Computing a Price Index Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Exploring Complex Adaptive Conrol Systems » The Club Pub and Grill (What's cooking now) » Application » Economics » Computing a Price Index « Previous Next »

  Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post
Archive through March 06, 2004Bill Williams03-06-04  11:48 pm
  Start New Thread        

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Taylor
Eminence Grise
Username: Mmt

Post Number: 207
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 08, 2004 - 09:09 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,

You have often said that economists don't know how to compute a price-level index, and you also have said that it is a crucial concept ("But, the crucial problem regarding dimensions in economics is how to construct a price level index.")

If it is indeed a crucial problem, then one would think that the concept would be easy to state, even if the index itself might be hard to determine. But even you have not explicitly described the meaning of the term--at least not so far as I can remember.

On the other hand, you said above (a month ago), It seems to me that price indexes serve as meters that describe the rate and direction that typical bargins concerning wages and purchases, sales and expenses are moving. And you said And, there is also the question in macro-economics of how much currency to provide either through government printing of money and other money type financial assests, and bank loans. If too much money is provided it is expected that prices will rise excessively, if too little money is provided transactions, it is thought, will be restricted by a lack of currency to carry out transactions. So, an inclusive price level measure provides a guide for Macro-economic policy makers and critics.

These approaches to the concept and its application seem to be orthogonal, in the same sense that "X+Y" and "X-Y" are orthogonal. On the one hand, you are concerned with the differential valuation of things, and on the other with the averaged value of things in terms of money units (I guess that's a kind of differential value, taken between money units on the one side, and goods and services on the other).

If we step back from the problem of evaluating money units, we can look instead at a transaction network, in which cleaning the kitchen might be exchanged for a smile, or gardening for a bottle of whisky. In that network context, units of money are just one kind of thing that might form one side of a transaction.

In any uncoerced transaction, one can assert (without proof) that at the moment the transaction is agreed by partner P, the transaction will reduce the overall error of P's controlled perceptions. That doesn't mean that P will retain the same evaluation after the transaction is complete. The value of the transaction depends on P's imagination of what the future state will be as compared to the present state, or to the future state were the transaction not to occur. Accepting this proposition means that all uncoerced transactions represent judgments about the future. All participants enter the transaction with the expectation that the future state will be in some way better for them than the future state if the transaction didn't happen.

Following that line of thought immediately leads to questions relating to the rate at which the risks and possibilities of different futures diverge. In other words, the rate of increase of the uncertainty of the future worth of the transaction becomes important. Having the grass cut now may be more important than a bottle of whisky for a person with several bottles and a party to be hosted tomorrow, and doing the work may be less important than the bottle for someone who has leisure time to do it and who would otherwise be going to the liquor store to spend money of which he has very little. But having the grass cut now might have a very different value if the party was to be in two weeks and the weather forecast was unclear as to whether there would be a heat wave and drought or a nice spring shower from time to time.

The notions of "interest rate" and "inflation", according to this, are not restricted to the value of money. In fact, the notion of "value" might be tied into "inflation" as its basis. What is valuable in a transaction is the expectation in the partners as to which side of it would be preferable, and for what might the item received be useful later. Cut grass before the party is eschanged (in part) for the approbation of the guests. Money is exchanged later for something as yet undetermined, and the recipient of the money is unsure of just how much money will be needed in a future transaction, even if the item to be bought is pretty well assured.

When one considers the "value of money", which is, I suppose, what a price index is intended to do, it seems one ought in principle to consider all the things a particular individual might do with the money, including stash it away and use it later, or lend it out with some finite probability of never getting any back. Then one would need some kind of an average of this valuation over all individuals, but it probably should not weight each individual equally. It's in these operations that the problem begins to look like the problems that gave rise to statistical mechanics.

I think that's enough to be going on with. Maybe it will stimulate something on which we can build further. My main points are: (1) that the "price index" necessarily must be based on expectations of the future, (2) it's only incidentally about money, and (3) that an approach related to statistical mechanics seems reasonable.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 183
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Sunday, May 09, 2004 - 08:16 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin,

I am perhaps beginning in myself to see what has happened in the economics profession. After thinking about a problem that goes unsolved for a sufficient period of time a reluctance begins to develop to put any more effort into solving the problem. I am I think only part way to this sort of orrientation, but I think I can perceive in myself the sort of "Oh no! Not that question again!" sort of feeling.

Still your comments have provoked me to give some thought to the price-index issue once again. And, perhaps my thinking is has some useful content even if it doesn't quite solve the problem.

Suppose we take a person who has adjusted their expenditure to a static situation in which they distribute their income between the consumption of commodities at various prices. Suppose we use a control theory analysis to do this employing the technique I developed for a two commodity case. Suppose in this static situation we varied the consumer's income at some level of income the consumer could purchase a quantity of all the commodites that would satisfy the reference level for each commodity. At this point adding any more income to the consumer's budget would not increase their purchases. (I am assuming that the consumer is not involved in a contest of competitive display with a neighbor of the sort that Veblen considered in his notion of conspicious consumption.) Then we could experiment by increasing the prices of various goods in random combinations. Most of these random combinations of price changes would result in price quantity behaviors of the normal downward sloping demand curve type. However eventually it would be expected that Giffen good type behavior would be found. Finding price points at which the Giffen good (People should call it a Giffen commoddity but no on does.) becomes active because it identitifies a point at which a possible positive feedback effect might be generated. That is, when the price of the commodity-- the Giffen good is increased the consumer buys more of the product and this might result in a further price increase of the product-- a positive feedback loop.

So now we have a consumer for whom we have identified a combination of income and prices for which the consumer is experiencing no error at one end of the scale and various points were the consumer is experiencing a Giffen type effect as a result of a price increase. Now using a sufficiently sophisticated technique we could infer a control system that would simulate the consumer's behavior. At the point at which the consumer's budget allowed them to purchase a quantity of comodities that matched their reference level running the control system would generate no error. At any lower level budget errors would begin to be experienced, and these errors could be computed.

