Ricks mistake.

From[Bill Williams 31 May 2004 1:20 AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.05.31. 2200)]

Bill Williams (31 May 2004) --

It's clear from the "models" you've posted that you don't know
how to write a computer model

How, would you know? You couldn't figure out how the Lattice model
worked. Initially you said it didn't have a control loop. Basically
you have been looking at stuff you don't understand.

The Lattice model definitely had no control loop in it.

You understand even less than I thought you did-- which wasn't much.

The lattice points -- which I suspect were the variables you
thought were being controlled -- were not controlled. The
program was simply an overly complicated array plotting routine.

Rick, you can't know how pleased I am to have this report from you.
But, can I ask where do you suppose the array that you think is
being plotted is stored?

This assumes that Bill Powers' criticism was correct. It is easy enough
to show that Bill Powers' understanding of economic modeling is not at
all on a part with his modeling of other simpler phenomena.

This is not a matter of understanding economic modeling. It's a matter
of understanding how to implement models in programs. Your programs do
not properly implemented control system models.

Well, since you have demonstrated that you can't recognize a control loop
when you see one (such as in the Lattic model) there is no reason to take
your claim to heart. And, Bill's criticisms of my economic models have been focused on those models and constructs which have been included in Keynesian
models. I best I can understand it, and as Bill Powers has admitted, Bill Powers doesn't understand the Keynesian system. I don't think you've ever claimed to do so. It really did perturb me initially the way Bill reacted to the Keynesian models. I wondered could I have make that serious an error? But, then I realized that what Bill Powers was saying about Keynes was precisely what he was saying about me. And, then I felt better, I even felt good. You can't know how nice it is to be compared to Keynes-- even if both of us, Keynes and I are being called "garbage."

Rick I think it is time for you to send me a letter acknowledging that
you without my approval altered the Giffen paper that was published in
the American Behavioral Science issue. While you may not "know
everything" you think that you know more than I do. You even think you
know more about the Giffen effect than I do. This mistaken notion of
yours that you understand economics has created problems. When you
decided to improve the Giffen paper you introduced errors that I
didn't make. Those errors are your responsiblity. But, anyone reading
that issue would think that they are my errors. So, send me a letter

Economics Department
211 Haag Hall
University Missouri-Kansas City
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110

I'll be happy to. I'll write it up as soon as I can. I'll mail it
before the end of the week. But in order to write it up properly I
would appreciate it if you could send me a description of the errors
that I introduced into the paper. Just copy the sentences in the
article that are in error (or, if it's easier, just list the line(s)
and page numbers of each error) and explain why they are errors.
Thanks.

It isn't that hard to explain. I remember what you did. Normal demand functions are downward sloping to the right- that is as the price falls
there is an expectation that more of the product will be demanded. The Giffen effect violates this expectation-- the demand for the inferior good decreases when the price decreases and increases when it increases. The demand for the superior good in the Giffen case increases when income increases up to the point at which the caloric requirement can be supplied entirely through the consumption of the superior good. After that when increases still further the demand for the superior good is entirely inelastic-- that is there is no further increase in the consumption of the superior good as income increases. You said as, I remember it, that the demand for the superior good would be normal beyond the point at which the budget reached a point at which the caloric requirement could be met by the superior good. However, this is not the case-- even in respect to the superior good, the consumer is controlling for (familiar concept? ) the consumption of a reference level of calories. There isn't any reason at all for the consumer to consume more calories just because income increases. The difference between asserting that the demand above the Giffen region is normal and entirely inelastic with respect to changes in income involves the question of whether or not the superior good behaves in part in the way that neo-classical economic theory predicts, or whether the superior good having behaved according to orthodox prediction in the giffen space then also behaves normally outside the giffen space. Well, interesting outside the giffen space the superior good then behaves abnormally outside the Giffen space. And, this is important because studies of consumer behavior routinely report that consumer demand is much less elastic than the neo-classical conception of consumer behavior would lead one to suspect.

