Wealth Disparity

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.09.12:00EST)]

Every once in a while, we experience a blinding glimpse of the obvious. Martin relayed one he experienced in Denmark. I had a similars ones on relative economic comparisons in France and Japan and more recently in China. One that had even more impact on me was the obvious sense of PCT and MOL for understanding human behavior in pursuit of their self purpose.

When it comes to being rich or wealthy, it was helpful to my self when I realized that being rich is not measured so much by how much money you have, but by how little you need.

I agree with you. And, you my friend, can help people understand and use MOL to solve their “self” errors at whatever level they exist. That, IMHO, would be a far more beneficial purpose for you which you already know as well as any human in this world. Do you really think taking the time to understand economic theory or applications and develop a model of the USA economic system will be a better use of your SELF?

If you say yes, it’s your decision as a control system. I can accept that. It won’t harm me none. I suspect you would be the first to agree that I might prefer to use my time on other perceptions important to my SELF. That is one of the benefits of being a PCTer that I sense.

In a message dated 12/9/2010 11:23:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, powers_w@FRONTIER.NET writes:

···

What the world needs is not a better economic system, but a bit of MOL.

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1450)]

Bill Powers (2010.12.09.0745 MDT)–

BP: When I was young and innocent, I wished that our world could be set up so
that everyone was guaranteed at least the basic comforts: enough to eat,
a comfortable place to rest and sleep, warmth and protection against wind
and weather, and so on. That way, even those like me without
“competitive” virtues could enjoy life. As you say. Martin, the
need for disposable money would be reduced considerably and the quality
of life would generally improve. It wouldn’t improve (except
cosmetically) for those who already have far more than they can actually
use even with their conspicuous consumption, but who cares about that,
other than they?

Of course for this utopia to exist, people would have to be willing to
pay enough taxes or in some way guarantee contributions enough to make
such a world possible.

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.09.12:00EST)–

I agree with you.

So you must have been rather disappointed by the Republicans holding the middle class and unemployed hostage in order to get a tax deal that keeps tax rates low for those making over $250,000.

BP: What the world needs is not a better economic system, but a bit of MOL.

So, Kenny, how do you feel about that tax deal? (Trying to get at the background thought here to help you go up a level).

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Lewitt Dec 10, 2010 1602 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1450)]

  Bill Powers (2010.12.09.0745 MDT)--
    BP: When I was young and innocent, I wished that our world could

be set up so
that everyone was guaranteed at least the basic comforts: enough
to eat,
a comfortable place to rest and sleep, warmth and protection
against wind
and weather, and so on. That way, even those like me without
“competitive” virtues could enjoy life. As you say. Martin, the
need for disposable money would be reduced considerably and the
quality
of life would generally improve. It wouldn’t improve (except
cosmetically) for those who already have far more than they can
actually
use even with their conspicuous consumption, but who cares about
that,
other than they?

    Of course for this utopia to exist, people would have to be

willing to
pay enough taxes or in some way guarantee contributions enough
to make
such a world possible.

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.09.12:00EST)–

I agree with you.

      So you must have been rather disappointed by the Republicans

holding the middle class and unemployed hostage in order to
get a tax deal that keeps tax rates low for those making over
$250,000.

                  BP: What the world

needs is not a better economic system, but a bit
of MOL.

  So, Kenny, how do you feel about that tax deal? (Trying to get at

the background thought here to help you go up a level).

What would be "up a level" about what you have in mind? Apparently

you intend “up” in some kind of snarky normative sense. Is it
really part of PCT, are you claiming the upper level reference
values are populated with some specific ideological bias about what
kind of economic system is best?

That doesn't sound very scientific.

regards,

    Martin L
···

On 12/10/2010 3:48 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

  Best



  Rick



  --

  Richard S. Marken PhD

  rsmarken@gmail.com

  [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1630)]

Martin Lewitt (Dec 10, 2010 1602 MST)–

Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1450)–

  So, Kenny, how do you feel about that tax deal? (Trying to get at

the background thought here to help you go up a level).

What would be "up a level" about what you have in mind? Apparently

you intend “up” in some kind of snarky normative sense.

Yes, I was being snarky. And for the most low of reasons; I was imitating the way Kenny uses references to MOL in what I see as a snarky, normative sense when I talk about economics. Actually I think I was being snarky (this is my up a level moment) to about Kenny’s agreement with what Bill said in his post, which I read as being all about wishing people were more willing to take care of each other by contributing (in the form of taxes or some other organized approach) to the common good. Kenny (and you) seem to be defending the very win/lose approach to interpersonal interactions that Bill was bemoaning.

Is it

really part of PCT, are you claiming the upper level reference
values are populated with some specific ideological bias about what
kind of economic system is best?

We don’t know for sure what any of the levels are controlling for.

That doesn't sound very scientific.

It sure doesn’t. Good thing we’re not doing it.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com

www.mindreadings.com

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.11)]

My agreement with Bill was about guaranteeing the basic comforts for everyone. Bill is wise enough to provide two means for that utopia: 1) willing to pay enough taxes or 2) some other way.

I happen to prefer 2) for free will contributions. Sources are many apart from government. Here are a few: family, friends, churches, charities, philantropists, good “Samitarians”, etc.

Taxes are not willing, though I always pay mine. A PCTer like you, ought to be the first to recognize and applaud one of the principle ideas in PCT: Bill and I can have the same goal and use varying means to achieve that without error in oneself.

The politics in Washington disgust me. I have no interest in their polititical games. I have already gone up a level as my words indicate and am at peace. It’s the politicians who need to go up a level and figure out how to quit coercing and controlling law abiding citizens.

When you volunteer to go there and start teaching MOL to them, I will come and help. I would think it is time to reorganize the entire progressive income tax system. But, what do I know?