Supposing all this, which makes my head spin, we would have something like or close to what we pretend that we have now with the headonistic prices indexes. Plus, we would have identified points at which the consumer's behavior would in combination with some circumstances regarding supply generate unstable behavior in the market.

Could in princple something like this be done? Well, I could see that there would be a lot, a great lot of difficulties involved in actually carrying out such an experiment, inferring a control system and then calculating the consumer's error. Or, would one want some measure such as the consumer's error times the gain of the system? I'm not sure. Error times the gain might be a better measure of the consumer's conflict as a result of not having a sufficient budget to purchase the reference level of all the commodities.

So, taking the standpoint of a theorist with any resonsiblity for actually carrying out such a system, this is how one might per impossible construct a control theory price index.

If we removed the restriction against the interaction between consumer's errors as a result of conspicious consumption we might see that what ever the level of prices (however determined) and the consumers budget the error index for the consumer wouldn't change-- because it was being determined as a result of the competition for status by way of conspicious consumption. From an economists standpoint ( an economist adopting a control theory perspective ) if the main source of error for the consumer was the competitive display of conspicious consumption, then it might be reasonable to reduce the consumer's budget. The consumer would then consume less be feel no worse off because everyone else was consuming less.

In terms of policy this control theory type index is more interesting from a policy standpoint than is the hedonistic index. All the hedonistic index tells one is that consumers are better off if they have more income. And, I suppose if it actually worked it would be a way of judging the effects of various policies-- but it doesn't really do this. A control theory price index would tell policy maker about where the giffen points were located ( good to know if one is interested in a stable market ) and also indicate when conspicious consuption was dominating the situation- which would be good to know if one was setting taxes on goods that did not contribute to the genuine well being of a consumer.

As a policy measure we might want to institute what I might call economic integration. Rather than allowing the wealthy to live in gated communities in which the forces of conspicious consumption run without limit, we might compell the wealthy to live next to the impoverished. I can even forsee a slogan--"Unequall neighborhoods are inheriently discriminatory" -- which (no question) they are.

Somehow I don't see the National Science Foundation being eager, at least under the current administration, to fund, supposing it was possible, the development of a control theory counter part to orthodoxy's method of computing a price level.

Martin, you talk about computing a price index in terms of statistical mechanics. However, when I think about the implication of a control theory index what comes to my mind is political dynamics.

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Taylor
Eminence Grise
Username: Mmt

Post Number: 209
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:42 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting. We are both dealing with the question from the viewpoint of the individual as a control system, and we are both dealing with a kind of conflict of values. But your conflict is among the values of the different goods and services desired by one individual, whereas mine is between the values two different individuals assign to the goods in a single transaction. It seems to me that each approach is inadequate without the other.

You start with the notion that money is a measure of value (or at least so it seems to me). I include money as just one among a universe of things that a person might want. The only difference for me between money and an offer to cut my lawn is that I could use money in a wide range of transactions.

Money seems to have a role in the economy similar to that of an artificial intermediary language in a translation system. Using it is easier than going directly from one end-desirable to the other. But that deosn't really make it much different from other things in a transaction (other than that it ordinarily isn't much good except for use in transactions; I ignore coin collecting and framed "first dollar I ever made" examples).

There is a point at which the approach you suggest differs from mine. That is the role of the future. To me, the future, and the rate at which things become unpredictable into the future, is critical. You seem to look just at a point in time, though this may be unfair to you. When I look at a potential impending transaction, I have to imagine whether the swap will lead me to a future better than I would have without the swap. When I look at that from the viewpoint of combining our analyses, I ought to be doing something like comparing the complex network of potential conflicts and their resulting errors within me, as they would be with and without the transaction. Obviously that is not ordinarily done consciously, but it might be done after a fashion.

Would it be possible for you to post your Giffen software somewhere for putting into the software part of the ECACS site or Forum? In addition, could you write a description of how it works in control theory, with diagrams, for the Chart Room? My understanding of it is somewhat slippery. Sometimes I have it clear in my head, sometimes it seems a bit mysterious.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 184
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 02:23 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin,

First some comments on your post,

Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 12:42 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You say,

Interesting. We are both dealing with the question from the viewpoint of the individual as a control system, and we are both dealing with a kind of conflict of values. But your conflict is among the values of the different goods and services desired by one individual, whereas mine is between the values two different individuals assign to the goods in a single transaction. It seems to me that each approach is inadequate without the other.


It would seem to me that the correct forumulation of the problem ought to be capable of handling both of the situations that we are considering. And, I think you are entirely correct that both situations are ( you say inadequte ) I might say "incomplete" without the other.


You start with the notion that money is a measure of value (or at least so it seems to me). I include money as just one among a universe of things that a person might want. The only difference for me between money and an offer to cut my lawn is that I could use money in a wide range of transactions.


I may have been giving a misleading impression when I talk about money. I am assuming money is a very special kind of economic artifact. Contemporary money is a creation of the state, and is therefore bound up in all the powers and problems of whatever state creates the money. So, even if I don't say say, and I ought to make myself undestood, money is in my view much more than a measure of value. It would require, I would suppose, a volume of iits own to translate this background into an exposition explicitly based upon control theory. I think there is a great deal of already existing work that could be translated into an exposition consistent with control theory because the people who developed this conception of money intutitively hit upon control theory type explainations as a result of almost a random search for an explaination.

You say,
Money seems to have a role in the economy similar to that of an artificial intermediary language in a translation system. Using it is easier than going directly from one end-desirable to the other. But that deosn't really make it much different from other things in a transaction (other than that it ordinarily isn't much good except for use in transactions; I ignore coin collecting and framed "first dollar I ever made" examples).


