Rick's World

CSGnet Archive CSG2004
1

[From Bill Williams 31 January 2004 11:12 AM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.0704 MST)]

From time to time on the CSGnet statments have been made

concerning the economics profession that, in my view have
very little, or nothing at all to do with any factual
reality. Rick recent posted a speculation that the problem
with conventional economics (who he is talking about I
surely don't know) is that the conventional economists
have never understand the difference between micro economic
phenomena and the very different properties that are
exhibited by an economy considered as a whole. At least
this is, (despite the fact that according to you I can't
read) is the message that is contained in ,

   Rick Marken (2004.01.29.0850)]

  > I think the mistake made by conventional economists is to
  > assume that the macro economy works like the individual
  > components of that economy, like businesses and households.

Why don't we first try to come to an agreement about what it
is that Rick is claiming. I think the nature of the claim is
perfectly obvious, but lets try to be sure about what is meant
by what has been so concisely expressed.

I am genuine puzzled about what is going on with regard to the
various economics thread on CSGnet. I'm willing to attempt to
create a situation where geniune issues are considered in a way
that would appear to be sane when view by people who are
observing this. You may note a recent addition to the subscriber
list from UMKC.

So, does my understanding of Rick's claim above come close to
matching your understanding it?

Bill Williams

2

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1235 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 11:12 AM CST --

So, does my understanding of Rick's claim above come close to
matching your understanding it?

Yes. I disagree with Rick's claim as being an overgeneralization. I don't
think there is anything that all economists believe, and I am sure that
substantial numbers of economists are quite aware that the macroeconomy is
not just a scaled-up version of the microeconomy or any part of it. I have
no idea what the proportions are.

One thing to remember is that feelings have become pretty raw on CSGnet
recently, and it may take some time to simmer back down to normal, and
avoid extreme and unsupportable statements.

Best,

Bill P.

···

Bill Williams

3

[From Bill Williams 31 January 2004 2:00 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1235 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 11:12 AM CST --

So, does my understanding of Rick's claim above come close to
matching your understanding of it?

Yes. I disagree with Rick's claim as being an overgeneralization.

Please consider my criticism of Kenny's use of "generalization" in
a post today. In my understanding, the term "generalization" means
without exception. So, in this useage, the term "overgeneralization"
would be redundant, that is, if there are no exceptions to a proposition,
it wouldn't be possible to be "overgeneralizing" because the basic
term represents an extreme value by itself. But, my linguistic
quibble aside, forgive a short digression: I have become sensitized to the proper use of language by the many emails I have recieved that have provided me with the most helpful suggestions-- such as your "just stuff it." By-the-Way an explicit reference for the pronoun it seems to be missing.

# But, I think we are in agreement that if Ricks claim were actually corrrect
# then it would contradict the well know law that "If you lay all the living # econmists end to end they would never reach an agreement." But, don't you
# it would be premature of us to dismiss Rick's claim before subjecting it to
# a test?

I don't think there is anything that all economists believe,

# But, I would suggest that it would grotesquely unfair to Rick to dimiss what
# Rick apparently in all seriousness claims, merely on the basis of what you,
# without presenting the slightest bit of evidence think. Not when we can
# without much effort find out if in fact there are actually some economists
# who have been aware of the fact that there is a difference between the
# economic analysis of individuals, such as persons, families, firm and
# the analysis of the properties of an economic system as a collection of
# these individual units. This claim that Rick has made deserves testing.

and I am sure that substantial numbers of economists are quite aware that the macroeconomy is not just a scaled-up version of the microeconomy or any part of it.

# I wouldn't doubt for a moment that you do.

I have no idea what the proportions are.

# I haven't checked the numbers recently, but I would suppose that there are
# forty thousand economists in the United States and perhaps another 40,000
# or more world wide (these are wild-ass guesses). Perhaps Rick could find an
# an economist with a Ph.D who holds the opinion that he, as I understand it, # attributes to _ALL_ economists. After all among close to a 100,00 people
# some could be expected to clinically and certifiably insane. Perhaps Rick
# might find economists among the Austrians who would fit his description.
# Take as a class the students who are awarded Ph.D's in 2003. I would be
# quite confident that less than one percent would be unaware of or deny
# that there are macro properties of an economy that, for certain purposes
# must be taken into account.