So, you rewrote the paper by changing a valid prediction that the model makes,
a prediction that is contrary to orthodox theory, into a prediction that is inconsistent with the model, and also inconsistent with the finding that consumer behaivor is much less elastic than the orthodoxy's Economic Man would lead one to think.

Would you like for me to try to explain to you where the control loops are
in the Lattice program.

Bill Williams

···

-----Original Message-----
From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) on behalf of Rick Marken
Sent: Mon 5/31/2004 11:58 PM
To: CSGNET@listserv.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: FW: Social Reality

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.01.1650)]

Bill Williams (6 June 2004) --

Rick, you can't know how pleased I am to have this report from you.
But, can I ask where do you suppose the array that you think is
being plotted is stored?

Send the program and I'll let you know. But your question is puzzling. Do
you think that an array can only be plotted if it is explicitly stored in an
array variable?

Me:

But in order to write it up properly I
would appreciate it if you could send me a description of the errors
that I introduced into the paper. Just copy the sentences in the
article that are in error (or, if it's easier, just list the line(s)
and page numbers of each error) and explain why they are errors.
Thanks.

It isn't that hard to explain. I remember what you did. Normal demand
functions are downward sloping to the right...

So, you rewrote the paper by changing a valid prediction that the model

makes...

It would help if you could give me references to the exact statements in the
paper that are wrong. But if you can't do that (or won't) I'll be happy to
write the letter saying that the paper should be attributed to me and only
me and not to you at all.

Would you like for me to try to explain to you where the control loops are
in the Lattice program.

Yes. I would like you to send the program and show, in the source code,
where the control loops are. I would also like you to identify the
variables controlled by these loops.

Regards

Rick

···

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

From[Bill Williams 2 May 2004 2:25 AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.06.01.1650)]

Bill Williams (6 June 2004) --

Rick, you can't know how pleased I am to have this report from you.
But, can I ask where do you suppose the array that you think is
being plotted is stored?

Send the program and I'll let you know. But your question is puzzling. Do
you think that an array can only be plotted if it is explicitly stored in an
array variable?

No. "An array" is a more inclusive term than "an array variable." But, I am also puzzled. The graphic display the lattice program creates obvious has a very complex organization that evolves in ways that display a deep consistency. I would think that it would be assumed that this organization is somehow being generated by something.

Me:

But in order to write it up properly I
would appreciate it if you could send me a description of the errors
that I introduced into the paper. Just copy the sentences in the
article that are in error (or, if it's easier, just list the line(s)
and page numbers of each error) and explain why they are errors.
Thanks.

It isn't that hard to explain. I remember what you did. Normal demand
functions are downward sloping to the right...

So, you rewrote the paper by changing a valid prediction that the model

makes...

It would help if you could give me references to the exact statements in the
paper that are wrong.

OK, it really isn't problem.

But if you can't do that (or won't) I'll be happy to
write the letter saying that the paper should be attributed to me and only
me and not to you at all.

Would you like for me to try to explain to you where the control loops are
in the Lattice program.

Yes. I would like you to send the program and show, in the source code,
where the control loops are. I would also like you to identify the
variables controlled by these loops.

Ok, I ought to write this up anyway before I lose track of how it works.

Bill Williams

[From Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1015)]

Bill Williams (2 May 2004 2:25 AM CST) --

No. "An array" is a more inclusive term than "an array variable." But, I am
also puzzled. The graphic display the lattice program creates obvious has a
very complex organization that evolves in ways that display a deep
consistency. I would think that it would be assumed that this organization is
somehow being generated by something.

Of course. It's being generated by the program code. It's possible to write
code that displays a lattice that evolves in ways that display great
consistency without using any control organizations.

So, you rewrote the paper by changing a valid prediction that the model
makes...

It would help if you could give me references to the exact statements in the
paper that are wrong.

OK, it really isn't problem.

Never mind. I already found the error and I wrote the letter and sent it
(signed in blue ink).I've attached a copy below.