Money does have the function you suggest, but I would argue that money really is a very special sort of economic item. Particularly in respect to connecting and coordinating activities through time money along with the all the institutions of commerical law, accountancy, banking, and government, money is a sort of third rail of the economic cosmos.

You comment that,

There is a point at which the approach you suggest differs from mine. That is the role of the future. To me, the future, and the rate at which things become unpredictable into the future, is critical.
Though I haven't mentioned this I would fully agree with you.


You seem to look just at a point in time, though this may be unfair to you.


Since I haven't made a point of this, it isn't unfair but it isn't accurate either. But, my fault for not making this explicit. There was a prominent labor economist John R Common's who made a big point of economic decisions including elements of pastness, presentness and futurity. No one has been able to make much sense of this, however, in control theory terms, I don't see that there should be any difficulty in thinking about economic decisions in therms of one's being attached to traditions, and caught up in conflicts between various goals in the present, and attempting to orrient one's activities toward ones goals for the future.


When I look at a potential impending transaction, I have to imagine whether the swap will lead me to a future better than I would have without the swap. When I look at that from the viewpoint of combining our analyses, I ought to be doing something like comparing the complex network of potential conflicts and their resulting errors within me, as they would be with and without the transaction. Obviously that is not ordinarily done consciously, but it might be done after a fashion.
I think this does in fact happen.

You ask,
Would it be possible for you to post your Giffen software somewhere for putting into the software part of the ECACS site or Forum? In addition, could you write a description of how it works in control theory, with diagrams, for the Chart Room? My understanding of it is somewhat slippery. Sometimes I have it clear in my head, sometimes it seems a bit mysterious.


I have the same feeling about an information theoretic treatment of the economy. I seem to understand it when I read it, but then the next day I don't remember what it was that I thought I understood. By-the-Way Chen has been delving into your Web site and says he finds it interesting. I don't know when I'll hear more. He is kept rather busy.

About posting the Giffen stuff to the Forum.

Sure. I would be happy to. In fact this is a good time for me to rework a draft, or drafts I have on the Giffen effect. I am coming close to finishing for this sequence an introduction to a book on applying control theory in economics. I call the sequence a process of zone refining. And, following the introduction I plan an extensive section on the Giffen effect.

Bill Williams

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 138
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 06:45 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,


It seems to me that from a CT perspective, money is part of the environment that agents make use of to achieve their goals. (Children quickly learn that they can acquire the things they want by first acquiring money. The idea that adults buy money at ATMs grows out of this awakening.) I know that economists treat money as "something special" but it is not obvious to me that the road to progress lies in this direction.


Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 185
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, May 10, 2004 - 11:42 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bruce gregory,

I wouldn't say that "the road to progress lies" in the "direction" of treating money as a very special economic something. However, after pondering it for some centuries, economists have noticed that, money, or especially modern money that is created by a state has some very special properities. The carrying cost of a modern money for a private citizen over time is less than zero-- that is if you wish to store-up and keep access to economic resources you can as they say put money in a bank, and the bank will pay you interest for keeping it safe so you will have it next year or whenever you want it. And, when you get it back from the bank the "money" is just as good ( except for inflation ) as when you put it in.

Then there is the property of a modern state money that it costs nothing to make but nobody except the state is allowed to make any of it.

And, best of all, when it comes time to pay taxes the only way that you are allowed to pay taxes is with money. The state won't allow you to pay in chickens, or steel bars, or what not-- it has to be money.

I once taught money and banking but that was long ago, and when I did it caused a lot of trouble, so I am no longer able to reel off peculiar stories about money. But, recently at a conference here, on what else but money, one of the speakers described one of Max Weber's books _The Religion of China_ as bascially a book about money. And, in a sense maybe the guy was right-- for a number of reasons, at least according to this guy's reading of Weber, China -- the traditional China was never able, as a state, to create a workable currency. And, as a result there were endless problems with counterfitting and hoarding of metals that served as coinage, what all which I can't remember. According to this guy, the comparative absence of development in China was due to the inablity of the Chinese state to create a modern currency. This guy and I as a result had a lot of fun talking about Max Weber, _The Religion of China_ and money.

But, there is a sense in which I would agree with you that progress doesn't lie in the direction of developing an exacting taxonomy of the functions of and peculiaries of money. And, the Keynesian analysis-- which is largely about money, is something of a disaster in that the complexities of the analysis is increasing over time. It is becoming more and more difficult for students and others as well to understanding what is going on. And, as you may have noted, it seem to be impossible to explain to Bill Powers what Keynes was saying. I regard progress in science, or at least one indication of progress in science, as it becoming progressively easier to understand, not more difficult. I have hopes that control theory might eventually serve this function in economics-- making it simpler and easier to understand.

Now that I think about it there are some books that treat money in a way that I think makes sense:

Wray, L. Randall 1998 _Understanding Modern Money_

Chang, Ha-Joon 2001 _Financial Liberalization and the Asian Crises_

Minsky, Hyman P. 1982 _Can it Happen Again? Esays on Instablity
and Finance_

Shiller, Robert J. 2000 _Irrational Exuberance_ (The national bestseller that will help you survive in Today's Stock Market ) Shiller's book was a best seller for a very good reason.

Brazelon ? ?David 1956 _The Paper Economy_ David Brazelon's book is my favorite text even though it is now dated, or if you can enjoy it,

Veblen, Thorstein 1908 _The Theory of Business Enterprize_

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Taylor
Eminence Grise
Username: Mmt

Post Number: 211
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 06:02 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Associated with the problem of constructing a price index is the construction of an appropriate measure of the health of an economy (the intention of the GDP and GNP measures). If only the changing hands of money is considered, the economy is more healthy when products are made to self-destruct so that new ones must be bought than when similarly functional products last a long time. A bridge blown up and rebuilt contributes to the GDP more than a bridge that simply sits there with traffic flowing smoothly across it. Using lots of trucks to fill a garbage dump is better than using things longer. These surely must suggest that something other than money ought to be taken into account when considering the health of an economy? What properties might an appropriate measure have?

