tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post1929688388847229439..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: Frameworks!Jason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-77800677539795808972015-11-18T10:54:28.040-08:002015-11-18T10:54:28.040-08:00And may I add, the explanations with entropic forc...And may I add, the explanations with entropic forces are more parsimonious than the explanation with various incentives. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-31373703022233738172015-11-18T09:46:02.055-08:002015-11-18T09:46:02.055-08:00Incentives an entropic force? I think that plainly...Incentives an entropic force? I think that plainly the identified incentives are not the same in the case of government stimulus (in a recession, else why?). That is, that the stimulus will open up possibilities, even if some people will save on balance. The examples with raising and lowering wages are questionable, I think, because raising the minimum wage will often open up more possibilities than are lost, especially at the local level, and lowering wages in a recession may destroy more opportunities than are gained by lowering prices.<br /><br />So I think that you have good comparisons of incentives vs. entropic forces. Also, you have entropic forces as alternative explanations (stories) to incentives when they agree, which is perhaps usually the case. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-10253581400760583292015-11-18T07:36:07.826-08:002015-11-18T07:36:07.826-08:00For some reason these comments weren't showing...For some reason these comments weren't showing up.<br /><br />In any case, incentives are a micro foundation for a potential framework (which is utility maximization).<br /><br />I wrote a bit about incentives awhile ago:<br /><br />http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/04/incentives-are-entropic-force.htmlJason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-72016684649882214892015-11-16T08:50:45.032-08:002015-11-16T08:50:45.032-08:00Raise the minimum wage? That gives employers the i...Raise the minimum wage? That gives employers the incentive to lay people off. So the result will be more unemployment.<br /><br />Government stimulus? That gives taxpayers the incentive to save in order to pay future taxes. Self-defeating.<br /><br />Lowering wages in a recession? That allows employers to lower prices, which gives customers the incentive to buy, thus fostering economic growth.<br /><br />Increase corporative taxes? That gives corporations the incentive to move elsewhere.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-47297745252016964002015-11-16T08:42:57.110-08:002015-11-16T08:42:57.110-08:00And that framework tells you what to write down to...And that framework tells you what to write down to start tackling a problem: <br /><br />Incentives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-84935537553062833842015-11-16T08:34:53.569-08:002015-11-16T08:34:53.569-08:00Looking at your examples, I think that the debatab...Looking at your examples, I think that the debatable subject of whether social sciences are nomothetic is relevant. Our sociology prof told us that the only universal law of society known (at that time) was, "Don't lie to the in group." I think that there is a debate in anthropology now whether it is even a science or not. In linguistics, Chomsky claimed to have discovered universals of grammar, but that was disputed. In psychology, Freud claimed to have discovered universal laws of human psychology ultimately based in neurology, but his theories have relatively few adherents today. Pavlov and the behaviorists did better, establishing laws of conditioning, but their scope is limited. The general view seems to be that there are laws in the social sciences, but not many, and much of interest does not seem to be law-like.<br /><br />I would have thought macroeconomics to be the most nomothetic of the social sciences, for the reason that, as it deals with large groups of people, their individual behaviors are mostly irrelevant. However, economists seem to be looking for laws in utility theory, despite theoretical problems and lack of empirical support. And yes, that is very 19th century. <br /><br />Anyway, if there is a generally accepted framework for macroeconomics, I suppose that it is utility theory. Or more likely, n-person game theory combined with utility theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-46188092805522819722015-11-15T10:42:15.567-08:002015-11-15T10:42:15.567-08:00Some examples:
Statistical mechanics for thermodyn...Some examples:<br />Statistical mechanics for thermodynamics<br />Information theory for communications <br />Game theory for things that are games <br />Newton's laws for mechanics (minus gravity)<br />Evolution for biology<br /><br />There are probably lots more ...Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-91572220905221682192015-11-14T18:00:01.955-08:002015-11-14T18:00:01.955-08:00"Spittle-flecked Ire" ... I had no idea ..."Spittle-flecked Ire" ... I had no idea that you had another blog going. Or used to anyway... it looks like it's been a while.<br /><br />I know quantum field theory is the Platonic ideal of a framework (since you say so just above), but can you give an example of another for someone less well versed in physics?<br /><br />Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.com