This continues to the final day the schedule for the virtual 30th SCTPLS conference, registration due July 6 at societyforchaostheory.org/2020/conf .
Friday, July 24
Orlando Gomes, ISCAL, Portugal "Behavioral saving"
Yuji Aruka, Chuo University, Japan "The evolution of exchange processes"
Akio Matsumoto, Chuo University, Japan "Stability swtiching in Cournot duopoly games with three delays"
Karim Cherif, UMMTO, Algeria "Human resource marketing: A new strategy to retain top talent for company"
Jose Navarro, University of Barcelona, Spain 'The rough journey to success: Examining the nonlinear dynamics of processes and performance in teams"
Teresa Rebelo, University of Coimbra, Portugal "Does virtuality influence team learning? An analysis with cusp models"
Janice Ryan, Attunement Solutions, Tennessee, USA "Applications of prisoner's dilemma modeling in search of a more socially just dominant strategy: Overcoming anxiety associated with group oppression: Lessons from a single case study"
Ahmed Bilal Zenab, University of London, UK "Nonlinear dynamics od armed groups in Yemen and Pakistan"
Megan Chiovaro, University of Connecticut, USA "Recurrent quantification analysis of real-time and online social cohesion during the Arab Spring"
Anatoly Zhiurkov, Saint Petersburg University, Russia "Simple and complex models of optimal blood pressure: Fifteenyears of cooperation with SCTPLS"
Dimotrios Stamovlasis, Aristotle University of Thessalonika, Grreece ""Achievement goal orientation and classroom goal structures: Dynamic interaction effects on students' academic behavior"
David Chan, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA "The protective effect of having a prime supporter within a social networek of college students on mental health and education"
Annual Business Meeting
David Schuldberg, University of Montana, USA "Covid-19 and the nonlinear dynamics of everyday life"
Allan Combs, IISC, California, USA "Fractals all the way down"
Bernard Ricca, St. John Fisher's College, New York, USA "An introduction to topological data analysis"
Stephen Guastello, Marquette University, Wisconsin, USA "A comparison of four dyadic synchronization models"
Cortney Armitano-Lago, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, USA "Feedback cueing changes in lower limb loading during gait alters underlying stride intrval dynamics and intralimb coordination dynamics individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction"
Keira Lum, Dalhousie University, Canada "The collision of healthcare and complexity during Covid"
Vivian Rambihar, University of Toronto, Canada "Chaos Complexity and complex system: To prevent, contain and manage Covid-19"
Economists: at the end of the wrong track
Comment on Barkley Rosser on ‘July 24 Society For Chaos Theory In Psychology And Life Sciences Conference’
As usual, Barkley Rosser promotes cargo cult stuff. Cargo cult was the name that Feynman gave the ‘social sciences’, in order to clearly distinguish them from genuine science. Here are some programmatic highlights from the ongoing aberration:
• "Applications of prisoner's dilemma modeling in search of a more socially just dominant strategy: Overcoming anxiety associated with group oppression: Lessons from a single case study"
• "Stability swtiching in Cournot duopoly games with three delays"
• "Covid-19 and the nonlinear dynamics of everyday life"
All this fits perfectly Feynman's definition “They’re doing everything right. The form is perfect. ... But it doesn’t work. ... So I call these things cargo cult science because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they’re missing something essential.”
The essential insight that economists are missing is that they are for 200+ years now on the wrong track, i.e. in the wrong paradigm. Economics is not a 'social science' but a system science.#1, #2
For Barkley Rosser, it is too late but for those who are fed up with 200+ years of proto-scientific garbage and want to know what the Paradigm Shift looks like there is now the first scientifically valid economics textbook available.#3
#1 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?
#2 Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing
#3 Sovereign Economics
Best for your conference. I've been attending occasional alumni association/institute webinars and they are acceptable for me.
Kanye West tweets he's running for president this year
via @nbcnews - July 4
Whatever the reason, rapper Kanye West tweeted Saturday that he’s running for president this year, a threat he’s made before.