Bill"The carrying cost of a modern money for a private citizen over time is less than zero...And, when you get it back from the bank the "money" is just as good ( except for inflation ) as when you put it in."

Do I detect a sense of irony, or was that an unintentional self-contradiction?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 140
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Wednesday, May 12, 2004 - 08:35 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin,


This may be the motive of the suicide bombers in the Middle East. They are not terrorists, they are trying to provide a boost to flagging economies. The U.S. should not be hunting them down, it should be building statues to them and their free market spirit.


Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 186
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:11 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin, and Bruce Gregory,

Martin asks,

>Do I dectect a sense of irony, or was that an unintentional self-contradiction?

I think it is possible that rather than irony or self-contradiction what is involved is a reflexive loop. In a thread concerned with how to construct a price index it might have seemed totally inadaquate for me to leave out the possiblity of of inflation in my argument.

Martin, if you keep talking this way ( about blowing up bridges ) you may be suspected of being a closet Keynesian. Keynes talked about digging holes and then filling them up. But, I suspect both of your irony controls were out of adjustment. And, I keep having this suspicion that Bruce's irony control has a positive feedback loop.

For everyone involved, I suspect economnics is not condusive to the control of irony.

And, unfortunately the combination of Marc Abrams and economics may be even worse than TCP and economics.

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michelle Ivers
Club Rose
Username: Ivers

Post Number: 13
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hi guys,

I know nothing about economics, so I'm not going to even try to comment on what you are talking about here.

Bill you said: And, unfortunately the combination of Marc Abrams and economics may be even worse than TCP and economics.

I just wanted to add, that from my very brief exchange with Marc it seems to me that a combination of him and anyone/thing that disagrees with him is pretty bad.

I've never heard of it, but Marc said that he uses a 'text analyst' to read the 750 journals he is subscribed to every month. Maybe some of the meaning of what he is reading is being lost in his text analyst.??

Just a thought.
Michelle
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 141
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:43 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Michelle,


The closest I have come to understanding Marc is that he has a great need to be acknowledged. Of course we all have a need to be acknowledged, but in Marc's case he has chosen formats such as CSGnet where he in unlikely ever to be acknowledged. He is very bright, but hampered by a lack of formal education. (Unlike those of us who are hampered by too much formal education ;-)) Like many people who do not feel they are being "gotten" Marc tends to repeat himself without becoming more persuasive or informative.

When Marc encounters something that he feels should be of wider interest, he fires it off never taking the time as Bill Williams and Martin Taylor do, to explain why and how the new information may be important.

Unfortunately Marc is a bit paranoid and turns without warning on those he feels have "betrayed" him. Even more unfortunate, these betrayals seem to the betrayer (and often others) to be unintended slights.

An apprenticeship with a disciplined thinker might do Marc a world of good. And then again, it might not.


Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 187
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 07:22 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

MIchelle,

Actually, it isn't quite true-- that you know nothing about economics. At least you understand the basic idea of the Giffen paradox-- which is more than Marc Abrams does.

So Marc uses a text analyst does he? I may be a bit overly skeptical, but if he is using a text analyst then why are you assuming that Marc .. is reading?

If you are paying attention to Marc's dispute with Martin, you may have noted that Marc apparently believes that organisms violate the laws of thermodynamics. Well, maybe this isn't a reading problem.

Maybe we'd better ask the management before proceeding further here, in an environment where decorum is requried. But, I am having questions, or they might be described as doubts, about the circumstances in which issues of the complexity of control theory ( in regard to human behavior ) or economics can be carried on my even reasonably intelligent human beings. Does anyone else have doubts about this?

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jim Beardsley
Moderator
Username: Beardsley

Post Number: 110
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:08 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin, since I'm about to contribute to it, I would move this segue (which remains rather tame yet, it seems to me) but I hesitate without first conferring with you..

[Bill] .. I am having questions, or they might be described as doubts, about the circumstances in which issues of the complexity of control theory ( in regard to human behavior ) or economics can be carried on my even reasonably intelligent human beings. Does anyone else have doubts about this?

It may or may not be a surprise to anyone who's observed my own.. "spectacles", but just as Bill W once described himself (to me at the time) as a congenital skeptic, I relate at least in that I've long tended to have little faith that any 2 arbitrary individuals, let alone more than 2 -- well educated or not -- can "explore" abstractions such as these (to say nothing of common controversies) without one or both soon falling prey to their own "threat-response systems" due to something perceived "in the other". Is it as simple as such threats pertaining to the value of work and opinion-forming that one has invested over time, which we somehow equate with well-being and thus survival?

It makes sense that evolution would hard-wire us to control against threats to the physical survival of our selves, our children, & our tribes, but where higher learning and global thinking is ("should be"??) involved, it seems to me that our natures are self-defeating more often than not, and left unchecked, compel us to caste certain others toward the opposite of survival, whether they deserve it (in these ages of Ethics) or not.

..my pessimistic side, which I shall replace if & as I muster such control. ..and then, perhaps, I'm strictly speaking for myself, from my solitary experience.

Jim
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 142
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 01:20 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,

In my experience Marc often says things that on closer questioning, he does not believe. He does not dissemble, he simply hasn't disciplined himself to think and to write clearly. I think that is one problem with a lack of a formal education.

As for discussions about PCT. I see no reason that that they cannot be carried out between reasonable people. Absent Marc, can you point to any intemperate exchanges of ECACS?


Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 188
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 05:44 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jim and Bruce Gregory,

First No, I can't think, Marc aside, of any intemperate exchanges on ECACS.

I wonder, however, about your category of reasonable people. When people become heavily invested in programs and causes-- reasonableness often seems to be the first, or among the first items that goes over-board.

I am not sure that I entirely agree with Jim-- that our natures are self-defeating more often than not. But, there does seem to be considerable evidence that our natures are often defeated.