In a message dated 12/10/2010 5:48:55 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, rsmarken@GMAIL.COM writes:

···
BP: When I was young and innocent, I wished that our world could be set up so that everyone was guaranteed at least the basic comforts: enough to eat, a comfortable place to rest and sleep, warmth and protection against wind and weather, and so on. That way, even those like me without "competitive" virtues could enjoy life. As you say. Martin, the need for disposable money would be reduced considerably and the quality of life would generally improve. It wouldn't improve (except cosmetically) for those who already have far more than they can actually use even with their conspicuous consumption, but who cares about that, other than they?

Of course for this utopia to exist, people would have to be willing to pay enough taxes or in some way guarantee contributions enough to make such a world possible.

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.09.12:00EST)–

I agree with you.

So you must have been rather disappointed by the Republicans holding the middle class and unemployed hostage in order to get a tax deal that keeps tax rates low for those making over $250,000.

  BP: What the world needs is not a better economic system, but a bit of MOL.

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1450)]
Bill Powers (2010.12.09.0745 MDT)–

So, Kenny, how do you feel about that tax deal? (Trying to get at the background thought here to help you go up a level).

Best

Rick


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Lewitt Dec 11, 2010 1025 MST]

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.11)]

      My agreement with Bill was about guaranteeing the basic

comforts for everyone. Bill is wise enough to provide two
means for that utopia: 1) willing to pay enough taxes or 2)
some other way.

I prefer being productive, trading and consuming wisely as if each

dollar were a vote for what I was purchasing. I just purchased some
tires for instance and was very pleased that they were rated highly
on the various ratings and that my local small businessman and
people in Indonesia were benefiting from my purchase. Perhaps we
are now lifting middle classes out of poverty in Indonesia like we
did in India and China.

      I happen to prefer 2) for free will contributions.  Sources

are many apart from government. Here are a few: family,
friends, churches, charities, philantropists, good
“Samitarians”, etc.

I prefer productively employing my time and capital, so that it

produces more wealth, knowledge and technology, improving and even
saving lives. I think it was Jesus that said, the poor will always
be with us. I think that will continue to be the case unless we do
more than just feed them.

regards,

    Martin L
···

rsmarken@GMAIL.COM

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.11.1010)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.11)–

My agreement with Bill was about guaranteeing the basic comforts for everyone. Bill is wise enough to provide two means for that utopia: 1) willing to pay enough taxes or 2) some other way.

I happen to prefer 2) for free will contributions. Sources are many apart from government. Here are a few: family, friends, churches, charities, philantropists, good “Samitarians”, etc.

“Free will” is not really a concept in PCT. Autonomy, yes. But that is quite a different thing than “free will”.

KK: Taxes are not willing, though I always pay mine.

Perhaps you are not willing to pay taxes (the lack of willingness suggests an internal conflict) but there are many people who are quite willing, some of them very wealthy (eg. Bill Gales and Warren Buffet). Heck, I’d be a lot more willing to pay taxes if I were a billionaire. Heck, I could get along pretty well on just a couple hundred million;-)

A PCTer like you, ought to be the first to recognize and applaud one of the principle ideas in PCT: Bill and I can have the same goal and use varying means to achieve that without error in oneself.

I don’t think you understand that “principle” yourself. The fact that varying means are used to achieve a goal (bring a perception to a reference) doesn’t mean that people are free to vary the means in any way they want in order to to achieve a goal. It means that we are not free to vary the means in any way we want. Once you have selected a goal (such as keeping the cursor on target in a tracking task) the means used to achieve that goal (mouse movements in the tracking task) must necessarily be such as to bring the cursor to the target while resisting disturbances to the goal perception.

The PCT “principle” you describe as varying means to achieve a goal is actually one of the two basic equations of PCT:

qo = ~(r - d).

Once the reference (goal) is selected, the means (qo) used to achieve the goal are determined by the goal itself (r) and disturbances to the controlled variable (d). Clearly there is nothing “free” about variations in qo once you have the goal of keeping p = r.

The politics in Washington disgust me. I have no interest in their polititical games. I have already gone up a level as my words indicate and am at peace. It’s the politicians who need to go up a level and figure out how to quit coercing and controlling law abiding citizens.

I am disgusted by the politics in Washington as well, but my disgust is focused on only one political group: Republicans and a few “blue dog” Democrats. I don’t understand why these people even went into government. They seem to have no concept of a society where people cooperate to make things better for everyone. Greed and self-interest – freedom from “coercion” – seems to be the only thing these people care about. The fact that children are living in poverty, that people are unemployed through no fault of their own, that wages are not nearly adequate to allow people to control their own destiny, that millions can’t afford health insurance, that our common infrastructure is deteriorating, that we need to develop alternative energy sources, that we have to stop polluting our environment, that there are enough nuclear weapons in the world to destroy it 100 times over, these things seem to matter not a whit to these people. All they seem to care about is insuring that people who are wealthy beyond conception pay as little taxes as possible, contributing as little as possible to the common good. These “grown-ups” are like the kids in third grade who won’t share their toys (reminds me of a great cartoon I once saw; one kid says to the other “I’d give you half the cookie but I’m afraid it would set up a cycle of dependence”).

When you volunteer to go there and start teaching MOL to them, I will come and help. I would think it is time to reorganize the entire progressive income tax system. But, what do I know?

I personally don’t think MOL is the answer. I think the answer is a leader who can convincingly articulate a system concept that, when adopted as a goal by a majority in the society, ends up making the society better for everyone. Leaders like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt (what is it about wealthy descendants of Dutch extraction?). Reagan was also very good at articulating a system concept; unfortunately it is one that has made the society worse for most everyone except the very wealthy. There is a nice example of TR articulating what I think is a very good system concept in a speech he gave back in 1910 (arguing, among other things, for progressive taxation).

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

As I said, some Republicans used to be pretty good chaps. Alas, no more.