“We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future,” he declared on the current president’s favorite social media platform. “I am running for president of the United States! #2020VISION.”
His wife and potential first lady, Kim Kardashian West, retweeted him. …
The hip-hop star and fashion impresario has been criticized for his friendship with President Donald Trump, a Republican who has low support among Black Americans.
“Your power is not just to vote Democrat for the rest of our lives,” West said at the Fast Company festival. “That’s not the power — just voting on who they told us to vote on. That’s not where the power is.” …
(Looks like there could be a 3rd party alternative to Joe Biden after all.)
Fred C. Dobbs
You say “Kanye West tweets he’s running for president this year.”
That’s a nice try to distract from the fact that Barkley Rosser is promoting the agenda of the Society for Chaos Theory in Psychology And Life Sciences. The title reminds one immediately of a $30 bill.
Note that economists do not know to this very day what profit is. They are simply too stupid for the elementary algebra that underlies macroeconomics. Just check the proof.#1 What do you think one can learn from failed economists about psychology or any other topic?
By the way, if Caligula made his horse a Roman consul, Kanye West can be made president. What goes in contemporary politics is an old hat in academia. After all, Barkley Rosser has been made an economics professor. And he is not as smart as a horse.
#1 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?
Section Provably false
“Kanye West tweets he’s running for president this year.”
That’s a nice try to distract from the fact that Barkley
Rosser is promoting the agenda of the Society for Chaos Theory...
Surely this much to do with the 'promotion of chaos' events.
Kanye West again says he will run for president
BBC News - July 5
US rapper Kanye West has said he is running for president, potentially pitting him against a man he says he admires, Donald Trump.
"We must now realize the promise of America by trusting God, unifying our vision and building our future," he tweeted. "I am running for president of the United States!"
His wife Kim Kardashian West and entrepreneur Elon Musk endorsed him.
But it's unclear whether West is really running.
He does not appear to have registered his name with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for November's election. The closest name the FEC database shows is a candidate called "Kanye Deez Nutz West", who filed their papers with the Green Party in 2015 under the address "1977 Golddigger Avenue, Suite Yeezus" and appears to have raised no money. ...
Ah, Egmont, long time, no see.
Of course you are spouting your same old nonsense, that all economics is worthless because economists do not follow your joke of a theory of profits. I have nothing new to say on that.
What is pretty silly of you is that the vast majority of the presenters at this conference are not economists. Many of the talks are on psychology or medical isseus, as well as pure math and even physics. Why should any of these people be sneered at by you over them not adhering to your pet thory? The keynote speech is by one 0of the world's leading mathematical ecologists, Simon Levin of Princeton, a man I have known for decades, whose works has been cited many tens of thousands of times. He will mostly be talking about animal behavior. Or we have the presidential address by psychologist Davis Schuldberg of the Universiity of Montana that focuses on the Covid-19 pandemic. Of what relevance is your idiosyncratic theory to his talk? You are just absurdly irrelevant here.
Finally, you specifically name a talk by psychologist Janice Ryan that focuses on game theory and its most famous case, the prisoner's dilemma. It is true that economists have used game theory a lot, but they did not invent it, and people from many other disciplines have used it. Its inventors were mathematicians such a Emile Borel, John von Neumann, and John Nash. The prisoner's dilemma was first conceived by mathematicians at the RAND corporation, Dresher and Flood, and the outcome of their initial experiments upset Nash. It's name and classic example about prisoners was made by mathematician Albert W. Tucker, whom I knew and who was Nash's major professor at Princeton. He coined the term in an address to the American Psychological Association, so they have as much right to use it as do economists, and it has long been studied in other disciplines such as political science and philosophy, as well other parts of game theory.
So, Egmont, you have simply missed the mark with this silly screed on your part.
Name-dropping again ... the world's leading blablahblah ... cited many tens of thousands of times ... Princeton ... RAND ... John von Neumann ... And almost all are best buddies of the academic busybody Barkley Rosser.