The error is the sentence on p. 104: "Increase the budget and the same model
behaves as classical economic theory predicts -- an increase in the price of
bread leads to a decrease in the reference level (and hence the demand) for
bread." This is not true. If you increase the budget, the Giffen effect
(increase in consumption with increase in the cost of bread) does disappear.
But what happens is not a return to the conventional demand curve for bread
(decreased bread consumption with increased cost of bread) but, rather, a
flat demand curve (same level of consumption of bread regardless of the cost
of bread). The phenomenon is illustrated in the "Rich Man" version of my
Economics demo at http://www.mindreadings.com/ControlDemo/Economics.html.

The reason I said this about the effect of budget on the demand curve was
because I thought it was important to make it clear to the reader that the
control model explains both the Giffen and the classical demand curve. And
it does. But the conventional demand curve (decrease in consumption with
increase in cost) shows up with the more expensive good (meat) regardless of
budget size. That is, when you increase the price of meat, consumption of
meat decreases, as expected by "classical" theory. So what I should have
said was: "Increase the price of meat and the same model behaves as
classical economic theory predicts -- an increase in the price of meat leads
to a decrease in the reference level (and hence the demand) for meat."

I'm sorry I made this mistake. It was made out of a well intentioned effort
to make a point that I thought was important to make in the paper: that the
control model explains both the "classical" and the surprising "Giffen"
demand phenomena. I can understand your being upset about this mistake
being attributed to you. I hope the letter will help you feel a bit better.
Also, I think it might be possible to design a control model for which the
statement is true. The lack of effect of cost on consumption of bread when
the budget is increased could, possibly, be overcome by changing the value
of bread (calories/lb) or by increasing the reference for bread consumption.
I'll work on it and let you know. What I want is a model that shows the
Giffen effect (for the "inferior good") when the budget is low and shows no
Giffen effect (for either good) when the budget increases. If I could
produce such a model then the statement in the paper would not be a mistake
and you would no longer have to be embarrassed about having your name on the
paper.

Yes. I would like you to send the program and show, in the source code,
where the control loops are. I would also like you to identify the
variables controlled by these loops.

Ok, I ought to write this up anyway before I lose track of how it works.

Why not send me the code now so I can see why I thought there were no
properly implemented control systems.

Regards

Rick

···

----

Here's the letter I sent:

June 2, 2004

Economics Department
211 Haag Hall
University Missouri-Kansas City
5100 Rockhill Road
Kansas City, MO 64110

To whom it may concern:

Mr. William D. Williams has asked me to inform you that a paper entitled
�The Giffen Effect: A Note on Economic Purpose� that was published in the
American Behavioral Scientist (1990, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 106-109) was
rewritten by me in a way that he finds completely unacceptable. As the
editor of the issue of the journal to which the paper was submitted, I
determined that the paper required extensive editing before it could be
published. I received Mr. Williams� approval to do the editing but, due to
time constraints, I was not able to show him the final, edited version that
was sent to the printer. Mr. Williams found the printed version to be
completely unacceptable and riddled with erroneous statements. Therefore,
Mr. Williams would like the world to know that the subject paper should be
considered my work, not his. I am writing this letter to let everyone who
reads that paper know that William D. Williams is not the author of the
subject paper and he is not, therefore, responsible for any erroneous
statements made therein. The responsibility for all erroneous statements in
that paper is mine alone.

Sincerely,

Richard S. Marken
Senior Behavioral Scientist
RAND Corporation
1700 Main St.
Santa Monica, CA 90407
310 393-0411 ext 7971

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

[From Bill Powers (2004.06.02.1143 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1015)--

The reason I said this about the effect of budget on the demand curve was
because I thought it was important to make it clear to the reader that the
control model explains both the Giffen and the classical demand curve.