Best

Rick

···


Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Bill Powers (2010.l2.11.1805 MDT)]

Rick Marken (2010.12.11.1010) –

RM: I don’t think you understand
that “principle” yourself. The fact that varying means are used
to achieve a goal (bring a perception to a reference) doesn’t mean that
people are free to vary the means in any way they want in order to to
achieve a goal. It means that we are not free to vary the means in
any way we want. Once you have selected a goal (such as keeping the
cursor on target in a tracking task) the means used to achieve that goal
(mouse movements in the tracking task) must necessarily be such as to
bring the cursor to the target while resisting disturbances to the goal
perception.

BP: Brilliant. This is precisely where this discussion needed to start
some time ago. We are free in the physical sense to produce any outputs
we wish, but not if we intend to achieve a particular reference
condition. With that condition added, that we wish the effort to succeed,
we have to take into account the properties of the environment (which
includes other people) either through study and analysis, or do it the
hard way by thrashing around randomly until we stop failing or die.
Reorganizing.

The question is not how we can organize society to work better, but how
we can find out why people keep trying and failing – not all the time
but still too often – to have a good life. In fact I think that all
societies have reorganized over and over and are still reorganizing,
trying to find out how to manage things better.

Wealth disparity, when you see it this way, is not the problem; it’s a
symptom. What is it a symptom of? When we can answer that question, we
will be able to cure whatever is wrong with being too wealthy, and solve
it not just for some of the people but for all of them, including the
ones who are so evidently not solving whatever problem they think having
more wealth will solve. That’s how one thinks at the system concept
level. Not just what I want, but what is good for all of us including
me.

We have to find out how this system works, and at present nobody knows.
Economists both professional and amateur (the latter found under every
second rock) are looking at little pieces of a herd of elephants and are
basically clueless bluffers. They are trying and failing, too.
Reorganizing. Trying out random ideas that pop into their heads like huge
insights and mean nothing at all.

What we need is a serious methodical attack on economics informed by
facts and experiments and PCT. Isn’t that supposed to be where
reorganization gets us? Not just to endless reorganization, but to some
systematic way of getting where we want to go. We need an approach of the
kind that leads to saying “Well hello, what have we here? Could it
be, dare I ask, a Reliable Observation? A Principle? An analysis of an
actual System? Even – gasp – a WORKING MODEL?”

Best,

Bill P.

···

The PCT “principle”
you describe as varying means to
achieve a goal is actually one of the two basic equations of PCT:

qo = ~(r - d).

Once the reference (goal) is selected, the means (qo) used to achieve the
goal are determined by the goal itself (r) and disturbances to the
controlled variable (d). Clearly there is nothing “free” about
variations in qo once you have the goal of keeping p = r.
The politics in Washington disgust me. I have no interest in
their polititical games. I have already gone up a level as my words
indicate and am at peace. It’s the politicians who need to go up a
level and figure out how to quit coercing and controlling law abiding
citizens.

I am disgusted by the politics in Washington as well, but my disgust is
focused on only one political group: Republicans and a few “blue
dog” Democrats. I don’t understand why these people even went into
government. They seem to have no concept of a society where people
cooperate to make things better for everyone. Greed and self-interest –
freedom from “coercion” – seems to be the only thing these
people care about. The fact that children are living in poverty, that
people are unemployed through no fault of their own, that wages are not
nearly adequate to allow people to control their own destiny, that
millions can’t afford health insurance, that our common infrastructure is
deteriorating, that we need to develop alternative energy sources, that
we have to stop polluting our environment, that there are enough nuclear
weapons in the world to destroy it 100 times over, these things seem to
matter not a whit to these people. All they seem to care about is
insuring that people who are wealthy beyond conception pay as little
taxes as possible, contributing as little as possible to the common good.
These “grown-ups” are like the kids in third grade who won’t
share their toys (reminds me of a great cartoon I once saw; one kid says
to the other “I’d give you half the cookie but I’m afraid it would
set up a cycle of dependence”).
When you volunteer to go there and start teaching MOL to them, I will
come and help. I would think it is time to reorganize the entire
progressive income tax system. But, what do I know?

I personally don’t think MOL is the answer. I think the answer is a
leader who can convincingly articulate a system concept that, when
adopted as a goal by a majority in the society, ends up making the
society better for everyone. Leaders like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt
(what is it about wealthy descendants of Dutch extraction?). Reagan was
also very good at articulating a system concept; unfortunately it is one
that has made the society worse for most everyone except the very
wealthy. There is a nice example of TR articulating what I think is a
very good system concept in a speech he gave back in 1910 (arguing, among
other things, for progressive taxation).


http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501

As I said, some Republicans used to be pretty good chaps. Alas, no
more.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD

rsmarken@gmail.com


www.mindreadings.com

[Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 0811 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.11.1010)]
I am disgusted by the politics in Washington as well, but
my disgust is focused on only one political group: Republicans
and a few “blue dog” Democrats. I don’t understand why these
people even went into government. They seem to have no concept
of a society where people cooperate to make things better for
everyone.

Markets, limited liability corporations, partnerships, a preference

for low transaction and information costs including low taxation and
freedom of speech that applies to commercial speech, support for
freedom of association including cooperatives, churches and tax
exempt charities., reduced regulatory barriers to cooperation such
as licensing, inspections, etc. Free trade agreements.

No concept of cooperation?
      Greed and self-interest -- freedom from "coercion" -- seems

to be the only thing these people care about.

Hardly the "only thing", but coercion does seem to be the antithesis

of “cooperation”.

      The fact that children are living in poverty, that people

are unemployed through no fault of their own, that wages are
not nearly adequate to allow people to control their own
destiny, that millions can’t afford health insurance, that our
common infrastructure is deteriorating, that we need to
develop alternative energy sources, that we have to stop
polluting our environment, that there are enough nuclear
weapons in the world to destroy it 100 times over, these
things seem to matter not a whit to these people.