Yes, Barkley Rosser, you know a lot of people from the academic entertainment industry, too bad that you have no idea how the economy works.
You say “It is true that economists have used game theory a lot, but they did not invent it, and people from many other disciplines have used it.” Did it ever occur to you that game theory is zero-sum and that the market economy is not zero-sum. For 200+ years now macroeconomic profit is obviously greater than zero. So, to begin with, game theory is NOT applicable to economics. Von Neumann’s Theory of Games and Economic Behavior is plain methodological BS because it gets the pivotal economic concept of profit wrong.
And you hang around in academia and all these pointless conferences and have not realized that something is deeply wrong with economics. Guess what, it has nothing to do with animal behavior or the nonlinear dynamics of armed groups in Yemen and Pakistan.
Learn economics, Barkley Rosser. The canonical textbook Sovereign Economics#1 is your last chance.
CNN: A plea to Kanye: Don't. Just don't.
... Speculation about West's announcement filled social media Sunday. Some say he's running to hurt Joe Biden by trying to peel away Black voters from the presumptive Democratic candidate. Others argue the opposite, noting West could attract some of the small percentage of Black voters who like Trump or those who supported Trump because they want to "burn down the system." Some say West isn't really running, just promoting his new album. Others, probably rightly, note that West may be doing this simply for attention, much the way Trump does. ...
Wow, I have not seen you fall so spectacularly on your face practically ever. I do not know where you went to econ grad school, but apparently they did not teach you even the most elementary game theory.
Sorry, Egmont, but no, it is not in general zero sum. Indeed, the classic example of it not being zero sum is that most famous of cases you poked at: the prisoner's dilemma. The whole point of that game is that it is not zero sum. If the prisoner's can cooperate, trust each other, and all that, they end up better off than if they pursue their own narrow selfish interest. It is an interesting game precisely because it is not zero sum.
Indeed, this is what got Nash upset when he saw Dresher and Flood running repeated game experiments at RAND on it. His Nash equilibrlum of no cooperation, of the prisoners confessing and ending up worse off, is not the Pareto optimal outcome of them not confessing and cooperating. In the repeated game experiments of Dresher and Flood, in fact the participants did figure out to cooperate for long periods of time, although they tended to revert to Nash equilibrium behavior at the end. This upset Nash so much that these people were not "behaving rationally" in his weirdly paranoid view of the universe that it led him to abandon studying game theory.
You really need to avoid making such elementary mistakes, Egmont, if you are going to come here and tell others how little they know about economics. This sort of thing would get flunked out of an undergrad econ class in micro, much less a grad level one. Are you going to start insisting that your profit theory shows that 2+2=5 next? I mean you are so big on how all economists are too "stupid" to even know the algebra you are pushing, but here you go completely falsely claiming that in game theory the games are all zero sum. F for you, buddy.
You say “Wow, I have not seen you fall so spectacularly on your face practically ever. I do not know where you went to econ grad school, but apparently they did not teach you even the most elementary game theory.” and “Sorry, Egmont, but no, it is not in general zero sum. Indeed, the classic example of it not being zero sum is that most famous of cases you poked at: the prisoner's dilemma.”
Take notice first, Barkley Rosser, that the term game theory covers TWO different approaches, that of von Neumann and that of Nash. The prisoner's dilemma belongs to Nash. Von Neumann had only utter contempt for the Nash approach (see Mirowski who has extensively dealt with the issue).
Here is the summary “Finally, algorithmic rationality infected game theory itself, changing von Neumann’s original project considerably. The Nash Equilibrium, for Mirowski the paradigm case of the ‘rationality of the paranoid’ (p. 343), stands for him in marked contrast to von Neumann and Morgenstern’s earlier work. Mirowski points to various sources that report von Neumann’s rejection of the equilibrium concept; further, he finds in Nash’s work all of the ingredients that had beset the Cowles Commission: ‘hyper-individualism, non-accessible utility functions, constrained maximization, and cognition as a species of statistical inference’ (p. 348). The Nash equilibrium, Mirowski concludes, is to be seen as a ‘logical extension of the Walrasian general equilibrium tradition into the Cold War context’ (p. 339), but not as a continuation of von Neumann’s project.”#1
Obviously, it is you who is not familiar with the most elementary facts about game theory. No surprises here.