Both of you indicate a role for "checks" (Jim) and "formal education" Bruce in disiplining the expression of our nature. And, Martin on the CSTnet thought that I thought that he had lost his "self-restraint" (Which wasn't what I was thinking) but, it was indicative I thought of something about how Martin may have been thinking about some issues.

Perhaps part of the problem is that reference levels for orderly and productive inquiry and discussion are not readily availible for inspection and adjustment.

And, I see the effects of this when people venture into discussions of economic issues and theory more than I would in areas in which I am not so directly concerned. The vagueness of these principles is I think an inclusive problem.

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Taylor
Eminence Grise
Username: Mmt

Post Number: 212
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 05:57 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Jim, I'll answer you later, somewhere in the Management Area (not privately--everyone is entitles to post there). I think that there's in issue of theoretical interest, more than an actual interpersonal conflict.

Going back to the main Thread, the reason I picked up on Bill's joint statement (that the cost of setting aside money was zero and that when one got the money back its value might have been reduced by inflation) was that this very issue seems to me to be at the core of discussions of value, price index, and indices of economic health.

One of Bill's arguments for the unique status of money was that one could store it and perhaps get back more than you stored, if the bank pays interest. Another, that needs to be addressed, was the role of the state as a monopolist creator of money. I think that the primary unique aspect of money is that it is wholly abstract. Although its manifestations as coin, paper, or cowrie shells may have other "real" value to the owner, its value as money depends entirely on the ability to exchange it for something else.

Thinking from a control theoretic standpoint, this last sentence means that the value of money is entirely defined by a person's perception of the possibility of exchanging it for something else.

I think that somewhere in the messages in this thread, there is sufficient to permit a summary that could serve as the starting point for a more intensive examination of the set of issues introduced.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 189
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:33 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin,

You say, and I entirely agree that,

Thinking from a control theoretic standpoint, this last sentence means that the value of money is entirely defined by a person's perception of the possibility of exchanging it for something else.

There are people who argue that that modern money is defined by the power of the state. And, in particular the power of the state to impose taxes that can only be paid in what the state designates as the official money. There is a lot of experience that would appear to support the idea that there is for a modern abstract money a very tight connection between the confidence in the state and the value of the money. At least when Russia recently became slack in collecting taxes there was a drastic loss of confidence in the value of Russian currency. And, there are a lot of historical examples to a similiar effect.

So, whatever the state says is the official currency by declaring it as the only the only means of payment of taxes is the starting point. Added to this can be commerical paper and all sorts of near money instruments or mediums of exchange. But, the state money dominates in a modern economy. So the theory of money is at the foundation of it all tied up with the state and theories about the state.

This isn't a summary, but it is a starting point. Money, in the modern sense, is a create of the state. Money is other things as well, but these are functions that are subject to control by the state.

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Taylor
Eminence Grise
Username: Mmt

Post Number: 213
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 11:50 pm:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill:There is a lot of experience that would appear to support the idea that there is for a modern abstract money a very tight connection between the confidence in the state and the value of the money.

Yes, but it's not the only thing that causes money to lose its (perceived future) value. Loss of confidence in the state's ability to keep things in control is a big one, but uncertainty about expected inflation rates, about the likelihood of banks failing, about the existence of fraud in public accounting ... all matter.

I don't think the problem in Russia was failure to collect taxes, so much as that before Perestroika, Russia had had no real money--real in the sense that its value was determined by people's choices to trade or not to trade. Gorbachev had a sensible program for making the money more real by slowly introducing private commerce, priming it with the "money" people knew. But the Coup, and Yeltsin's takeover, followed by acceptance of the recommendation to make an abrupt switch into a total market economy utterly destroyed the rouble. There was no flow. Nobody could assume that they would be paid for their labour or their product because they didn't know whether whoever was to pay them would be paid by those for whom they worked, and so on back the chains and around the loops. Not collecting taxes was just a symptom--taxes couldn't be paid for the same reason bakers couldn't pay for wheat.

Uncertainty is the key, I think, to most of these questions of value.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 191
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:10 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin,

By saying uncertainty you have said the magic word. If you are a cigar smoker you can ask a Keynesian for a cigar.

However, I will stick to what the Post-Keyneisan sayabout it being vitally important that taxes be collected. You are familiar with the saying that there are two certainties-- death and taxes. Well, if a government doesn't have the fortitude to collect taxes it is a very good indication that it will not be capable of doing what ever else is required. Now, I wouldn't insist that there is only one explaination for what when wrong with the Russian transition. But, people around here are convinced that the colapse of the Russian currency went critical during a period when tax collection was slack. A tax amounts to a demand for money, and I am enough of an economist to think that ordinarily an increase in the demand for an item will result in an increase in its price.

But, I don't see our two points of view as necesarily conflicting. When the Harvard economists recommended a shock treatment and this recommendation was applied, the result disturbed lots of things in Russia in ways that couldn't be redicted. And, the result, as you say was a parralyzing uncertainity.

One of the valuable functions of money, on a micro level, is to transfer claims to assets from one period of time to another-- and consequently if things become so uncertain that the uncertainty extends to whether the money is going to be worth anything next year or next month then the demand for money as store of value goes away. And, the antisipation of a disaster becomes a disaster when the money becomes worthless.

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 144
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 01:45 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin, Bill


To be uncertain means to be unable to conisistently envision successful control in the future, no?



Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 192
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 02:02 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bruce Gregory,

Your definition seem OK to me, but I'm not an expert on uncertainty.

Bill williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 146
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 07:03 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,


Are you sure? ;-)



Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 194
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 09:40 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bruce,

But, of course not. Except in the sense that I think there is a basic difference between being sure in the sense of certainty, and being unsure in the sense of being doubtful. I think the difference between these two states is more complex than just a difference in polarity.

Still, I seems to me that it is possible, with out any irony or self-contraction to be confident that one is doubtful or uncertain.