It was the Republicans that tried to regulate and reform the

Government Sponsored Enterprises, FANNIE and FREDDIE, and reducing
the leverage favoring double taxation of equity financing, that
distorted and destabilized the markets. Don’t tell us they don’t
care about people unemployed through no fault of their own.

It is the republicans that opposed the diversion of the airline and

gasoline taxes to other uses that the infrastructure they were
supposed to support, so who doesn’t care about infrastructure?
Principled Republicans (conservatives and libertarians) firmly
support “use taxes” being applied to their “uses” and not diverted
to all kinds of social engineering.

When the need to develop alternative energy sources arises,

Republicans will be there, just as they are when there is a need to
develop conventional energy sources. It would seem the actual human
need is for energy sources, how can you in good faith single out
Republicans for criticism on that?

It appears to be the Republicans that think that enough nuclear

weapons to destroy the world 100 times over is enough, noone is
opposing nuclear proliferation in Libya, Iraq, Iran and N. Korea
more.

      All they seem to care about is insuring that people who are

wealthy beyond conception pay as little taxes as possible,
contributing as little as possible to the common good. These
“grown-ups” are like the kids in third grade who won’t share
their toys (reminds me of a great cartoon I once saw; one kid
says to the other “I’d give you half the cookie but I’m afraid
it would set up a cycle of dependence”).

The wealth in a market system usually correlates with how much has

been contributed to the common good, unless there have been
significant distortions in the markets.

regards,

    Martin L
···

On 12/11/2010 11:12 AM, Richard Marken wrote:

Best

  Rick



  --

  Richard S. Marken PhD

  rsmarken@gmail.com

  [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

[Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 0939 MST]

[From Bill Powers (2010.l2.11.1805 MDT)]

  Rick Marken (2010.12.11.1010) --



  The question is not how we can organize society to work better,

but how
we can find out why people keep trying and failing – not all the
time
but still too often – to have a good life. In fact I think that
all
societies have reorganized over and over and are still
reorganizing,
trying to find out how to manage things better.

The market is an emergent self-organizing system.
  Wealth disparity, when you see it this way, is not the problem;

it’s a
symptom. What is it a symptom of? When we can answer that
question, we
will be able to cure whatever is wrong with being too wealthy, and
solve
it not just for some of the people but for all of them, including
the
ones who are so evidently not solving whatever problem they think
having
more wealth will solve. That’s how one thinks at the system
concept
level. Not just what I want, but what is good for all of us
including
me.

  We have to find out how this system works, and at present nobody

knows.
Economists both professional and amateur (the latter found under
every
second rock) are looking at little pieces of a herd of elephants
and are
basically clueless bluffers. They are trying and failing, too.
Reorganizing. Trying out random ideas that pop into their heads
like huge
insights and mean nothing at all.

I agree, too much attempts at reorganizing has been done, by people

who obviously don’t understand what they are doing to the system.
Whatever is wrong with being “too wealthy”? Perhaps it is a
non-problem, like being too productive, too good at managing
resources, too good at meeting the demands and needs of others.

  What we need is a serious methodical attack on economics informed

by
facts and experiments and PCT. Isn’t that supposed to be where
reorganization gets us? Not just to endless reorganization, but to
some
systematic way of getting where we want to go. We need an approach
of the
kind that leads to saying “Well hello, what have we here? Could it
be, dare I ask, a Reliable Observation? A Principle? An analysis
of an
actual System? Even – gasp – a WORKING MODEL?”

Hopefully PCT can contribute something, presumably from the bottom

up at the micro-economics level. Surely an attack on economics
should succeed academically before one proceeds to an attack on the
economy itself. Current theory about leverage risk, information and
transaction costs indicate that past and continuing attacks on the
economy have been counter productive. I doubt PCT will reverse the
time won understanding the leverage, speculation, and barriers to
cooperation like protectionism are ultimately counterproductive.

regards,

    Martin L
···

On 12/11/2010 6:43 PM, Bill Powers wrote:

  Best,



  Bill P.
    The PCT "principle"

you describe as varying
means to
achieve a goal is actually one of the two basic equations of
PCT:

      qo = ~(r - d).



    Once the reference (goal) is selected, the means (qo) used to

achieve the
goal are determined by the goal itself (r) and disturbances to
the
controlled variable (d). Clearly there is nothing “free” about
variations in qo once you have the goal of keeping p = r.

          The politics in

Washington disgust me. I have no interest in
their polititical games. I have already gone up a level
as my words
indicate and am at peace. It’s the politicians who need
to go up a
level and figure out how to quit coercing and controlling
law abiding
citizens.

    I am disgusted by the politics in Washington as well, but my

disgust is
focused on only one political group: Republicans and a few “blue
dog” Democrats. I don’t understand why these people even went
into
government. They seem to have no concept of a society where
people
cooperate to make things better for everyone. Greed and
self-interest –
freedom from “coercion” – seems to be the only thing these
people care about. The fact that children are living in poverty,
that
people are unemployed through no fault of their own, that wages
are not
nearly adequate to allow people to control their own destiny,
that
millions can’t afford health insurance, that our common
infrastructure is
deteriorating, that we need to develop alternative energy
sources, that
we have to stop polluting our environment, that there are enough
nuclear
weapons in the world to destroy it 100 times over, these things
seem to
matter not a whit to these people. All they seem to care about
is
insuring that people who are wealthy beyond conception pay as
little
taxes as possible, contributing as little as possible to the
common good.
These “grown-ups” are like the kids in third grade who won’t
share their toys (reminds me of a great cartoon I once saw; one
kid says
to the other “I’d give you half the cookie but I’m afraid it
would
set up a cycle of dependence”).

          When you volunteer

to go there and start teaching MOL to them, I will
come and help. I would think it is time to reorganize the
entire
progressive income tax system. But, what do I know?

