“Ask yourself what you know. Where did you LEARN what you know about Economics?”
I learn a theoretical construct .. I quantify and empirically verify its significance w/ statistical tests. I don’t believe in the construct, I know them to be true w/ high probability. I use the scientific method while ironically you do not.
So let me get this straight ……
…..
…… You’re arguing against capitalism because it concentrates potential power and you advocate a system that centralizes power even more
No, its because politicians have to appear to be doing something to fix the markets. In much a similar fashion to evolutionary processes, the weak corporations die off and only the most adaptive corporations ( to macroeconomic fluctuations) survive. Do you dare argue with the benefits of evolutionary processes?
I am serious. Your credentials mean nothing to me if you can’t wrap your head around the idea that using Capitalist models when attempting to understand a technate society and energy accounting is absurd.
Well aware of that. And we have backed up every piece of the puzzle needed. As for Capitalism being well established… then why does the model change and mix Socialism and other systems (all based on the price system mind you) in an attempt to survive? Because it is flawed.
Ask yourself what you know. Where did you LEARN what you know about Economics? Economics are not set principles. The variables withing any given system will alter the economic model needed to meet it’s demands. You’re thinking economics confined within the Capitalist model. I mock you because of this very point. You bring up Capitalistic Economic models and tell me that due to those models a Technate society would not function. Obviously Capitalism would not function in a Technate society.
M.Rabin ,”Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and economics,” American economics review
This isn’t the paper that I was talking about but it demonstrates the common theme. The paper demonstrates that individuals actually care more about appearing fair than actually being fair. Apply this to the technocratic system in which there’s very limited information flow … and see the impossibility of the system
A generalization of the dictator game w/ absolute anonymity would , with very high probability, result in zero allocation of goods to other individual. The errors in allocation were equal dispersed throughout time. It’s in a microeconomics text but if you would like research papers on the topic search on SSRN
The burden proof is not on the established camp but rather the person making the outlandish claim. Nonetheless, the answer you are looking for is in a interdisciplinary branch of applied mathematics/ economics called game theory. .
Are you serious? Even level 1 statistical modeling is decomposed into a stable systematic deterministic component and a idiosyncratic stochastic component. Do you even know how complex the economy is?
I’m currently working on my Masters in Math (mathematical finance) and I will obtain a phd in applied mathematics…. Don’t lecture me on math
You mocked my level of understanding of economics and yet you know nothing about these constructs. Answered how? It goes against what you said. Do you even know what adjusted R^2 means??? (This is a fairly intermediate metric .. i wont get into generalizations). I statistically proved that the significance of non-classified motives is not statistically significantly different than random fluctuations. Im using science to debunk your pseudo-science
The Native American Tribes… the Tribesmen had no “jobs” and no “money” yet they worked. They worked for several principles of which I will identify 2. 1. Survival, 2. Recognition. Hard work pays off in more ways then one. Money is simply what we’ve created (human beings) as a means of simplifying bartering.. but human beings had evolved for thousands of years prior without money and been successful at that.
It’s called Mathematics. The formula would start off as being far more accurate then what our current market system offers (which is erratic). As time goes by we will become better at predicting outcomes by simply being better at counting population demands. The formula will improve even further. What??? does 1+1 not equal 2 in your mind?
Because your post makes no sense. You attempted to use words which you thought would give others the impression you actually have a counter argument. Everything you’ve just asked me has been answered.
I asked for scientific evidence of human behavior and you come up with this ridiculous post containing no substance at all. I don’t need to counter argue you as you’ve shown no evidence. Show me a scientific study backed by sound empirical evidence and then we can talk.
I know that I owned you so hard. You make outlandish claims w/ zero evidence. I provide empirically verified counterarguments. I don’t think that you’re intentionally trying to cause harm. I believe that you are trapped in your own delusion. Nonetheless, your actions may delude those who are uninformed about economics. Thus, I will debunk you
Why is the theory of C-VaR adjusted utility so powerful? Why does it have such high adjusted explanatory power if there exists such overpowering non-classified motives? Why is their factor equalization in pure flexible process w/ zero systematic risk? The reason …. there may be these factors but they’re not of significant, they don’t attribute non-linear sensitives, they are idiosyncratic. Even if they do exist, their predictive power is not statistically more powerful than iid Gaussian noise
Really now? Show me the scientific evidence which supports your argument. Oh wait… there isn’t any. The evidence supports Altruistic Individualism (not altruism or selfishness). You are wrong and misinformed. There is no denying this fact YOU ARE WRONG.
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“Ask yourself what you know. Where did you LEARN what you know about Economics?”
I learn a theoretical construct .. I quantify and empirically verify its significance w/ statistical tests. I don’t believe in the construct, I know them to be true w/ high probability. I use the scientific method while ironically you do not.
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Yeah society was great before capitalism. ..Why do you think there was a huge spike in technological advances during the past century?
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
So let me get this straight ……
…..