The term zero-sum game relates to the von Neumann approach and has nothing to do with the prisoner's dilemma.
Von Neumann was well aware that there are non-zero-sum n-person games but he transformed them into zero-sum games with the introduction of the n+1 th player.
Take notice, second, that von Neumann had no idea of what macroeconomic profit is. There are three references to profit in the index and they tell you that von Neumann did not understand the essence of economics. He simply redefined utility as profit for the entrepreneur, see footnote 2 on p. 33 ToG.
No way leads from game theory in any version to macroeconomic profit.#2 Game theory is essentially a new version of the old angels-on-a-pinpoint blather that is so beloved in scientifically incompetent academic circles of which you are a card-carrying member.
Economics is fake science and you are the living proof.
#1 Economica, Till Gruene
#2 Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?
What is the point of being destructive? The wild meanness just masks being incomprehensible. Why not then try to be comprehensible?
Learn to control yourself emotionally, and there might be reason in your arguments.
Being clearer and less annoyed; I will read what is written from a perspective that is not immediately mean. Then what I need is clarity in the writing.
You are relatively recently arrived here. Egmont has not been here recently, but somehow this pair of posts drew him back after a long absence. But he used to comment here profusely and always with this tone and always with this line, although the discussion of von Neumann and Nash is not something we have seen from him before. But if you egg him on he will repeat his full line, which includes his empty axioms that back up his idiosyncratic theory of profit, which, you can see just from these comments, he considers to the ultimate be all and end all of all economics, with the failure of all other people having anything to do with economics to follow his theory to prove that that they are all the nasty and insulting things he regularly says about them/us.
Some here, especially Sandwichman, have argued that he should be banned. It is tempting as he mostly just repeats himself. But I have argued that he should be tolerated, although I no longer waste time refuting his main arguments when he repeats them for the umpteenth time.
There is great debate about the Nash versus von Neumann approaches, and I would say that Phil Mirowski's view is at the far end of the pro-von Neumann view, not accepted by many. This is an ongoing debate, with the main difference not being over equilibrium or even zero-sum versus non-zero-sum games, but rather over cooperative games versus non-cooperative games. As it is, while von Neumann was certainly more brilliant than the also brilliant Nash, it is Nash's approach that has been far more influential than von Neumann's, although you are free to argue this was a mistake.
As for von Neumann not understanding equilibrium, von Neumann was the first person to use Brouwer's fixed point theorem to probe the existence of eqwilibrium, doing so in 1928 in a paper in German on game theory. In 1937 he was also the first to do for a special case of competitive general equilibrium theory. No, he was not an enemy of Walrasian general equilibrium. Nash would use the more general Kakutani fixed point theorem to prove existence of the Nash game theory equilibrium, which was picked up by Arrow and Debreu when they got around to their 1954 more general proof of the existence of general equilibrium.
As for dragging in the Cold war and somehow suggesting that von Neumann was not into it, way off. Both von Neumann and Nash were pretty much Cold War hawks. If anything, von Nuemann was much more so, famously invoking his version of game theory when he pronounced that "if it is optimal to nuclear bomb the USSR at 5 PM today, then it is optimal to do so at 1 PM," or words to that effect. When von Neumann died of stomach cancer in 1957, several generals and admirals were hovering over his death bad to get his final words of wisdom for them.
BTW, Anonymous, Egmont used to occasionally show up on Mark Thoma's much lamented Economistsview, where he would do his usual thing. You may have seen him there from time to time.
The lethal defect of game theory is that neither von Neumann nor Nash got the foundational economic concept of profit right. This defect they share with the representative economist to this very day.
So, this whole set-theoretical fireworks with Brower's and Kakutani's fixpoint theorems is scientifically beside the point and serves only to train mentally retarded economists to dance around false-hero-memorials.