    I personally don't think MOL is the answer. I think the answer

is a
leader who can convincingly articulate a system concept that,
when
adopted as a goal by a majority in the society, ends up making
the
society better for everyone. Leaders like Teddy and Franklin
Roosevelt
(what is it about wealthy descendants of Dutch extraction?).
Reagan was
also very good at articulating a system concept; unfortunately
it is one
that has made the society worse for most everyone except the
very
wealthy. There is a nice example of TR articulating what I think
is a
very good system concept in a speech he gave back in 1910
(arguing, among
other things, for progressive taxation).

    [

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=501)

    As I said, some Republicans used to be pretty good chaps. Alas,

no
more.

    Best



    Rick



    --

    Richard S. Marken PhD

    rsmarken@gmail.com

    [
      www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com/)

[Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 1020 MST]

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1630)]

        Martin Lewitt (Dec 10,

2010 1602 MST)–

Rick Marken (2010.12.10.1450)–

              So, Kenny, how do you feel about that tax deal?

(Trying to get at the background thought here to help
you go up a level).

        What would be "up a level" about what you have in mind?

Apparently you intend “up” in some kind of snarky normative
sense.

      Yes, I was being snarky. And for the most low of reasons; I

was imitating the way Kenny uses references to MOL in what I
see as a snarky, normative sense when I talk about economics.
Actually I think I was being snarky (this is my up a level
moment) to about Kenny’s agreement with what Bill said in his
post, which I read as being all about wishing people were more
willing to take care of each other by contributing (in the
form of taxes or some other organized approach) to the common
good. Kenny (and you) seem to be defending the very win/lose
approach to interpersonal interactions that Bill was
bemoaning.

        Is it really part of

PCT, are you claiming the upper level reference values are
populated with some specific ideological bias about what
kind of economic system is best?

      We don't know for sure what _any_ of the levels are

controlling for.

        That doesn't sound very scientific.
  It sure doesn't. Good thing we're not doing it.
Refreshing.

Thanx,

   Martin L
···

On 12/10/2010 5:30 PM, Richard Marken wrote:

  Best



  Rick



  --

  Richard S. Marken PhD

  rsmarken@gmail.com

  [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.12.1120 M<DT)]

Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 0939 MST –

The market is an emergent
self-organizing system.

That doesn’t say much – all systems with an organization that changes
over time without external direction are self-organizing. An abandoned
car in a junkyard is gradually organizing itself into a useful pile of
iron oxide, in case anyone like a paint manufacturer needs some.

I agree, too much attempts at
reorganizing has been done, by people who obviously don’t understand what
they are doing to the system.

Is that a way of saying that you obviously do?

Whatever is wrong with being
“too wealthy”? Perhaps it is a non-problem, like being
too productive, too good at managing resources, too good at meeting the
demands and needs of others.

If you have to say “perhaps” then you don’t know, either. I
didn’t say there is anything wrong with being too wealthy. I just said
that a person who can’t stop trying to get more wealthy is obviously not
being satisfied by the results he is getting; otherwise he could stop
trying so hard. A goal of “more” is pathological. We won’t know
if there is anything wrong in general with too many people being too
wealthy until we have a working model that doesn’t depend only on
interesting-sounding words. I was thinking that the presence of people so
wealthy that they control, for their personal use, tens or hundreds of
times more buying power than most other individuals control is a symptom
of something. It’s OK for someone with the required training to manage
large amounts of money to accomplish large projects that are needed or
wanted, but that doesn’t explain why individuals seek amounts of
personal wealth that are grossly disproportionate to their
knowlege and skill.

Why do surgeons, for example, demand many thousands of dollars for
putting in an occasional eight-hour day of doing what they were taught to
do? Is it just the highwayman’s way of persuasion (your money or your
life)?

I remind you that a subcontractor who produces twice as many hubcaps as
needed is being too productive. You can have too much of almost
anything.

Hopefully PCT can contribute
something, presumably from the bottom up at the micro-economics
level. Surely an attack on economics should succeed academically
before one proceeds to an attack on the economy itself.

Couldn’t agree more. It’s simply irresponsible to fiddle with the economy
without a model to help arrive at a correct understanding of what is
going on. That’s been my beef for a long time. All this empty posturing
and pronouncing is sound and fury signifying nothing. And it’s not so
much PCT that is needed as a simple understanding of how one goes about
understanding a complex system like a color television set. That’s the
kind of understanding that led to PCT.

Current theory about
leverage risk, information and transaction costs indicate that past and
continuing attacks on the economy have been counter
productive.

No, they don’t. They’re interpreted that way by people in whose interest
it is to conclude that they have been counterproductive and should be
stopped. Even if they’re right, that’s no basis for drawing serious
conclusions, and is not very likely to be right anyway. It’s too
obviously biased.

I doubt PCT will reverse the
time won understanding the leverage, speculation, and barriers to
cooperation like protectionism are ultimately
counterproductive.

That is not understanding, it’s propaganda – until you have a way
independent of anyone’s private interest to show why it’s
counterproductive. Understandings based on nothing more than the time
they have existed are no more useful than random guesses.

I’m working up gradually (very) to proposing that all the people griping
about the economy make use of Google Docs to construct the design of a
working model of the economy. Once we have the design the programming
will be easy. Google Docs offers an interesting change from the way
arguments are conducted on CSGnet. Everybody gets to edit everything
until the document satisfies everyone. It sounds like chaos, but if there
is a committment to a final useful document, it’s interesting how the
egos calm down and mutual respect and support grow. I believe it is
actually possible to arrive at a model that is reasonably satisfactory to
everyone, if that is the intent. When I can find the time, I’ll get it
started. Or someone else could.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.12.1130)]

Bill Powers (2010.l2.11.1805 MDT)--

Rick Marken (2010.12.11.1010) --

RM: Once you have selected a goal (such as keeping the
cursor on target in a tracking task) the means used to achieve that goal
(mouse movements in the tracking task) must _necessarily_ be such as to
bring the cursor to the target while resisting disturbances to the goal
perception.

