Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • How Do We Define Economics? It Took Time…

    Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as “an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in particular as:

    —“a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.”—

    John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the subject in a social context as:

    —“The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”—

    Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:

    —“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”—

    Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed “Perhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject”:

    —“Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”—

    Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favours as :

    —The study of human behavior by “Combining i) the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, ii) stable preferences, and iii) market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.”—

    I’m pretty obviously a Beckerian in that I see economics as a methodology applied to the science of studying demonstrated behavior, and the application of physics to life forms that (a) have memories, (b) consciousness, and (c) the possibility of cooperation. I see economics as an extension of physics into conscious life. And I see p-law as the logic of invariance from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. I see Physics, Economics, Law, and evolutionary necessity as the hierarchy of laws of nature.

  • How Do We Define Economics? It Took Time…

    Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as “an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in particular as:

    —“a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.”—

    John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the subject in a social context as:

    —“The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”—

    Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:

    —“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”—

    Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed “Perhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject”:

    —“Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”—

    Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favours as :

    —The study of human behavior by “Combining i) the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, ii) stable preferences, and iii) market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.”—

    I’m pretty obviously a Beckerian in that I see economics as a methodology applied to the science of studying demonstrated behavior, and the application of physics to life forms that (a) have memories, (b) consciousness, and (c) the possibility of cooperation. I see economics as an extension of physics into conscious life. And I see p-law as the logic of invariance from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws. I see Physics, Economics, Law, and evolutionary necessity as the hierarchy of laws of nature.

  • The term “Note(s)” (debt instrument), like “Money” (medium of exchange), and “Cu

    The term “Note(s)” (debt instrument), like “Money” (medium of exchange), and “Currency” (“in circulation”) has been abused.

    Technically, money proper must consist of commodity money. All else is a commodity money substitute:

    – Scrip ( currency substitute that replaces legal tender. a form of credit and documentation of debt)>

    – Token-prepaid-money-substitute (bitcoin: divisible tokens) >

    – Cheque-non-transferrable-claim-on-account >

    – Note-transferrable-claim-on-account >

    – Banknote-claim-on-deposits >

    – Share-in-the-corporation-assets >

    – Fiat-Share-in-the-economy : Fiat Money (What we all use today)

    The rest are various financial instruments that are less liquid.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-24 12:21:00 UTC

  • P and Math

    —“In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining?”—Billy Law-Bregan

    [S]mart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy.

  • P and Math

    —“In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining?”—Billy Law-Bregan

    [S]mart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy.

  • Math Versus Natural Law — the Same?

    [M]ath is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • HOW DO WE DEFINE ECONOMICS? IT TOOK TIME… Adam Smith (1776) defined what was t

    HOW DO WE DEFINE ECONOMICS? IT TOOK TIME…

    Adam Smith (1776) defined what was then called political economy as “an inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations”, in particular as:

    —“a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator [with the twofold objectives of providing] a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … [and] to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue for the publick services.”—

    John Stuart Mill (1844) defines the subject in a social context as:

    —“The science which traces the laws of such of the phenomena of society as arise from the combined operations of mankind for the production of wealth, in so far as those phenomena are not modified by the pursuit of any other object.”—

    Alfred Marshall provides a still widely cited definition in his textbook Principles of Economics (1890) that extends analysis beyond wealth and from the societal to the microeconomic level:

    —“Economics is a study of man in the ordinary business of life. It enquires how he gets his income and how he uses it. Thus, it is on the one side, the study of wealth and on the other and more important side, a part of the study of man.”—

    Lionel Robbins (1932) developed implications of what has been termed “Perhaps the most commonly accepted current definition of the subject”:

    —“Economics is a science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.”—

    Gary Becker, a contributor to the expansion of economics into new areas, describes the approach he favours as :

    —The study of human behavior by “Combining i) the assumptions of maximizing behaviour, ii) stable preferences, and iii) market equilibrium, used relentlessly and unflinchingly.”—

    I’m pretty obviously a Beckerian in that I see economics as a methodology applied to the science of studying demonstrated behavior, and the application of physics to life forms that (a) have memories, (b) consciousness, and (c) the possibility of cooperation.

    I see economics as an extension of physics into conscious life. And I see p-law as the logic of invariance from the physical, natural, and evolutionary laws.

    I see Physics, Economics, Law, and evolutionary necessity as the hierarchy of laws of nature.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 12:25:00 UTC

  • “I’m not entirely sure why so many people make economics a mystery.”—Robert Da

    —“I’m not entirely sure why so many people make economics a mystery.”—Robert Danis

    Fixed Pie vs:

    1) opportunity costs

    2) equilibration and full accounting

    3) lacking basic vocabulary and knowledge of the two cycles.

    4) ISLM->ISMP vocabulary talking about aggregates vs operational vocabulary talking about behaviors)

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 11:20:00 UTC

  • THE EMOTIONAL ECONOMY — Dr Barrett. —“…your brain is wired to model your wo

    THE EMOTIONAL ECONOMY

    — Dr Barrett.

    —“…your brain is wired to model your world, [measured] by what is relevant for your body [and its] budget, and then you experience that model as Reality.”—

    Or as I’m fond of saying in Vitruvianism, “Man is the measure of all things to man. Experience is constructed from those measurements. And the grammars are just systems of measurement.

    —“The theory of constructed emotion incorporates elements of all three flavors of construction. From social construction, it acknowledges the importance of culture and concepts. From psychological construction, it considers emotions to be constructed by core systems in the brain and body. And from neuro-constuction, it adopts the idea that experience wires the brain.”—

    —“Emotions [evolved to] 1) to make meaning – to understand one’s state is more efficient, 2) prescribe action, 3) regulate your body budget to prepare for said action. These 3 are about you. Two other functions: 4) emotional communication and 5) social influence.”—

    —“Your body budget fluctuates normally throughout the day, as your brain anticipates your body’s needs and shifts around your budgetary resources like oxygen, glucose, salt, and water. When you digest food, your stomach and intestines “borrow” resources from your muscles. When you run, your muscles borrow from your liver and kidneys. During these transfers, your budget remains solvent.

    —“Affective Realism is a step past implicit bias. The Reality we see/hear is shaped by our affect. … You might believe that you are a rational creature, weighing the pros and cons before deciding how to act, but the structure of your cortex makes this an implausible fiction. Your brain is wired to listen to your body budget. Affect is in the driver’s seat and rationality is a passenger. It doesn’t matter whether you’re choosing between two snacks, two job offers, two investments, or two heart surgeons your everyday decisions are driven by a loudmouthed, mostly deaf scientist who views the world through affect-colored glasses.”—

    Book goes off the rails later on but the beginning is close enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-23 09:57:00 UTC

  • More than that. it’s the holy grail of economics. ‘”what’s the measure?” It’s be

    More than that. it’s the holy grail of economics. ‘”what’s the measure?”

    It’s because they’re looking for a statistic by which to manage money supply and spending, not calculating costs and returns on investments. Why? because like you said – they have malincentive.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-04-22 20:53:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253064510539259905

    Reply addressees: @judicialist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1253061080831713281