Von Neumann got his math from Hilbert in Göttingen. There, he was one of many talented mathematicians. He learned soon that he could sell his talent at a premium in the United States. In an environment that runs on the principles of show business, he hyped himself or was hyped to the status of mathematical demi-good (Mirowski, Machine Dreams).
Von Neumann was on the payroll of the military and he died as an alcoholic in the Institute of Advanced Salaries as he himself called it. In sum, von Neumann was instrumental in weaponizing mathematics and swapping the principles of science for the dictates of show business. In the history of science, von Neumann will feature as one of the corruptors of mathematics.
The sickest joke in the sick story of game theory is that the foundational blunder of economics lies on the level of elementary algebra.#1 So much for the achievements of mathematical economics. It is proto-scientific garbage, just like the rest of economics.
Here is the three-step program for the New Paradigm
1. Defund economics.
2. Fire economists.
3. Scrap the lot and start again. (J. Robinson)
#1 Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing
Yikes: I'm starting to tip towards Sandwichman's position!!
What? Joan Robinson accepted your wacko profit theory, Egmont? I never knew.
You say: “What? Joan Robinson accepted your wacko profit theory, Egmont? I never knew.”
Of course, you know nothing because you are not only stupid but lazy. Go to the library and get Robinson, J. (1956). The Accumulation of Capital. London: Macmillan. See pp. 400-402.
“… an excess of investment over saving is an undistributed profit to the firm, …” (p. 402) and this corresponds formally to equation (32) in my 2011 working paper
Keynes’s Missing Axioms
Do you need more proof of your utter scientific incompetence, wacko Barkley?
I have never said that your theory is wrong, but rather that it is a vcuous tautology. Everybody knows about retained earnings, and it is a matter of no importance except slightly in determining investment. But then I have said this only about a million times here, with you continuing to think that thinking about retained earnings is the most important thing in economics, so important that anybody who talks about things that are not even economics with mentioning it, such as mathematicians and philosophers developing game theory get ridiculed by you that they do not talk about it.
BTW, Anonymous, this is the core observation of Egmont's theory, that worrying about defining and measuring retained earnings is by far the most important thing in economics, indeed just about the only important thing in economics, even though it is a well known and boring accounting identity.
I had not looked at this stuff for awhile, but one can see how retained earnings are treated in the National Income and Product Accounts by simple googling. There is a document put out by the Dept. of Commmerce Bureau of Ecoonomic Analysis (BES) that lays it all out. Retained earnings are dealt with on p. 8, being part of income. Turns out it is more complicated than Egmont lets on in his model. It is Sales minus direct cost minus taxes minus interest payments plus interest receipts minus dividends.
It is widely observed that corporations retain earnings largely to finance corporate investment. There are papers on this, but it is a boring topic, frankly, so the papers do not get many citations. This whole topic is frankly a great big nothing, despite all of Egmont's exaggerated declarations. But those of us who have been around here for awhile know this already.
You say “I have never said that your theory is wrong, but rather that it is a vcuous tautology. Everybody knows about retained earnings, and it is a matter of no importance except slightly in determining investment.”
No, you did not say that my profit theory is wrong, you said that it is wacko.
You try to suggest that for me “… thinking about retained earnings is the most important thing in economics, …”.
No, the most important thing in economics is to get the foundational concept of profit right. And the fact of the matter is that economics is provably false on this all-decisive score for 200+ years.#1
Economics is NOT a science, economists are NOT scientists but clowns and useful idiots in the political Circus Maximus. The representative economist is stupid or corrupt or both. The economics Nobel is a fraud.
#1 Your economics is refuted on all counts: here is the real thing
The wacko part is that you think it is important. It is utterly trivial. It is rather like somebody deciding that the fundamental key to understanding all of mathematics is to realize that 7 + 2 = 9. This is certainly true, and it is also something that anybody who knows even basic arithmetic knows. But it is absolutely of no importance to broader mathematics at all.