BP: Brilliant.

If I weren't so humble this could go to my head.

In fact I think that all societies have reorganized over and over and are
still reorganizing, trying to find out how to manage things better.

Yes, I realized that -- but didn't mention it-- when I made my comment
above. Kenny was implying that his goals for society were the same as
yours, but that he just preferred using different means to achieve it.
My comment was pointing out that if you and Kenny really had the same
goals for society you both would have to use precisely the same means,
varying them as necessary, to produce the intended result. But what I
realized is that, in this case, we don't really know what the proper
means are or how to vary them in order to produce a the desired
society. It's like not knowing that the mouse is the means of
controlling the cursor and moving it in a direction opposite to the
effects of the disturbance is the way to vary it in order to produce
the desired result (cursor on target). So the only way to control for
the society that is ostensibly the one desired by both you and Kenny
would be via reorganization.

But I don't think it has to be e. coli reorganization in the sense
that when there is error (discrepancy between the actual and reference
direction of society) and a "tumble" (change of policy) occurs the new
the new policy (or "means") does not have to be selected randomly form
all alternative "means".

But I think that, unlike e. coli, we do have memory of the results
that were associated with (not necessarily caused by) past "means"
.So, unlike e. coli, the selection of the "means" for achieving the
desired society does not have to be completely random but, rather, can
be biased to those means that seem to have been successful in the
past. That doesn't guarantee that those means will be successful this
time. But using information about the past should certainly make the
reorganization process a bit more efficient. Of course, the
reorganization process requires that the members of society constantly
monitor the states of the social variables that are under control and
change means again ("tumble") as soon as it's clear that these
variables are starting to go in the wrong direction (away from the
reference).

An example of how this process of "informed" e. coli reorganization
seems to work can be illustrated by the example of health care. I
think most people would agree that a desired goal for a society is
that it keep it's entire population as healthy as possible for as
little cost as possible. Many possible "means" have been tried (or
suggested) to achieve these results. But the data show overwhelmingly
that the best health outcomes for the most people at the least cost is
provided by a "universal" single payer type health care system where
everyone in the society contributes to the insurance pool and everyone
is eligible for some standard of care when necessary. There are many
versions of this "means" of achieving quality cost effective care,
some better than others in certain ways, but in general some version
of the single payer means is clearly the best.

Most industrial democracies, learning from the experience of each
other, "tumbled" to some version of universal health care by the mid
1900s and all those who did so are generally experiencing higher
quality care at lower cost than countries that didn't. Yet one
industrial democracy, the US, won't try universal health care, except
for the elderly). Listening to Kenny and Martin L. I think I now know
why the US didn't while every other industrial democracy did go for
single payer.. I think it's because in the US, an influential portion
of the population is controlling for what I would call a particular
means of achieving desired social goals rather than for the social
goals themselves.

I thought of this when I re-read Kenny's reply to me:

My agreement with Bill was about guaranteeing the basic comforts for
everyone. Bill is wise enough to provide two means for that utopia:
1) willing to pay enough taxes or 2) some other way.

I happen to prefer 2) for free will contributions. Sources are many apart
from government.

I think this shows that Kenny is not really controlling for is the
higher level goal of "guaranteeing the basic comforts for everyone"
but, rather, for the goal of being "free" to do as he pleases (such as
giving contributions to the needy or not, as he sees fit). Once that
goal is selected -- a goal for the means-- then there is not way to
vary the means to achieve the higher level goal of "guaranteeing the
basic comforts for everyone". It's like trying to control for keeping
the cursor on target when you have a specific goal for where the mouse
should be.

What we need is a serious methodical attack on economics informed by facts
and experiments and PCT.

Of course. But I don't think all the facts, experiments and PCT
knowledge about economics will do much to move society closer to your
(and my) references if a majority of people care more about
controlling for the nature of the policies themselves than about their
consequences. For example, we already know, as a fact, that single
payer health care systems produce better outcomes at less cost than
other existing health care systems. If one has the social goal of
having all people get the best care possible at the least cost then
the policy direction (the means to achieve this) is straight forward;
some version of single payer. But this policy is difficult to
implement in the US because an influential segment of the population
are controlling for something they call "freedom" and single payer is
a disturbance to that perception; it is seen as "coercion": government
control of health care.

I'm all for modeling and understanding how the economy works (I read
you proposal in your latest post and I'd be happy to participate in
the modeling exercise on Google docs). But I don't agree that people
should just sit on their hands and do nothing about the economy until
we have a working model. We have lots of living, breathing, caring
people living in this world now -- many of them children -- many of
whom are living (unnecessarily, I think) in very desperate, hopeless
situations. And we have tons of economic data -- facts -- that can at
least inform our attempts to make things better (if we want to make
things better). So, yes, of course, we should do the modeling and get
a better understanding of the economy. But to just do nothing about
the unnecessary cruelties that people have to deal with until we have
a scientifically valid model of the economy just seems to me to be
unconscionable.

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com

[From Dag Forssell (2010.12.12.1200 PDT)]

I do not follow this discussion, but think that you all may enjoy this video a friend just forwarded to me. All about wealth and health disparity.

http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

Best, Dag

[From Dag Forssell (2010.12.12.1200 PDT)]

I do not follow this discussion, but think that you all may enjoy this
video a friend just forwarded to me. All about wealth and health
disparity.


http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

Best, Dag

[From Fred Nickols (2010.12.12.1414 MST]

Thanks for this, Dag. Very interesting. I’ve seen a presentation by this fellow before. He doesn’t adhere to all display rules (e.g., proportions) but he sure makes his points.

