tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post5414193253965283864..comments2023-06-18T01:25:08.748-07:00Comments on Information Transfer Economics: Blackford's information equilibrium modelJason Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-62339300158569745402016-11-09T18:26:09.970-08:002016-11-09T18:26:09.970-08:00It's true!
I said as much at the end.
This ...It's true! <br /><br />I said as much at the end.<br /><br /><i>This is not to say that there isn't some kind of debt mechanism behind the financial crisis.</i><br /><br />i.e. some other model might exist. But Blackford never put forward a model, and said that I could use my framework to figure it out.<br /><br />My model does say pretty general things about growth rates that should always apply (i.e. you could actually make the same argument without ever resorting to information equilibrium, but just argue about the growth rates).<br /><br />And since Blackford's model is just defined by relating growth rates of different variables, the information equilibrium model is sufficient to describe <a href="http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2016/03/information-equilibrium-and-time-series.html" rel="nofollow">all possible such models</a>.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-7980848441891219402016-11-09T18:16:55.995-08:002016-11-09T18:16:55.995-08:00It should be. It is a logical argument. All true l...It should be. It is a logical argument. All true logical arguments are tautologies, otherwise they'd be falsehoods.<br /><br />However, the initial premise ∀x ∈ S, p(x) (assumed in the logical statement) is actually from experience. Basically, in order to argue against the conclusion, you need to argue against the premise ∀x ∈ S, p(x) which states:<br /><br />"Friedman's 'as if' methodology is valid for all scientific approaches"<br /><br />You'd basically have to show that "as if" isn't the same as effective theory.Jason Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12680061127040420047noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-85593901669250641472016-11-09T18:11:44.612-08:002016-11-09T18:11:44.612-08:00"it isn't any more empirically accurate t..."it isn't any more empirically accurate than<br /><br />C ⇄ W"<br /><br />Maybe that just says something about your model rather than that debt was incorporated?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6837159629100463303.post-83086813250551921872016-11-09T16:12:35.438-08:002016-11-09T16:12:35.438-08:00"∀x ∈ S, p(x)
e ∈ S
∴ p(e) "
Entir..."∀x ∈ S, p(x) <br /><br />e ∈ S <br /><br />∴ p(e) "<br /><br /><br />Entirely tautological.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com