One thing to remember is that feelings have become pretty raw on CSGnet

# Do you really think so? Somehow I have been either unaware of this,
# or somehow forgotten something that might be of considerable, at
# least potentially considerable significane. If only I could turn down
# the volume of this enourmos sucking sound, I seem to hear an echo of
# someone saying they were going to bite me. That reminds me Snips must
# be getting hungry.

recently, and it may take some time to simmer back down to normal, and
avoid extreme and unsupportable statements.

I could agree to this. Probably not a good time to put more blood in
the water either.

And, best to you too,

Bill Williams

···

Bill Williams

4

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1445 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 2:00 PM CST--

>Yes. I disagree with Rick's claim as being an overgeneralization.

Please consider my criticism of Kenny's use of "generalization" in
a post today. In my understanding, the term "generalization" means
without exception.

In physics, the term "general" is used to mean "without exception," as in a
general law of gravitation, or general relativity. However, the common
meaning is in the sense of "generality," meaning a statement that is
mostly, or usually, but not always true. In psychology, generalizations are
specifically statistical in nature and so aren't intended or expected to be
true all the time. In that light, an overgeneralization is a statement that
makes something out to be more general than it is (or if you like, just
general when it isn't).

Just to be clear, I agree with you and not Rick about what one can say that
economists believe. Nobody knows "what economists believe."

I don't know how to behave in this atmosphere of pettiness and hatred. I
can't function in it and I don't like the way I feel or the things I say
while in it. It just spoils everything.

Bill P.

5

[From Bill Williams 31 January 2004 6:15 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1445 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 2:00 PM CST--

>Yes. I disagree with Rick's claim as being an overgeneralization.

Please consider my criticism of Kenny's use of "generalization" in
a post today. In my understanding, the term "generalization" means
without exception.

In physics, the term "general" is used to mean "without exception," as in a
general law of gravitation, or general relativity. However, the common
meaning is in the sense of "generality," meaning a statement that is
mostly, or usually, but not always true. In psychology, generalizations are
specifically statistical in nature and so aren't intended or expected to be
true all the time. In that light, an overgeneralization is a statement that
makes something out to be more general than it is (or if you like, just
general when it isn't).

Just to be clear, I agree with you and not Rick about what one can say that
economists believe. Nobody knows "what economists believe."

I don't know how to behave in this atmosphere of pettiness and hatred. I
can't function in it and I don't like the way I feel or the things I say
while in it. It just spoils everything.

# Unfortunately there are other people in the world who find that, as you
# say "an atmosphere of pettiness and hatred" is difficult to deal with.
# Let's see now, there was Tom Bourbon. There was Greg Williams. There was
# Fred (and I am sorry to say that I have forgotten his last name). And, there
# have been many other people as well who once were a part, and made what
# ever anyone else wants to say worthwhile contributions to the CSG.