Fred Nickols

···

From: Control Systems Group Network (CSGnet) [mailto:CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU] On Behalf Of Dag Forssell
Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:01 PM
To: CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU
Subject: Re: Wealth Disparity

[From Dag Forssell (2010.12.12.1200 PDT)]

I do not follow this discussion, but think that you all may enjoy this video a friend just forwarded to me. All about wealth and health disparity.

http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

Best, Dag

[Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 1356 MST]

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.12.1120 M<DT)]

  Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 0939 MST --
    The market is an

emergent
self-organizing system.

  That doesn't say much -- all systems with an organization that

changes
over time without external direction are self-organizing. An
abandoned
car in a junkyard is gradually organizing itself into a useful
pile of
iron oxide, in case anyone like a paint manufacturer needs some.

    I agree, too much

attempts at
reorganizing has been done, by people who obviously don’t
understand what
they are doing to the system.

  Is that a way of saying that you obviously do?
No, it isn't saying that, and I also would not make a blanket

statement that all reorganizing has been without understanding.

    Whatever is wrong

with being
“too wealthy”? Perhaps it is a non-problem, like being
too productive, too good at managing resources, too good at
meeting the
demands and needs of others.

  If you have to say "perhaps" then you don't know, either. I

didn’t say there is anything wrong with being too wealthy. I just
said
that a person who can’t stop trying to get more wealthy is
obviously not
being satisfied by the results he is getting; otherwise he could
stop
trying so hard.

It is possible to control for a  process rather than just results,

some reference values may not be static end points. Or there may be
values higher than retirement and just becoming a consumer. If I
had accumulated wealth, well, I just wouldn’t accumulate it, I would
expect it to be actively employed in the economy and not just
sitting in a vault. Perhaps, it is a reference value from western
Judeo/Christian culture, a responsibility to be a good steward of
the resources under one’s control. In my case, there isn’t enough
wealth in the world to satisfy me yet, we haven’t eliminated the
scourges of cancer, atherosclerosis or aging yet. There are still
near earth objects to be found that may pose an existential threat,
and there is still a lot I don’t know that I am curious about.

  A goal of "more" is pathological. We won't know

if there is anything wrong in general with too many people being
too
wealthy until we have a working model that doesn’t depend only on
interesting-sounding words. I was thinking that the presence of
people so
wealthy that they control, for their personal use, tens or
hundreds of
times more buying power than most other individuals control is a
symptom
of something. It’s OK for someone with the required training to
manage
large amounts of money to accomplish large projects that are
needed or
wanted, but that doesn’t explain why individuals seek amounts of
personal wealth that are grossly disproportionate to their
knowlege and skill.

  Why do surgeons, for example, demand many thousands of dollars for

putting in an occasional eight-hour day of doing what they were
taught to
do? Is it just the highwayman’s way of persuasion (your money or
your
life)?

Being a surgeon must have some rewards, after all being a forest

service lookout is a much more enjoyable profession. Doctors don’t
all have the same surgical skill, and there is high demand for
surgeons with the highest surgical skill. Government also has
restricted access to the practice of the surgical profession,
decreasing supply. Ask yourself, why would you be willing to pay
more for a better surgeon? Perhaps you wouldn’t for a routine
procedure. The government may have prevented or discouraged many
from becoming surgeons with its restrictions that would have been up
to the task of meeting most surgical needs.

  I remind you that a subcontractor who produces twice as many

hubcaps as
needed is being too productive. You can have too much of almost
anything.

That subcontractor would find that such a practice would be

unsustainable unless it was externally subsidized.

    Hopefully PCT can

contribute
something, presumably from the bottom up at the micro-economics
level. Surely an attack on economics should succeed
academically
before one proceeds to an attack on the economy itself.

  Couldn't agree more. It's simply irresponsible to fiddle with the

economy
without a model to help arrive at a correct understanding of what
is
going on. That’s been my beef for a long time. All this empty
posturing
and pronouncing is sound and fury signifying nothing. And it’s not
so
much PCT that is needed as a simple understanding of how one goes
about
understanding a complex system like a color television set. That’s
the
kind of understanding that led to PCT.

    Current theory

about
leverage risk, information and transaction costs indicate that
past and
continuing attacks on the economy have been counter
productive.

  No, they don't. They're interpreted that way by people in whose

interest
it is to conclude that they have been counterproductive and should
be
stopped. Even if they’re right, that’s no basis for drawing
serious
conclusions, and is not very likely to be right anyway. It’s too
obviously biased.

I don't see how you justify total denial of economic knowledge. 

Denial of the relationships between debt and bankruptcy, between
leverage and financial risk, the greater inflexibility of debt
financing, the greater pricing power associated with monopolies,
banks with greater reserves are less likely to fail, people with
more assets are less likely to default on loans and margin accounts,
people with money are better sales prospects for your goods and
services that people without money, would all be disingenuous of
you.

    I doubt PCT will

reverse the
time won understanding the leverage, speculation, and barriers
to
cooperation like protectionism are ultimately
counterproductive.

  That is not understanding, it's propaganda -- until you have a way

independent of anyone’s private interest to show why it’s
counterproductive. Understandings based on nothing more than the
time
they have existed are no more useful than random guesses.

There are price differentials between the global price and the price

of goods protected by tariffs, in the past for textiles and current
for ethanol. Some would suggest that this is of public interest
although private interests may vary. If you want to purchase
ethanol or or wanted to purchase clothing it is not a random guess.

  I'm working up gradually (very) to proposing that all the people

griping
about the economy make use of Google Docs to construct the design
of a
working model of the economy. Once we have the design the
programming
will be easy. Google Docs offers an interesting change from the
way
arguments are conducted on CSGnet. Everybody gets to edit
everything
until the document satisfies everyone. It sounds like chaos, but
if there
is a committment to a final useful document, it’s interesting how
the
egos calm down and mutual respect and support grow. I believe it
is
actually possible to arrive at a model that is reasonably
satisfactory to
everyone, if that is the intent. When I can find the time, I’ll
get it
started. Or someone else could.