…… You’re arguing against capitalism because it concentrates potential power and you advocate a system that centralizes power even more
You’re making my brain hurt
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
What! You speak of centralized power
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
No, its because politicians have to appear to be doing something to fix the markets. In much a similar fashion to evolutionary processes, the weak corporations die off and only the most adaptive corporations ( to macroeconomic fluctuations) survive. Do you dare argue with the benefits of evolutionary processes?
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhhat ….. lol I didn’t say anything about capitalism. This is how individuals interact
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
I am serious. Your credentials mean nothing to me if you can’t wrap your head around the idea that using Capitalist models when attempting to understand a technate society and energy accounting is absurd.
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
No dictators, no anonymous dictators. The system which I promote, promotes negative Liberty in it’s very construct.
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Well aware of that. And we have backed up every piece of the puzzle needed. As for Capitalism being well established… then why does the model change and mix Socialism and other systems (all based on the price system mind you) in an attempt to survive? Because it is flawed.
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Ask yourself what you know. Where did you LEARN what you know about Economics? Economics are not set principles. The variables withing any given system will alter the economic model needed to meet it’s demands. You’re thinking economics confined within the Capitalist model. I mock you because of this very point. You bring up Capitalistic Economic models and tell me that due to those models a Technate society would not function. Obviously Capitalism would not function in a Technate society.
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
M.Rabin ,”Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and economics,” American economics review
This isn’t the paper that I was talking about but it demonstrates the common theme. The paper demonstrates that individuals actually care more about appearing fair than actually being fair. Apply this to the technocratic system in which there’s very limited information flow … and see the impossibility of the system
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
A generalization of the dictator game w/ absolute anonymity would , with very high probability, result in zero allocation of goods to other individual. The errors in allocation were equal dispersed throughout time. It’s in a microeconomics text but if you would like research papers on the topic search on SSRN
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
The burden proof is not on the established camp but rather the person making the outlandish claim. Nonetheless, the answer you are looking for is in a interdisciplinary branch of applied mathematics/ economics called game theory. .
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Are you serious? Even level 1 statistical modeling is decomposed into a stable systematic deterministic component and a idiosyncratic stochastic component. Do you even know how complex the economy is?
I’m currently working on my Masters in Math (mathematical finance) and I will obtain a phd in applied mathematics…. Don’t lecture me on math
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
You mocked my level of understanding of economics and yet you know nothing about these constructs. Answered how? It goes against what you said. Do you even know what adjusted R^2 means??? (This is a fairly intermediate metric .. i wont get into generalizations). I statistically proved that the significance of non-classified motives is not statistically significantly different than random fluctuations. Im using science to debunk your pseudo-science
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
The Native American Tribes… the Tribesmen had no “jobs” and no “money” yet they worked. They worked for several principles of which I will identify 2. 1. Survival, 2. Recognition. Hard work pays off in more ways then one. Money is simply what we’ve created (human beings) as a means of simplifying bartering.. but human beings had evolved for thousands of years prior without money and been successful at that.
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
It’s called Mathematics. The formula would start off as being far more accurate then what our current market system offers (which is erratic). As time goes by we will become better at predicting outcomes by simply being better at counting population demands. The formula will improve even further. What??? does 1+1 not equal 2 in your mind?
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Because your post makes no sense. You attempted to use words which you thought would give others the impression you actually have a counter argument. Everything you’ve just asked me has been answered.
I asked for scientific evidence of human behavior and you come up with this ridiculous post containing no substance at all. I don’t need to counter argue you as you’ve shown no evidence. Show me a scientific study backed by sound empirical evidence and then we can talk.
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
No counterargument??? Your silence is deafening.
I know that I owned you so hard. You make outlandish claims w/ zero evidence. I provide empirically verified counterarguments. I don’t think that you’re intentionally trying to cause harm. I believe that you are trapped in your own delusion. Nonetheless, your actions may delude those who are uninformed about economics. Thus, I will debunk you
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Hey wrap your head around this….
Why would anyone work???
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
“Pricing system cannot predict”
….The magical energy accounting system can predict all future demand w/ absolute certainty? Are you crazyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
?
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Why is the theory of C-VaR adjusted utility so powerful? Why does it have such high adjusted explanatory power if there exists such overpowering non-classified motives? Why is their factor equalization in pure flexible process w/ zero systematic risk? The reason …. there may be these factors but they’re not of significant, they don’t attribute non-linear sensitives, they are idiosyncratic. Even if they do exist, their predictive power is not statistically more powerful than iid Gaussian noise
PierreElliottTrudeau
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Really now? Show me the scientific evidence which supports your argument. Oh wait… there isn’t any. The evidence supports Altruistic Individualism (not altruism or selfishness). You are wrong and misinformed. There is no denying this fact YOU ARE WRONG.
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
This is a complete contradiction to how people function !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is why free markets work and yours never will. Comrade
axe863
June 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Communists make more sense than this guy.
“Infinite amount of energy” Nice well live in a black hole .. (energy=mass*c^2)
Why would anyway invested in their own human capital???? The onlyyyy thing that drives steady state income growth is advances driven by this growth