I think the proper way to handle that sort of addition to a paper would be
to write and publish your own paper, not to modify someone else's just
because you happen to have, as editor, the power to do so. It wasn't your
paper, so saying "The reason I said this.." is irrelevant. You shouldn't
have been saying ANYTHING of your own in the middle of someone else's
paper. I realize that Bill W. was unreachable at the critical time prior to
going to press, but if an editor had arbitrarily altered a paper I wrote, I
would very indignant too. In my view, that is not a privilege of being an
editor.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1220)]

Bill Powers (2004.06.02.1143 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1015)--

The reason I said this about the effect of budget on the demand curve was
because I thought it was important to make it clear to the reader that the
control model explains both the Giffen and the classical demand curve.

I think the proper way to handle that sort of addition to a paper would be
to write and publish your own paper, not to modify someone else's just
because you happen to have, as editor, the power to do so. It wasn't your
paper, so saying "The reason I said this.." is irrelevant. You shouldn't
have been saying ANYTHING of your own in the middle of someone else's
paper. I realize that Bill W. was unreachable at the critical time prior to
going to press, but if an editor had arbitrarily altered a paper I wrote, I
would very indignant too. In my view, that is not a privilege of being an
editor.

As would I. But I couldn't possibly have published Williams' article in the
form in which I got it. And on your advice I had committed myself to
publishing all authors who submitted articles for publication in the ABS PCT
issue. Thus, I deprived myself of the main privilege of being an editor:
rejecting papers based on my evaluation of their merit. But, of course, that
did not give me the right to add, subtract or modify in any way without
getting the authors' OKs. And because I was committed to publishing all the
papers I had to add, subtract or change things in nearly all the papers --
mainly subtracting in order to meet the length limit. I was able to show my
changes to most of the authors before sending the manuscript off to the
printer, but it was hard to get the edited versions to all the authors in a
timely manner in those pre-email days. Most authors accepted my proposed
edits based on phone conversations. But how I wish I had shown the edited
version to Bill Williams before I sent it in.

Now I know how Emma must have felt when scolded by Mr. Knightly.

Best regards

Rick

···

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

[From Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1530)]

Bill Powers (2004.06.02.1143 MDT)]

I realize that Bill W. was unreachable at the critical time prior to
going to press, but if an editor had arbitrarily altered a paper I wrote, I
would very indignant too.

I think I was still a bit defensive in my earlier reply to this. All I
should have said is: What I did -- altering Bill Williams' paper without
his consent in order to improve it, from my point of view -- showed
extremely poor judgment. I sincerely apologize to Bill Williams for doing
it.

My goal was noble but my path was ill-considered and the result was
catastrophic, putting me in the same class as George W. Bush, which seems
like more than sufficient punishment for the transgression, I think.

Regards

Rick

···

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

From Bill Powers (2004.06.02.1641 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1530) --

Sounds as if that one isn't likely to happen again.

Best.

Bill P.

From [Marc Abrams (2004.06.02.2207

[From Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1530)]

...My goal was noble but my path was ill-considered and the result was

catastrophic, putting me in the same class as George W. Bush, which
seems like more than sufficient punishment for the transgression, I
think.

From Bill Powers (2004.06.02.1641 MDT)]
Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1530) --

Sounds as if that one isn't likely to happen again.

Unfortunately I think you're wrong Bill. Rick's continued use of
sophistic arguments will continue to lead him down dubious roads. This
last post is an example of this.

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

Don't argue with an idiot; people watching may not be able to tell the
difference.

Anon

I don't approve of political jokes. I've seen too many of them get
elected

Anon

From[Bill Williams 3 June 2004 2:20 AM CST]

[From Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1220)]

Ok, I think this matter is finally settled.

I think everything that may have needed to be said
has already been said. And, lots of stuff that didn't
need to be said, got said as well.

I'll look for copies of the Lattice program, there are
a bunch of different versions. It really does have
control loops. It isn't just my perception.

Bill Williams

From[Bill Williams 3 May 2004 9:40 AM CST]

From Bill Powers (2004.06.02.1641 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2004.05.02.1530) --

Sounds as if that one isn't likely to happen again.

There is a good side and also an unfortunate side to as
you say, this not be likely to happen again.

Bill Williams