Krugman’s closed-loop view of the economy is clearest in the second paragraph where he says that the economy is its own customer. That is, at the macroeconomic level, the aggregate
producer produces goods and services for itself as the aggregate consumer (as in my H. economicus model). In order for this to work efficiently, what is paid by the aggregate producer for production must be returned to itself as demand for what is
produced. If much of what is paid by the aggregate producer is hoarded (not returned to the aggregate producer as payment for what was produced) then that reduces demand and you have recession and unemployment (which
is what we have now, a recession due to lack of demand).
Since
Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been largely dismissed by the powers that be (who want to believe that the recession is a result of government debt), I’m not optimistic about a PCT model of
the economy being any more convincing. So I’m bowing out of the economic modeling game. If I’m going to participate in a lost cause it’s
going to be in one that I enjoy: testing PCT models of individual behavior.
Here’s a nice little post from Paul Krugman showing that he sees the aggregate
economy as a closed -loop system.
Krugman’s closed-loop view of the economy is clearest in the second paragraph
where he says that the economy is its own customer. That is, at the
macroeconomic level, the aggregate producer produces goods and services for
itself as the aggregate consumer (as in my H. economicus model). In order for
this to work efficiently, what is paid by the aggregate producer for
production must be returned to itself as demand for what is produced. If much
of what is paid by the aggregate producer is hoarded (not returned to the
aggregate producer as payment for what was produced) then that reduces demand
and you have recession and unemployment (which is what we have now, a recession
due to lack of demand).
Since Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been largely dismissed
by the powers that be (who want to believe that the recession is a result of
government debt), I’m not optimistic about a PCT model of the
economy being any more convincing. So I’m bowing out of the economic modeling
game. If I’m going to participate in a lost cause it’s going to be in one that
I enjoy: testing PCT models of individual behavior.
You give up easily. So what, who cares what
the “powers that be” believe.
So was Stiglitz a Nobel Prize winner too, and
he was booed in New Zealand I was so embarrassed to hear that. And because he said we are heading
for a fall. He was right.
I think PCT has a good answer to the economic
question but, personally the real answers lies much deeper at the core of how
matter interacts and in my opinions that’s about creation and energy.
This is not what most in this forum is interested
in.
On the subject of individual behavior in
isolation of other control systems. (I guess this is what you mean from
your above statement).
I think that’s a lost cause because its
not individual behavior that’s exciting it’s the interaction of individual
behavior.
Perhaps, we could consider the game of singles tennis from a PCT view.
It involves an interaction between two individuals. The interaction is
structured by the game rules, but every match is different in its specifics.
Anybody interested?
David
···
From: Gavin Ritz
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:28 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some Economists Do Understand the Closed-Loop Nature of the Economy
(Gavin Ritz 2011.08.26.15.12NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2011.08.25.1650)]
Here’s a nice little post from Paul Krugman showing that he sees the aggregate economy as a closed -loop system.
Krugman’s closed-loop view of the economy is clearest in the second paragraph where he says that the economy is its own customer. That is, at the macroeconomic level, the aggregate producer produces goods and services for itself as the aggregate consumer (as in my H. economicus model). In order for this to work efficiently, what is paid by the aggregate producer for production must be returned to itself as demand for what is produced. If much of what is paid by the aggregate producer is hoarded (not returned to the aggregate producer as payment for what was produced) then that reduces demand and you have recession and unemployment (which is what we have now, a recession due to lack of demand).
Since Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been largely dismissed by the powers that be (who want to believe that the recession is a result of government debt), I’m not optimistic about a PCT model of the economy being any more convincing. So I’m bowing out of the economic modeling game. If I’m going to participate in a lost cause it’s going to be in one that I enjoy: testing PCT models of individual behavior.
You give up easily. So what, who cares what the “powers that be� believe.
So was Stiglitz a Nobel Prize winner too, and he was booed in New Zealand I was so embarrassed to hear that. And because he said we are heading for a fall. He was right.
I think PCT has a good answer to the economic question but, personally the real answers lies much deeper at the core of how matter interacts and in my opinions that’s about creation and energy.
This is not what most in this forum is interested in.
On the subject of individual behavior in isolation of other control systems. (I guess this is what you mean from your above statement).
I think that’s a lost cause because its not individual behavior that’s exciting it’s the interaction of individual behavior.
I started from an even simpler place a number of years ago by examining how organisms control the distance between self and other. In the non-symbol using universe of animal life forms every individual needs to categorize others as possible predators, possible prey, or possible partners. The distance that one acts to maintain or achieve between self and other depends on observing the location and/or movement of the other as well as recognizing which category the other might fit. In 1997 I published an article exploring conflict situations regarding this distance between two actors. I have print versions of this article if anyone is interested.
I have also been working on a second article focused on accommodation and competition. I think is available on the link below
Perhaps, we could consider the game of singles tennis from a PCT view.
It involves an interaction between two individuals. The interaction is
structured by the game rules, but every match is different in its specifics.
Anybody interested?
David
From: Gavin Ritz
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 11:28 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Some Economists Do Understand the Closed-Loop Nature of the Economy
(Gavin Ritz 2011.08.26.15.12NZT)
[From Rick Marken (2011.08.25.1650)]
Here’s a nice little post from Paul Krugman showing that he sees the aggregate economy as a closed -loop system.
Krugman’s closed-loop view of the economy is clearest in the second paragraph where he says that the economy is its own customer. That is, at the macroeconomic level, the aggregate producer produces goods and services for itself as the aggregate consumer (as in my H. economicus model). In order for this to work efficiently, what is paid by the aggregate producer for production must be returned to itself as demand for what is produced. If much of what is paid by the aggregate producer is hoarded (not returned to the aggregate producer as payment for what was produced) then that reduces demand and you have recession and unemployment (which is what we have now, a recession due to lack of demand).
Since Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been largely dismissed by the powers that be (who want to believe that the recession is a result of government debt), I’m not optimistic about a PCT model of the economy being any more convincing. So I’m bowing out of the economic modeling game. If I’m going to participate in a lost cause it’s going to be in one that I enjoy: testing PCT models of individual behavior.
You give up easily. So what, who cares what the powers that be believe.
So was Stiglitz a Nobel Prize winner too, and he was booed in New Zealand I was so embarrassed to hear that. And because he said we are heading for a fall. He was right.
I think PCT has a good answer to the economic question but, personally the real answers lies much deeper at the core of how matter interacts and in my opinions thats about creation and energy.
This is not what most in this forum is interested in.
On the subject of individual behavior in isolation of other control systems. (I guess this is what you mean from your above statement).
I think thats a lost cause because its not individual behavior thats exciting its the interaction of individual behavior.
I started from an even simpler place a number of years ago by examining how organisms control the distance between self and other.
GR: I agree distance is one aspect of the controlled variable. I think that “interval” in the relativity theory sense is more closer to a description of the issue. It is control of symbols (and the meaning thereof) which is more important. And I think the control of “surplus” lies some of the real issues when we focus on the economy.