All that seems neccesary for it to make sense to say that "I an sure that there is reason to uncertainty about XYZ is because ABC." I think it may make sense to think of reality as consisting of having different levels and differnt domains rather than as a homogenous monolith.

Or, am I missing something and inadvertantly created a joke?

Bill Williams

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 147
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 10:01 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bill,


Indeed. I find it very interesting that the brain accesses memory in such way that allows it to be certain that it has some information in storage even when it cannot retrieve the information. That is, you can be certain that you know someone's name even when you cannot recall it and equally certain that you do not know the name of the person's spouse.


Bruce Gregory
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 195
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Saturday, May 15, 2004 - 10:36 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bruce Gegory,

I would agree the features of memory are interesting. I have noticed that at least for some portions of the alphabet that I know what letter follows a given letter, such V -> W, but I do not know (? <- W). Learning the order of the letters in one direction might seem to be logically equalent to learning the order in the other direction, but as a matter of fact this doesn't seem to be the case.

In economics, I am convinced, some fundamental characteristics of the economy depend upon what seem to be psychological quirks that are clearly non-rational such as what one is inclined to do when one is uncertain. These considerations do not appear to me have any chance of fitting into the orthodox approach to economic theory.


Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Martin Taylor
Eminence Grise
Username: Mmt

Post Number: 217
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 12:30 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Bruce:To be uncertain means to be unable to conisistently envision successful control in the future, no?

I would say "No." At least in this context. I'm thinking of uncertainty in its technical sense, as a graded quantity like the variance of a measure. I measure a piece of wood to be 3 ft. Did I eyeball it, making the uncertainty about 1ft more or less, or did I put a tape along it and give a quick glance, or did I use refined laser-based techniques, giving me the length within a micron. Whatever I did, the measure has uncertainty. The level of uncertainty about the measure may or may not affect my ability to control a perception that involves the measure.

How much uncertainty is important depends on what you want to do. If I want the wood to bridge a 1-ft gap, eyeballing it to be 3 ft may be quite enough for perfect control. If you are talking about the future value of money, a millionaire (in US dollars, not Turkish Lire) who is concerned only about not starving won't worry much as to whether he needs to raise the price of something he wants to sell. He won't starve for lack of money even if the dollar loses 99.9% of its value. But a worker who is just managing to feed the family may very much want to get a raise (i.e. get more money for the labour he is selling) if he is uncertain whether a year from now a dollar will buy what 40c now buys or whether it will buy then what 99c buys now. If he gets a raise and it later turns out that 99c was correct, he's in gravy, but if he doesn't get a raise and 40c turns out to have been the right prediction, his family may starve.

It's a question of risk management, and the uncertainty about what the future value of the money will be is itself a contributor to reducing that future value, since people managing the risk will tend to ask more money for what they are selling than they would if they knew exactly what the inflation would be.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 203
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Monday, May 17, 2004 - 01:05 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Martin,

I think there are two senses of uncertainty emerging here. One is an uncertainty that can not be de-limited. The other is an uncertainty that can be subjected to risk management. Depending upon which sense of uncertainty is under consideration then I think too quite different problems are being considered. The Post-Keynesian insist that some questions are uncertain in the sense that they are uncertain beyond any measure of probablity or rational calculation, Some important questions they contend such as the future price of securities may be fundamentally uncertain in this sense. Other uncertainties may be subject to statistical averaging and risks can be pooled and insured against.

Bill Williams
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marc Abrams
Club Rose
Username: Abrams

Post Number: 24
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 12:05 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Folks,

I guess these posts do not deserve to be put in the Roughneck Room because I was not part ECAC's at this point HUH? :-)

It's extremely interesting to see what people will say behind your back and unwilling to say to your face. As a public record however this stuff never goes away. I would only hope at this point that these things could be and would be said to me directly. 'Friends' don't let real friends go around looking like a jackass if they can help them

Bill, I came here to try and learn as much as I could about your views in economics. To try and get a glimmer. I got a eyeful.:-)

No, I'm not upset about the negative stuff that you people said about me. I knew nothing of economics at the time, Michelle exaggerated a claim I made but who cares, and Bruce was probably right on target.

Martin wrote, what I consider to be some pretty good stuff on 'Pricing', but I don't think that you Bill, have a real idea of what you are looking for. You seem to be against things more than you are for any one thing. I think Martin nailed it in his very first post in this thread and the thread then started going down hill from there and devolved into some stuff on risk aversion.

I have to admit Bill, these posts, not only in this thread, but in all the threads dealing with economics has been a real eye opener for me.

What you all were skirting around is Bill's prime plum. Utility theory. Pricing, Risk aversion, and _all_ of economic theory, neo-classical and heterodox (whatever the hell that specifically is):-)is based on this one very slippery concept. Slippery unless you understand control. Not PCT, but control.

Bill, I agree with you that Utlity theory is the key to economics, and control is the key to Utility theory. I'm afraid it seems to end right there.

Why not PCT, because PCT does not, as MT was so insightful to see with his pricing thoughts, is in understanding that much of human percpetion is in our _imagination_. BG, just picked up on it with _On Intelligence_ and our propensity to 'predict' or 'prepare' for the future.

A perceptual control model with imagination and emotion is a _FAR_ different animal than the current PCT version.

I believe the PCT version of our perceptual construction is not only wrong, but counter productive in trying to understand how control actually works.

By trying to fixate the construction of perceptions to those levels or that type (pure hierarchy)limits our ways of thinking about the problem of sensory modal integration and imagination. It also excludes the damn Furmishes. :-)

Great job Martin.

I am no longer 'ignorant' of economics and as Bruce could probably testify today, I'm not quite as far behind the curve as you people might think. I have a ways to go in a number of areas but I'm getting there.

Bill, I'm afraid I agree with Martin 100% here. If your looking to define Utility theory you could do worse than to start with something other than Martins initial questions and posts.