The same goes for your great theory. Anybody who even vaguely knows anything about NIPA knows what retained earnings are (which are also called "undistributed profits" in parentheses, the term you prefer). It is simply a part of the broader accounting of various forms of profits. But its only significance to broader economics is, as I have repeatedly noted, that it is a favored source by firms for funding their capital investment, so it has some vague connection with economic growth. But firms do have alternatices.
There is a miniscule and barely cited literature on the policy implications of this, which basically amount to the influence of tax policy with respect to dividends, given that dividends are distributed profits, and it is what firms decide not to distribute as dividends that is what constitutes retained earnings (taking into account other taxes as well as interest payments going in and out of the firm). This is a completely trivial matter, and is why your correct theory is completely trivial.
So, really, you declaring that economists who do not focus on retained earnings as the most important part of a theory of profit that in turn is the fundamental element of economics, including parts such as game theory that may have nothing to do with profit and came from mathematicians and is used by many non-economists to study many issues far removed from economics, is like somebody making similar claims for mathematics about 7+2=9, supposedly being absolutely central for somebody studying algebraic topology, and if they do not emphasize this true but trivial fact they are "stupid" and "do not know algebra" and should all be fired.
Sorry, but this crackpot wacko bs of the worst sort on your part. I fear that your ongoing inability to publish anything is making your screeds get worse and worse. Have they fired you at that think tank you were associated with some years ago, or do you have absolute tenure short of assaulting somebody else working there?
You say “The wacko part is that you think it is important. It is utterly trivial. It is rather like somebody deciding that the fundamental key to understanding all of mathematics is to realize that 7 + 2 = 9. This is certainly true, and it is also something that anybody who knows even basic arithmetic knows.”
By trying to trivialize the absolutely devastating proof that economists got profit wrong for 200+ years you shoot yourself in the head.
Ultimately, the profit law for investment economy, i.e. Qm≡I−Sm, is indeed trivial. It is elementary algebra. The point is that economists are too stupid for elementary algebra.#1 And because of this, they get profit for the elementary consumption-production economy, i.e. Qm≡−Sm, wrong, and then for the more complex investment economy with profit distribution, i.e. Qm≡Yd+I−Sm, and so on. By consequence: because economists are too stupid for the elementary algebra of macroeconomic profit determination, the whole analytical superstructure of economics is provably false. By consequence, economic policy guidance NEVER had sound scientific foundations.
This proven scientific incompetence does not only apply to Barkley Rosser, it applies also to his faculty. More, it applies to ALL economics faculties in the United States, and it applies to the American Economic Association and the peer-reviewers of its journals. ALL these folks get the trivial algebra of profit wrong.
#1 See section Provably false in ‘Wikipedia, economics, scientific knowledge, or political agenda pushing?’
Weil, Egmont, my evolutionary game theorist friend, Bill Sandhlm may have just blown his brains out, at least he did himself in somehow or other. Perhaps he read your recent writings and took them too cloaely to heart. Heck, he might even have come to believe that 2=7=10.
In any case, I am going to pass up the invitation, and I am not going to retire out of taking any of this seriously. I realize that you are getting very frustated by nobody (or almost nobody) being willing to publish your papes, and this goes far beyond those associated with the AEA, but there is it. Nobody thinks they are worth publishing, no matter how much you think we all have shot ourselves in the head.
You say “Weil, Egmont, my evolutionary game theorist friend, Bill Sandhlm may have just blown his brains out, at least he did himself in somehow or other. Perhaps he read your recent writings and took them too cloaely to heart. Heck, he might even have come to believe that 2=7=10. ”
The University Of Wisconsin–Madison says “Colleagues knew Bill as “a genuine scientist; detail-oriented, open-minded, and uncompromising in the pursuit of truth,” “a humble scholar with an enormous love for research,” “an exceptional human being, generous with his time,” “kind and supportive to all, and a cherished mentor.” and “After years of struggling with depression, Bill ended his life earlier this week.”
Post a Comment