It sounds to much like wikipedia, which has real problems on

controversial topics and on non-controversial topics produces
valuable labors of love. I think the model would have to come first
and prove itself before there would be agreement on a controversial
topic. Witness your own insistence on total denial of economic
knowledge, that would seem to doom the project from the start.

regards,

    Martin L
···

On 12/12/2010 12:00 PM, Bill Powers wrote:

  Best,



  Bill P.

[From Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.12)]

Well, well, well. This guy must be a republican!

It would seem that average income and life span in a country are highly related. There is no mention of the disparity in income or a single payer government health system being important factors in extending life span. There must be more to the story. It must be an illusion. I am sure Rick can explain it. I am holding my breath. Now, don’t get snarky, Rick, and put me to the brink. :sunglasses:

In a message dated 12/12/2010 3:01:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, csgarchive@PCTRESOURCES.COM writes:

···

[From Dag Forssell (2010.12.12.1200 PDT)]

I do not follow this discussion, but think that you all may enjoy this video a friend just forwarded to me. All about wealth and health disparity.

http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm

Best, Dag

[From Bill Powers (2010.12.12.1715 MDT)]

Martin Lewitt Dec 12, 2010 1356 MST –

No, it isn’t saying that, and I
also would not make a blanket statement that all reorganizing has been
without understanding.

Not in the ordinary-language meaning of the term, I agree, but as a
technical term of PCT, reorganization means random trial and error, and
never anything else. Reorganation in PCT is never intelligent and
involves no understanding. It’s like the word control. In ordinary
language control has half a dozen meanings, but the phenomenon called
control in PCT always has exactly one meaning. It never means affect,
influence, determine, limit, curb, or restrain. Its exact definition is
contained in a description of the way a negative feedback control system
works, and is approximated in ordinary language by saying that if A
“controls” B (statically or dynamically), then for anything
tending to change the static or dybnamic state of B, A changes its
influence on B so as to oppose the perturbation of B. That is what
negative feedback control systems do. Reorganization has a similar exact
definition of its own, and can be approximately described in ordinary
language. So yes, all reorganization has been without understanding – if
you’re speaking in the exact technical vocabulary of PCT.

Whatever is wrong with being
“too wealthy”? Perhaps it is a non-problem, like being
too productive, too good at managing resources, too good at meeting the
demands and needs of others.

If you have to say “perhaps” then you don’t know, either. I
didn’t say there is anything wrong with being too wealthy. I just said
that a person who can’t stop trying to get more wealthy is obviously not
being satisfied by the results he is getting; otherwise he could stop
trying so hard.

It is possible to control for a process rather than just results,
some reference values may not be static end points.

Yes, and sometimes that is appropriate. But as in lots of problems in
physics and engineering, you can judge appropriateness by looking at
boundary conditions. A person whose goal is to accumulate more money is
limited only by the amount of money in existence (including credit, of
course). When that limit is reached, and probably long before, the
economy will come to a halt and the money will become worthless. So this
goal is self-canceling: achieving it means it has failed.

Anyway, one has to ask why a person would want to spend a whole adult
life doing nothing but accumulating more money for himself or herself. As
they say, there’s no accounting for tastes, but from where I sit it’s a
pretty wierd taste and my idea of terminal boredom.

So –

It’s time to back up and ask myself what is going on here. Obviously none
of my clever rejoinders or propositions is going to budge you one inch
and both of us know it. If I think of a crushing argument that destroys
your whole position, you will just go away for a while and return with a
better one that destroys my whole position. It is not your intention to
back down on any of these ideas. Or mine. This is known as trench
warfare, aka academia. It will end when at least one of us is dead. It’s
been tried, and proved pretty pointless.

Suppose we were to decide to do this another way. What if we just wiped
the slate clean and started over with a simple question: how does an
economy work? This has all been done before, but never starting with PCT
and never using the facilities in a desktop computer. We can try to
second-guess Adam Smith and start all over from scratch.

Now now, though. I have too many irons in the fire and my hammer arm is
getting tired. Think about it for a while. Maybe you can launch the
project, by writing a piece called “In the beginning was the
Transaction …”. Chapter 1 of Economics for the 21st
Century.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Rick Marken (2010.12.12.1800)]

Kenny Kitzke (2010.12.12)--

Well, well, well.� This guy must be a republican!

You mean the guy in video Dag posted. Why would you say that?

It would seem that average income and life span in a country are highly
related.

And that comes as a surprise to you? Anyway, what is also interesting
is not just that the wealth/lifespan slopes up to the right. Over time
(from 1948 to the present) the slope decreases and the intercept
increases. Can you figure out what that implies Kenny?

There is no mention of the disparity in income or a single payer
government health system being important factors in extending life span.

Gee Kenny, you mist have had your Fox News filters on. It's true he
didn't talk about single payer (though if he did he could have shown
that the countries with points in the far upper right all have single
payer systems; but why rub it in). But he certainly did talk about the
effects of wealth disparity _within a country_ on lifespan. He used
the example of China, which has moved up (lifespace) and to the right
(wealth) since 1948. He he did a neat little demo by taking a little
blip out of the big China point representing a wealthy province and
showed that this province is way up (in lifespan) and to the right
(wealthy, how appropriate;-) compared to the rest of China; then he
took another blip from China, representing a poor province, and showed
that this province is way down (in lifespan) and to the left (poorer)
compared to the rest of China. The same could be done, though less
dramatically, in the US. He couldn't do that kind of within country
wealth disparity effect for any single payer country (like Sweden) so
he didn't.

There must be more to the story.� It must be an illusion.� I am sure Rick
can explain it.

See above. The illusion simply results from wearing your reactionary
glasses. Facts have an uncannily liberal bias'-)

I am holding my breath.� Now, don't get snarky, Rick,�and
put me to the brink. :sunglasses:

It's really, really hard not to. But I won't. So just keep holding
your breath;-)

Best

Rick

···

--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com