The model Martin talks about does not exist. I think this thread _MINUS_, the negative _PERSONAL_ stuff about me, :-)is an _EXCELLENT_ place to start.

What do you think Bill? Bruce? Martin? Michelle? Peter? Bjorn? Anyone else? :-)

Just a final footnote on the comments directed about me. A formal education doesn't eliminate the ignorance one has about most matters, it simply makes you sound better with it.:-)

I really do love you all. :-) There is _NO_ hard feelings.

Martin, It's posts like the one I read in this thread that make me want to talk with you. I wish you felt the same way about me. Maybe someday you will.

Marc





Martin, and Bruce Gregory,

Martin asks,

>Do I dectect a sense of irony, or was that an unintentional self-contradiction?

I think it is possible that rather than irony or self-contradiction what is involved is a reflexive loop. In a thread concerned with how to construct a price index it might have seemed totally inadaquate for me to leave out the possiblity of of inflation in my argument.

Martin, if you keep talking this way ( about blowing up bridges ) you may be suspected of being a closet Keynesian. Keynes talked about digging holes and then filling them up. But, I suspect both of your irony controls were out of adjustment. And, I keep having this suspicion that Bruce's irony control has a positive feedback loop.

For everyone involved, I suspect economnics is not condusive to the control of irony.

And, unfortunately the combination of Marc Abrams and economics may be even worse than TCP and economics.

Bill Williams


Michelle Ivers
Club Rose
Username: Ivers

Post Number: 13
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:22 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys,

I know nothing about economics, so I'm not going to even try to comment on what you are talking about here.

Bill you said: And, unfortunately the combination of Marc Abrams and economics may be even worse than TCP and economics.

I just wanted to add, that from my very brief exchange with Marc it seems to me that a combination of him and anyone/thing that disagrees with him is pretty bad.

I've never heard of it, but Marc said that he uses a 'text analyst' to read the 750 journals he is subscribed to every month. Maybe some of the meaning of what he is reading is being lost in his text analyst.??

Just a thought.
Michelle



Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 141
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 06:43 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle,


The closest I have come to understanding Marc is that he has a great need to be acknowledged. Of course we all have a need to be acknowledged, but in Marc's case he has chosen formats such as CSGnet where he in unlikely ever to be acknowledged. He is very bright, but hampered by a lack of formal education. (Unlike those of us who are hampered by too much formal education ;-)) Like many people who do not feel they are being "gotten" Marc tends to repeat himself without becoming more persuasive or informative.

When Marc encounters something that he feels should be of wider interest, he fires it off never taking the time as Bill Williams and Martin Taylor do, to explain why and how the new information may be important.

Unfortunately Marc is a bit paranoid and turns without warning on those he feels have "betrayed" him. Even more unfortunate, these betrayals seem to the betrayer (and often others) to be unintended slights.

An apprenticeship with a disciplined thinker might do Marc a world of good. And then again, it might not.


Bruce Gregory


Bill Williams
Eminence Grise
Username: Williams

Post Number: 187
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 07:22 am:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIchelle,

Actually, it isn't quite true-- that you know nothing about economics. At least you understand the basic idea of the Giffen paradox-- which is more than Marc Abrams does.

So Marc uses a text analyst does he? I may be a bit overly skeptical, but if he is using a text analyst then why are you assuming that Marc .. is reading?

If you are paying attention to Marc's dispute with Martin, you may have noted that Marc apparently believes that organisms violate the laws of thermodynamics. Well, maybe this isn't a reading problem.

Maybe we'd better ask the management before proceeding further here, in an environment where decorum is requried. But, I am having questions, or they might be described as doubts, about the circumstances in which issues of the complexity of control theory ( in regard to human behavior ) or economics can be carried on my even reasonably intelligent human beings. Does anyone else have doubts about this?

Bill Williams


Jim Beardsley
Moderator
Username: Beardsley

Post Number: 110
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 12:08 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin, since I'm about to contribute to it, I would move this segue (which remains rather tame yet, it seems to me) but I hesitate without first conferring with you..

[Bill] .. I am having questions, or they might be described as doubts, about the circumstances in which issues of the complexity of control theory ( in regard to human behavior ) or economics can be carried on my even reasonably intelligent human beings. Does anyone else have doubts about this?

It may or may not be a surprise to anyone who's observed my own.. "spectacles", but just as Bill W once described himself (to me at the time) as a congenital skeptic, I relate at least in that I've long tended to have little faith that any 2 arbitrary individuals, let alone more than 2 -- well educated or not -- can "explore" abstractions such as these (to say nothing of common controversies) without one or both soon falling prey to their own "threat-response systems" due to something perceived "in the other". Is it as simple as such threats pertaining to the value of work and opinion-forming that one has invested over time, which we somehow equate with well-being and thus survival?

It makes sense that evolution would hard-wire us to control against threats to the physical survival of our selves, our children, & our tribes, but where higher learning and global thinking is ("should be"??) involved, it seems to me that our natures are self-defeating more often than not, and left unchecked, compel us to caste certain others toward the opposite of survival, whether they deserve it (in these ages of Ethics) or not.

..my pessimistic side, which I shall replace if & as I muster such control. ..and then, perhaps, I'm strictly speaking for myself, from my solitary experience.

Jim


Bruce Gregory
Eminence Grise
Username: Gregory

Post Number: 142
Registered: 02-2004
Posted on Thursday, May 13, 2004 - 01:20 pm:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill,

In my experience Marc often says things that on closer questioning, he does not believe. He does not dissemble, he simply hasn't disciplined himself to think and to write clearly. I think that is one problem with a lack of a formal education.

As for discussions about PCT. I see no reason that that they cannot be carried out between reasonable people. Absent Marc, can you point to any intemperate exchanges of ECACS?

-------------------------



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Michelle Ivers
Club Rose
Username: Ivers

Post Number: 18
Registered: 04-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 07:52 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Marc,

I'll start this off with a technique first perfected by someone known to us all.

