Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nonequilibrium Economics & Why We're Clueless

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 3
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 template Next
  • #16
    Originally posted by Ramo


    Oh, sure. Obviously you've got funky nonlinearities, but that people are actually figuring this **** out is cool. Now I can look up these guys' papers...
    But we've known that for a long time. The prevailing view simply chooses to ignore it because it makes the math unsolvable.

    I have to wonder about computational issues, though. Playing around with AI's to generate collective behavior could get expensive quickly (otherwise, you're hoping that a smaller system scales really well).
    Actually the whole point of using simulations is because aggregation isn't as simple as economists usually try to pretend it is. If it were simple, some solvable equations could be substituted for the computer simulation.
    "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
    -Joan Robinson

    Comment

    • #17
      Originally posted by Victor Galis


      But we've known that for a long time. The prevailing view simply chooses to ignore it because it makes the math unsolvable.
      Yeah, but research into finding out, i.e. where the bifurcation between a stable credit system and collapse based on the interest rate is probably fairly recent.

      Actually the whole point of using simulations is because aggregation isn't as simple as economists usually try to pretend it is. If it were simple, some solvable equations could be substituted for the computer simulation.
      Sure. My point is that the computational expense of using AI's to generate collective behavior in a large system would probably be prohibitively expensive. You've got to hope that a smaller system scales really well.
      "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
      -Bokonon

      Comment

      • #18
        Originally posted by Ramo
        Sure. My point is that the computational expense of using AI's to generate collective behavior in a large system would probably be prohibitively expensive. You've got to hope that a smaller system scales really well.
        More than $700 billion? [/flippant]
        One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

        Comment

        • #19
          Originally posted by Ramo
          Oh, sure. Obviously you've got funky nonlinearities, but that people are actually figuring this **** out is cool. Now I can look up these guys' papers...
          Why is it cool? What do you think is going to come of this? I mean we already knew markets don't work sometimes. We've been thinking and talking about disequilibrium economics for a long time.
          I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
          - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

          Comment

          • #20

            I haven't read any of these guys' work before...
            "Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way. "
            -Bokonon

            Comment

            • #21
              Originally posted by Ramo

              I haven't read any of these guys' work before...
              It's cool to read sure. I don't think using computers is going to help much though. I think the problem is economists as a group and the way they think.
              I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
              - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

              Comment

              • #22
                Originally posted by Kidicious


                Why is it cool? What do you think is going to come of this? I mean we already knew markets don't work sometimes. We've been thinking and talking about disequilibrium economics for a long time.
                Not mainstream economics. Market failures don't necessarily imply disequilibrium economics.
                "The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
                -Joan Robinson

                Comment

                • #23
                  Mainstream economics just ignored it (or at least what I understand to be mainstream economics).

                  But terms like "panic selling", "herd mentality", "correction", "rally", "irrational exuberance" etc indicate that it has long been known that the market is not in equilibrium but buffets around and often goes into extremes for extended periods of time - not based on new information, but based on perception, psychology and other behavioural quirks.
                  One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                  Comment

                  • #24
                    I like to compare markets to oceans (or surface water in general). As anyone knows, water always seeks a level and all surfaces could be perfectly even. It's just there are all kinds of disturbances that cause ripples, waves, tides and so forth. It's the same with the markets. Maybe if there weren't population growth, technological progress, policy changes (not in the least in monetary policy), trends in consumer preferences, warfare, weather patterns, natural disasters... then perhaps there would a situation in which prices don't change. What matters is not such much is that a state of equilibrum is ever reached but that there's a strong pressure towards it. Overpriced stocks fall and unsatisfied demand attracts new investments (and typically result in undershoots and overinvestments, creating pressure in the opposite direction).
                    DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                    Comment

                    • #25
                      I think the forces of equilibrium are given too much credit. That goes for a lot of the so called principles that economists claim are true. There are at least equal forces acting against equilibrium working in the economy. Even when it looks like there's an equilibrium there really isn't one. People just believe that it's an equilibrium so they buy and sell close to that price.
                      I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                      - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                      Comment

                      • #26
                        Colon - the point is that that's an inaccurate metaphor because of all the effects Big Crunch mentioned.

                        Comment

                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Dauphin
                          More than $700 billion? [/flippant]
                          I'm not sure that should be flippant. It's a legitimate point.

                          Comment

                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Victor Galis
                            Not mainstream economics. Market failures don't necessarily imply disequilibrium economics.
                            Most of them believe in intervention, like the bailout. But the thing is they don't believe in regulation to prevent a crisis. Free markets and bailouts is all they have.
                            I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                            - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                            Comment

                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Kuciwalker
                              Colon - the point is that that's an inaccurate metaphor because of all the effects Big Crunch mentioned.
                              Don't see how what he says contradicts my POV. His last post actually was the only one I've read and I was supporting it.
                              DISCLAIMER: the author of the above written texts does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for any offence and insult; disrespect, arrogance and related forms of demeaning behaviour; discrimination based on race, gender, age, income class, body mass, living area, political voting-record, football fan-ship and musical preference; insensitivity towards material, emotional or spiritual distress; and attempted emotional or financial black-mailing, skirt-chasing or death-threats perceived by the reader of the said written texts.

                              Comment

                              • #30
                                I don't think herd mentality is equilibrium. It's called equilibrium too often though.
                                I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
                                - Justice Brett Kavanaugh

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 template Next
                                Working...
                                X