···

#
# They are no longer a part of CSG because of, again as you say, "an
# atmosphere of pettiness and hatred. ( Had to be expecially careful to avoid
# mispelling "atmosphere." ) Untill recently you haven't had yourself to face # "an atmosphere of pettiness and hatred." And, even recently, I have never
# attacked you in your role as an innovator in applying control theory to
# human behavior. Why should I? As best I can tell the work you have done is # sound.
#
# And, even within economics, which is not really your strong suit, you've
# recently gotten down to work. I genuinely find the stuff that seems to be
# emerging to be of real interest. (Though why I am spending my time kicking
# around what is obviously a crankish scheme is a mystery.) But, if I don't
# have to do the donkey work envolved, well why not?
#
# Besides providing a method that is going to allow me to make a fundamental
# contribution to economics, you have been willing to help me in acquiring
# the skills required to use the methods. And, I am genuinely grateful to you
# for having done so. However, what you have graciously done in this respect
# can not be a justification for what you have either done yourself, or
# been complicit in allowing Rick Marken to do. There is in you and Rick an
# element of intellectual bullying. In the past when conflicts on the CSGnet
# have been considered I have argued in your defense that "generally" you
# approach people and allow them to approach you in a good natured and
# tollant spirit. I would continue to assert that assessment. You are much
# more tollerant in this respect than I would be, were I to be in your
# position.
#
# However, sometimes things have gone badly wrong, and you have attacked
# people in a way that is has caused people some deep emotional anguish.
# In large part the emotional injury that you have caused has been possible
# because the people you have hurt have had such high regard for you and
# they didn't immagine that you were capable of such cruelty. I've seen you
# in action enough now to know that you are capable of betraying people that
# had the highest of respect and affection for you.
#
# So, I wouldn't be entirely accurate to say that I've treated you in a way
# that is consistently hateful. I've been hard on you recently. But, you've
# made this possible by charging at me in a clumsy fashion that I didn't
# have difficulty turning to my advantage. You haven't really given me much
# of a fight, and its been a little dispointing. So, I haven't gotten all
# that emotionally wound up. And, I've maintained what I think is a fair
# and balanced assessment of who you are. (I suspect from some of your
# comments that you may recognize this.) So, I don't have an reservation at
# all in claiming that I don't in fact hate you. Beyond that, I don't think it
# would be accurate, in fact, to say that I dislike you. I don't trust you.
# But, there is more than enough reason for me to have arrived at the judgment # that you are not to be trusted. But that is a long way, and a very differnt
# thing than hating you. It is instead a judgment on a PART of who you are.
# It is not a judgment on you, what your work means, or what you've meant to
# me. I don't think what I have said about your work has ever been at
# all ambigious. I think on more than one occasion I've said that what you've
# managed to do has, to your personal disadvantage been so far in advance of
# what the rest the field has been prepared to understand that you haven't
# gotten the recognition and all that ought to have had been your reward.
#
# So, what, if anything, do we do now? As far as I am concerned we dont' need # to do anything. I'm still having fun. Interesting things are being found # out. I don't have any problem with the way things are. They could be
# better, but that's always true.
#
# Between what you've said on this thread, and, what I've # said-- maybe that # is all that needs to be said or done.
#
# If not, we can always come back to the question and try to rethink the # question of what we want out of this."

Bill Williams

6

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1926 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 6:15 PM CST --

I see. It is my fault, both for what I have said and for not controlling my
lapdog, Rick. You are blameless and untouched, as well as having scored a
lot of points in some game I wasn't aware of playing.

I don't want to be part of that world. As I said, I can't function in it;
it sickens me. I refuse to strike back any more; every time I do it, it
simply makes me more like you and I lose again.

I won't be receiving your posts any more, so don't bother trying to
communicate with me. You have accomplished your purpose.

7

[Bill Williams 31 January 2004 9:43 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1926 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 6:15 PM CST --

I see. It is my fault,

# Many people might think that it is to a considerable extent your fault.

both for what I have said

# I would think many people are of the opinion that we are resonsible for what # we do and what we say.

and for not controlling my lapdog, Rick.

# I am in no way demanding that you control Rick. What I said was that you
# were complicit in what Rick does, and this I continue to think is true.
# I think what you have recently said on this thread was the responsible
# thing to do, and I genuinely appreciate your having said what you did.
# I thought what I said indicated that perhaps what has already been
# said was enough.

You are blameless

# You are making an inference about how I feel about myself which
# is far from being correct.

and untouched,

# I do not regard myself untouched. But, you haven't done me any harm.

as well as having scored a lot of points

# I think I have, in fact, scored a lot of points. I think most people
# would think so.

in some game I wasn't aware of playing.

# You weren't aware that we were involved in a domiance contest? I find
# that entirely implausible. Who would believe such a thing?

I don't want to be part of that world.

# Have I recently invited you to be a part of my world? I can't recall
# having issued any invitation to you recently. Maybe Bourbon can bring
out his "welcome to the Dance" rap and clue you in.

As I said, I can't function in it;

# Not very well anyway. You are a bit clumsy. I'll bet that you never
# caught a football. Competitive sports can instill attitudes that are
of use in a competitive situation, and you didn't play the games. So,
no wonder you have difficulty hanging in there.

it sickens me.