"IF" you walk into a room and tell everyone that they are idiots and that everything they've ever done, thought of, worked on etc is wrong.... then you'll lose more than 95% of the audience before the end of your first sentence.

You MIGHT get the attention of one or two people, but on the whole, most people will immediately switch off and not even listen to what you have to say.

You once said to me that you were a fantastic salesman and that you made it that way because you didn't waste time trying to convince people that they wanted what you had. (did I paraphrase that right or did I exaggerate it?)

As I see it, if you don't take the time to adjust your delivery method and try to capture the attention of a few more people then you'll never "sell" anything. You know that I'm a teacher. I spend my day in front of 30 kids and I convince each and everyone of them that they want the knowledge I have. I can't get in front of those kids and deliver the curriculum the same way all the time and expect them to just want it. You should also know from your wife, that kids' learning styles are as individual as the kids themselves. Wouldn't the same apply to each and every adult control system?

I'm not sure if this is making the point I want it to, but from my point of view, if you want people to discuss ideas with you seriously Marc, then you have to change your delivery method. I believe you are too quick to just give up and walk away from discussions (eg. CSGNet and here) without really trying to explain yourself in another way to get your point across.

That's my 2 cents worth. :-)

Michelle
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marc Abrams
Advanced Member
Username: Abrams

Post Number: 26
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 09:15 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Michelle,

I'm sure Martin will move this to the Roughneck room where your post and this one belong :-)

But never the less let me try address some of your points.

It's interesting you chose this particular thread to make this reply. You did not respond to my 'Final Attempt' but my reply to the surprise I found while perusing the Economic Topics and the 'Computing the Price Index' thread.

I'm not sure what you are upset about, but in the thread in one of your posts you exaggerated a claim I made about my use of a text analyzer I use to summarize textual material I get on the internet. You said I use it to read 750 journals a month. I never made such a claim. I said I have _access_ to that many and _interest_ in about 125. I was able to whittle it down to 35 journals that I currently have _INTEREST_ in. I skim about 12 a month and rotate and read about 6.

That was when I was a new student and I was like a kid in a candy store when I saw all the stuff that was avaiable to me on-line through the library. It was quite impressive.

I said I use it to summarize as much material as I can to get the most I can out of my reading time.

It actually works quite well. When I first started using it. I tested the summary feature by summarizing Bruce Gregory's book. It reduces & summarizes texts usually down to about 15-20% of its original size. I sent the summary off to Bruce to see what he thought. He was impressed and said it did a very nice job. I have subsequently found it to be a wonderful way for me to 'read' a great deal more than I would normally be able to and it helps me weed through the fluff. It's part of my web browser so I can summarize web pages as well. One of the better pieces of software I have invested my time and money in.

Second, I don't know who you think I'm disparaging. Frankly, under this thread _I'm_ the one who was hammered my dear. _I'm_ the one that was made to feel the fool because others were unable to tell me how they felt to my face, you included :-) So get off you high horse and come back down to earth.

Are you a bit ticked because I happen to have dared question Bill Williams?

Let me tell you something my dear, I want to help Bill, not because I'm all that gallant. I believe Bill can help me get to where I want to go. I don't think Bill is thinking clearly about this and he is certainly capable of it. I think that my actions with regard to Bill's welfare speak for themselves.

He has just gone through a horrific experience and he has _many_ things to think about, but I know how important his work is to him. I _KNOW_ I can help him get to where he wants to go. _NO_, I don't agree with his position on 90% of the material I have read from him. _BUT_, the 10% I _DO_ agree with him on is the key and crux of the matter. _UTILITY THEORY_ & CONTROL.

You see Michelle, because even though Bill and I are going be banging heads on this one, _real_ hard. The end result is going to be what Bill wants. It may not be what he _LIKES_, but he will have what he wants. It will all fall out where it will all fall out.

You bet you exaggerated, deal with it. As far as I'm concerned my reply ended my concern with that series of posts about me. It's old news. Lets just move on, you know I think the world of you.

And finally, you don't seem to understand that good sales people _DO NOT_ stand and fight over losing propositions. You don't make any extra money for closing a tough deal rather than an 'easy' one. At some point you must make a decision to cut and run either to new 'customers' or a new 'job'. You don't make lots of 'money' by staying a long time at either one. Thats just the way it works.

g'day :-)

Marc
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Marc Abrams
Advanced Member
Username: Abrams

Post Number: 27
Registered: 06-2004
Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 09:43 am:   Edit Post Print Post    Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Michelle,

I might have mispoken.

Maybe Bill will _NOT_ get what he wants. I _certainly_ will, no matter what happens. I do _NOT_ have to be right about my views of economics and human behavior. The final destination is meaningless to me, it's the journey that I'm looking forward to.

I 'win' if we are able to come up with a theory of human utility. NO MATTER WHO HAS THE RIGHT IDEAS. Either way I would have helped develop a set of ideas that would help move the thought process forward and our understanding deeper.

If Bill wins _ONLY_ if _HIS_ ideas are correct, then he very well might be disappointed in the results. Only time, and empirical research will tell us the answer. I'm not sugesting here that it is between Bill's ideas and mine. It's not. It will most certainly will be an integration of ideas from a number of sources. There is much effort and work involved to even begin to wonder about this stuff and many paths to explore. We have our work cut out for us, but it should be a fun trip. I'm very much looking forward to it and I hope you decide to come onboard.

On the other hand, maybe Bill wants to do this solo or with someone else. I'm enthusiastic because I feel I have something to contribute and I will, you can bet on that. It just may not be with Bill. :-)It comes down to who I will be working with. I sincerly hope Bill wants to work with me. It's his call though and I will not push him one way or the other. I have too much respect for him and he really needs to do this his way.

Marc

Add Your Message Here
Post:
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Password:
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message
Action:

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration