tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post4449362633881484641..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: More on scopeJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-82109849940365913512016-01-15T15:47:22.015-08:002016-01-15T15:47:22.015-08:00Thanks, Tom. :)Thanks, Tom. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-52511919229093780602016-01-14T22:02:40.454-08:002016-01-14T22:02:40.454-08:00Bill, there is such a delusion (the Cotard delusio...Bill, there is such a delusion (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion" rel="nofollow">the Cotard delusion</a>). <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capgras_delusion" rel="nofollow">The Capgras delusion</a> is interesting too.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-91868662258094263082016-01-14T21:40:28.376-08:002016-01-14T21:40:28.376-08:00What I had in mind was what Noah says about expert...What I had in mind was what Noah says about expert judgement. Before the germ theory, medicine may have been less effective that it is today, but it was not completely ineffective. But the practice of medicine relied greatly upon expert judgement. (It still does, but not so much. Why make a diagnosis that has 2:1 odds of being right when you can run tests?)<br /><br />BTW, I, too, was taken aback by Noah's point #1. Yes, post mortems can have value, but they can also be opportunities for face-saving and begging the question.<br /><br />There is a story about a psychiatrist who had a patient who believed that he (the patient) was dead. At one point the psychiatrist pricked the patient's finger with a needle, drawing blood. The patient looked at the drop of blood on his finger, experiencing apparent mental turmoil. Finally he relaxed and said, "That just proves that dead men bleed." ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-69340587581556425652016-01-14T17:59:01.119-08:002016-01-14T17:59:01.119-08:00Not sure the convergence is terribly deep ... in a...Not sure the convergence is terribly deep ... in any case, I am trying to write down Farmer's model <br /><br />PY/W = b L<br /><br />as an information equilibrium relationship. Actually, for some reason I almost did write that down on 2 November 2015 (it's just missing the b) <br /><br /><a href="https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=399S" rel="nofollow">https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=399S</a><br /><br />But the reason escapes me. It might have been in relation to this post:<br /><br /><a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/11/musical-chairs-and-taylor-rules.html" rel="nofollow">http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/11/musical-chairs-and-taylor-rules.html</a><br /><br />but I honestly don't remember.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-73992049029319570642016-01-14T11:53:04.191-08:002016-01-14T11:53:04.191-08:00O/T: Were you aware of this apparent near converge...O/T: Were you aware of <a href="http://rogerfarmerblog.blogspot.com/2015/12/scott-sumner-and-musical-chairs.html#more" rel="nofollow">this apparent near convergence</a> of Farmer/Sumner/(Rowe?) thinking?Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-2009453079624841272016-01-14T11:05:06.320-08:002016-01-14T11:05:06.320-08:00Cheers, Tom.
Bill, the only issue with that analo...Cheers, Tom.<br /><br />Bill, the only issue with that analogy is that we do kind of know what the "agents" are: people making transactions using money. People couldn't see germs until microscopes were invented.<br /><br />But a big point I try to make on this blog is that maybe being the same scale as the economic agents (and being agents ourselves) has blinded us to other ways the system could work. Maybe our actions aren't everything and the state space is what is really important? <br /><br />It would be like if doctors were at the same scale as bacteria ... and that blinding them to the idea that genetics or environmental factors (e.g. carcinogens) can cause things because they think it's all just bacteria ...<br /><br />An analogy I made early on this blog was that I wanted to look at the economic system on Earth as if I was an alien on another planet seeing the exponential burst of CO2 through a telescope spectrometer -- and positing a "civilization" operating under a system of "economics" as a model.<br /><br /><a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-philosophical-motivations.html" rel="nofollow">http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-philosophical-motivations.html</a>Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-63762544088629218112016-01-14T10:54:10.889-08:002016-01-14T10:54:10.889-08:00M-theory is a conjecture -- it's conjectured p...M-theory is a conjecture -- it's conjectured properties include 10-dimensional holographic representations (on the 10-d boundary of an 11-d space) as each of the 5 known string theories and a low energy limit as 11-dimensional supergravity (supersymmetric general relativity).<br /><br />Witten has said M stands for 'mystery', but some also think M is just and upside-down W.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-71140902951019935922016-01-14T10:30:49.651-08:002016-01-14T10:30:49.651-08:00That's occurred to me too. But sometimes I won...That's occurred to me too. But sometimes I wonder if economics is especially hard because it's a moving target: perhaps it changes so rapidly relative to the data it produces so as to make it a tough natural phenomena to track. I love that Jason takes a crack at it though.<br /><br />One of the reasons I'm such a fan of this blog is the good mix of theory, philosophy, comparisons with data, and forecasts. Noah Smith is good on the philosophy. Nick Rowe is all theory. Lots of people attempt to explain data, but rarely do you see a curve showing what their (well defined mathematical) model says in comparison. John Cochrane is a good example: he shows plots about what his models do, and he shows plots of actual data: but I don't recall him mixing the two. And very few macro-bloggers show plots of what their models forecast (followed by subsequent updates about how well those forecasts did). I wish there were more blogs that had this same mix.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-56212212366456456312016-01-14T09:54:21.255-08:002016-01-14T09:54:21.255-08:00Maybe economics is where medicine was before the g...Maybe economics is where medicine was before the germ theory of disease.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-59957896805594004472016-01-13T21:56:48.648-08:002016-01-13T21:56:48.648-08:00Scope: I guess I'd forgotten where that come f...Scope: I guess I'd forgotten where that come from. <br /><br />So M-theory is a theory which "isn't known?"Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-10728834906778196032016-01-13T20:51:42.612-08:002016-01-13T20:51:42.612-08:00I got scope conditions from Noah. I would say scal...I got scope conditions from Noah. I would say scale of the theory or domain (of validity). (Click scope link above for reference.)<br /><br />I wouldn't characterize it as "bad". It's the state you find yourself in when you don't know what you're doing.<br /><br />Economics is where string theory was in the 1980s before the idea of M-theory. Strings (microfoundations) didn't lead directly to enlightenment, so there was confusion and competing theories with no idea of their scope.<br /><br />Witten comes along with M-theory and what people think is a path to enlightenment.<br /><br />Maybe, maybe not.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-67343632492921597122016-01-13T18:37:58.160-08:002016-01-13T18:37:58.160-08:00I am surprised to see the phrase "Scope condi...I am surprised to see the phrase "Scope conditions" appear on a macro-themed blog other than yours (i.e. Noah's). Did that surprise you?<br /><br />Not being familiar with M-theory (beyond what I can recall from a Brian Greene youtube video aimed at people like me) or any of its five satellite theories (in your diagram), I'm slightly confused by your point you make in Noah's comment section here:<br /><br />""Physics models are usually just approximations of a single underlying theory."<br /><br />I think that is a good point; it also means there is an additional example from physics that is more like the econ situation: string theory."<br /><br />So, looking at the context of Noah's original quote there, he seems to be saying "Macro has a problem physics doesn't have" and you're saying "Good point Noah, but actually here's an example from physics that demonstrates an analogous problem to what you're bemoaning about with macro." Am I at least getting the tone right there? I.e. to put it in caveman (the voice in my head):<br /><br />Noah: Macro bad. Physics good.<br /><br />Jason: Yes, but here example where physics bad in same way too.Tom Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17654184190478330946noreply@blogger.com