings are limited.
Actually, since I started studying economics I’ve been puzzled by the importance people put on the “market” as a fundamental aspect of an economy. In my view, the market is just a way of determining the monetary value of goods and services produced in an economy where these goods and services are produced by highly specialized labor. The market is a way to distribute (using money) the goods and services everyone needs to everyone who specialized in the production of a small subset of those goods or services. And it doesn’t seem to me that the “free” market works all that well at doing that, if it ends up producing the huge wealth discrepancies we have now, for example. Not just because there discrepancies seem inappropriate (to me, anyway; I don’t begrudge a person making more than me; I just don’t think anyone is worth 100 times me) but because it seems to me that they seem to be bad for the economy, in terms of growth, unemployment and general societal welfare.
Best
Rick
···
–
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
I agree that the market phenomenon and the laws that have been derived that describe it and help understand it don't exist at the individual level. But I don't see it as much different than statistical physics in that regard. There is no entropy in quantum mechanics. The disordered states are not any more likely or less unique than the ordered states. It is just that humans see less usable distinctions among the states they have evolved to see as disordered, and it was adpative to see some states as ordered.
-- Martin
Richard Marken wrote:
···
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.22.1445)]
Martin Lewitt (2010.01.20.1122 MST) --
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.20.1950 UT)]
You're right of course. Markets solve all problems. How silly
of me to have forgotten that. Thanks for reminding me.Hardly, but they do impose practical economic constraints, require
economic sustainability and communicate incentives and propagate
distortions nonlinearly.Saying that a market "imposes", "requires", and "communicates" suggests that markets are purposeful agents. This is a bit too much anthropomorphism for me. I think a market is just the activity of a collection of actual purposeful agents: people. It looks like the behavior of this collective of agents is controlled by market "forces" (the impositions, requirements and communications of which you speak) but I think these "forces" are just disturbances to the variables that the agents are trying to control. So the apparent effect of market "forces" (such as the apparent effect of the "force" of supply on price) on behavior is just the S-R behavioral illusion of PCT.
An example of what I think is going on is shown in my model of the Giffen effect (http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Economics.html), where a change in the price of a good (the apparent "stimulus") appears to cause a change in the amount of the good purchased (the apparent "response"). The apparent S-R relationship is not actually a causal relationship; rather, it is a side effect of the efforts of the agent to control savings (keep it above 0) and caloric intake. The nature of the S-R relationship changes in a rather surprising way when savings are limited.
Actually, since I started studying economics I've been puzzled by the importance people put on the "market" as a fundamental aspect of an economy. In my view, the market is just a way of determining the monetary value of goods and services produced in an economy where these goods and services are produced by highly specialized labor. The market is a way to distribute (using money) the goods and services everyone needs to everyone who specialized in the production of a small subset of those goods or services. And it doesn't seem to me that the "free" market works all that well at doing that, if it ends up producing the huge wealth discrepancies we have now, for example. Not just because there discrepancies seem inappropriate (to me, anyway; I don't begrudge a person making more than me; I just don't think anyone is worth 100 times me) but because it seems to me that they seem to be bad for the economy, in terms of growth, unemployment and general societal welfare.
Best
Rick
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com <mailto:rsmarken@gmail.com>
www.mindreadings.com <http://www.mindreadings.com>
[From Bruce Gregory (2010.01.23.1235 UT)]
Since Massachusetts voters already have a healthcare plan very much like "Obamacare," voters who feared their taxes would be increased by the Democratic proposal could tell the following story: "We implemented universal healthcare. If other states want universal healthcare they are free to implement it, too. We don't need to get Washington involved in this." This story is much more attractive than: "We've got good healthcare, screw the rest of you." Again, the story is much less informative than the behavior.
Bruce