# Losing can hurt, especially if you let your ego get involved. But,
# it isn't any thing to be ashamed of. It isn't a disgrace to lose
# to me.

I refuse to strike back any more;

# This is probably a good idea. You haven't been landing your
# punches anyway.

every time I do it, it
simply makes me more like you and I lose again.

# So, you were, in fact, aware that we were keeping score?

# If you were more like me you'd be a whole lot better at playing
# the dozens.

I won't be receiving your posts any more, so don't bother trying to
communicate with me.

# I haven't posted anything to you for years, so I am sure I
# don't know what you are talking about. This is another of
# your don't fuck anymore pigs arguments.

You have accomplished your purpose.

# Remind me, What was my purpose?

# Boy, talk about difficult to deal with......

8

[Bill Williams 31 January 2004 9:43 PM CST]

[From Bill Powers (2004.01.31.1926 MST)]

Bill Williams 31 January 2004 6:15 PM CST --

I see.

# I doubt that you do, as you say, "see." If, in fact you were
# seeing clearly you would not be in the situation in which you
are in.

It is my fault,

# I think you bear a burden of responsiblity.

# Many people might think that the quality of discussions on the
# CSGnet are to a considerable extent inspired by your example.

both for what I have said

# I would think many people are of the opinion that we are
# resonsible for what # we do and what we say. and for not
# controlling my lapdog, Rick.

# Well, one thing for sure, Rick is no hunting dog.

# I am in no way requesting that you control Rick. What I said
# was that you were complicit in what Rick does, and this I
# continue to think is true. I think what you have recently
# said on this thread was the responsible thing for you to have
# said, and I genuinely appreciate your having said what you did.

# I thought what I said indicated that perhaps what has already
# been said by both of us was enough.

You are blameless

# You are making an inference about how I feel about myself.
# When recently you referred to me as the "Almighty" it see
# me on a train of reflective thought.

···

#
# After some reflection, I cam to the conclusion that despite
# some defects, I on the whole like who I am.
#
# By the evidence of the routes that you employed in your
# recent attempts to hurt me indicate, you don't have much
# of an idea who I am. So, there is no way that you could be
# in a position to make a judgment concerning how I feel about
# myself.
#
# If during the years during which we were acquainted, you had bee
# genuinely interested in who I was, you would have come to know
# much more about who I am and thus be in a much better position to
# hurt me. But, since you aren't really very interested in other
# people, you don't now have that information to make use of in
# attempting to hurt me.

and untouched,

# I do not regard myself as entirely untouched. Rick gave me a
# couple of interesting moments. But, you haven't done me any harm.

as well as having scored a lot of points

# I think I have, in fact, scored a lot of points. I think most people
# would think that I have.

in some game I wasn't aware of playing.

# You weren't aware that we were involved in a domiance contest? I find
# that entirely implausible. Who would believe such a thing?

I don't want to be part of that world.

# Have I recently invited you to be a part of my world? I can't recall
# having issued any invitation to you recently. Maybe Bourbon can bring
out his "welcome to the Dance" rap and clue you in.

As I said, I can't function in it;

# Not very well anyway. You are a bit clumsy. I'll bet that you never
# caught a football. Competitive sports allow one to pick-up attitudes
# that are of use in competitive situations. You didn't play the games.
# So, no wonder you have difficulty hanging in there.

it sickens me.

# Losing can hurt, especially if you let your ego get involved. But,
# it isn't any thing to be ashamed of. It isn't a disgrace to lose
# to me.

I refuse to strike back any more;

# This is probably a good idea. You haven't been landing your
# punches anyway.

every time I do it, it simply makes me more like you and I lose again.

# So, you were, in fact, aware that we were keeping score?

# And,

# If you were more like me you'd be a whole lot better at playing
# the dozens.

I won't be receiving your posts any more, so don't bother trying to
communicate with me.

# I haven't posted anything to you for years, so I am sure I
# don't know what you are talking about. Besides this is another
# of your don't fuck anymore pigs arguments.

You have accomplished your purpose.

# Remind me, I seem to have forgotten. What was my purpose?

# Boy, talk about difficult to deal with......