Curt Doolittle

Theme: Measurement

  • THE VEIL OF MONEY by Michael Churchill There is a concept called “the veil of mo

    THE VEIL OF MONEY
    by Michael Churchill

    There is a concept called “the veil of money” which is that money is the means of exchange (and/or unit of account) but that that’s basically all it is. You change the number of zeros on the currency but it doesn’t really change anything. Somebody still has to make widgets. And each widget will have a certain value relative to a bushel of corn etc etc

    MONEY IS A VEIL IN THE LONG RUN
    The veil of money and, as a related issue, the quantity theory of money have special importance in economic theory throughout the 20th century. Actually, 20th century economics can be interpreted as a sequence of theoretical answers to the question whether money is only a veil or not. Different theories can be judged by their implied ideas as to the neutrality of money. In the simplest models and in the simplest form of the quantity theory of money, money is completely neutral, that is, changes in the money supply do not affect anything real. However, in the more elaborated models the neutrality theorem was applied rather to long-run considerations. For both Milton Friedman and Robert E. Lucas money was not a mere veil in the short run, so money was assumed to have real effects in the short run. The mechanisms through which money could exert these real effects were radically different and so were the sets of assumptions these authors created to establish their models. For example, Friedman postulated adaptive expectations, while Lucas assumed his economic agents to be able to form rational expectations. For both of them, money was only neutral in the long-run – that is, money was not just a veil in the short-run – but the scope of countercyclical economic policy was radically curtailed in new classical macroeconomics. In the case of rational expectations the monetary authority is not able to carry out systematic countercyclical economic policy – that is, it cannot exploit the existing short-run Phillips curve. However, it can be realized that if any of the conditions necessary to the ineffectiveness of systematic economic policy is not met, economic policy can be effective again, so, money is not only a veil.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:33 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576392223596795

  • THE MONEY ILLUSION (from wiki) In economics, money illusion, or price illusion,

    THE MONEY ILLUSION
    (from wiki)

    In economics, money illusion, or price illusion, is the tendency of people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real, terms.

    In other words, the face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value) at a previous point in time. Viewing purchasing power as measured by the nominal value is false, as modern fiat currencies have no intrinsic value and their real value depends purely on the price level.

    Money illusion influences economic behaviour in three main ways:

    Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change even where inflation has caused real prices or costs to rise.

    Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect.

    Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.

    Money illusion can also influence people’s perceptions of outcomes. Experiments have shown that people generally perceive an approximate 2% cut in nominal income with no change in monetary value as unfair, but see a 2% rise in nominal income where there is 4% inflation as fair, despite them being almost rational equivalents. This result is consistent with the ‘Myopic Loss Aversion theory’.[4] Furthermore, the money illusion means nominal changes in price can influence demand even if real prices have remained constant.[5]

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:17 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576391294062587

  • THE CONSISTENCY ILLUSION VS PRODUCTION CYCLES (economics, social science, politi

    THE CONSISTENCY ILLUSION VS PRODUCTION CYCLES
    (economics, social science, politics)

    Those of us raised on production cycles and Hayekian Triangles make fewer mistakes about Ideal statements in economics, because we are conscious of whether we are making statements about:

    1. The SHORT, MEDIUM, or LONG RUN;
    2. Whose PRODUCTION cycle (life cycle) are we talking about (ideal, or each stage of human life and the demographic distribution of those stages in the present terms);
    3. The bias toward INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION regardless of outcome (liberal) and the bias toward QUALITY OF COMMONS over time because of outcome (conservative);
    4. The capital we are measuring because of our bias toward individual consumption or quality of long term commons.

    That these four dimensions also reflect the male vs female and by consequence Aristocratic vs Underclass reproductive strategies;

    That these four dimensions also reflect the Moral Foundations:
    … M..F..-.. Caretaking (consumption, redistribution)
    … M..F..L.. Fairness (proportionality vs reciprocity),
    … M..-..L.. Liberty (openness to experience, novelty)
    … M..-..-.. Ingroup (loyalty)
    … M..-..-.. Hierarchy (Authority, Respect)
    … M..-..-.. Purity (disgust response)
    Where.
    … M = Dominant, Established, Communal Male, Conserve.
    … F = Female, Consumption
    … L = Libertarian or Ascendant (Individual) Male, production.
    Where these biases reflect demonstrated property (political) biases.
    … Male Private Property (concentration in male genes – merit)
    … Female Community Property (concentration in female genes – regardless of merit)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-07 15:25:01 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102576390233347703

  • ( I am, on the other hand, one of the few that predicted 08, 14, 17 and this eve

    ( I am, on the other hand, one of the few that predicted 08, 14, 17 and this event as either 19 or 20, and no later than 25. Numbers are numbers are numbers. Intuition belongs to the frog boiling in the water. Lessons of history. Every mass migration causes the same consequence.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-08-05 22:47:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158509806250057728

    Reply addressees: @askthetrainman @rezaaslan

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158508433169166336

    IN REPLY TO:

    @askthetrainman

    @curtdoolittle @rezaaslan Oh please, you are such a tool.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1158508433169166336

  • This is why large data sets have had such a negative effect on postmodern pseudo

    This is why large data sets have had such a negative effect on postmodern pseudoscience and caused panic in the fields. Neurological data is observed. Economic data is demonstrated. Dating site data is demonstrated. Demonstrated data is different from reported (nonsense) data.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-29 20:01:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155931345647886336

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155930902569996288

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @clairlemon As for Psychology and Sociology and some Economics, it’s true that many shallow hypotheses (observations from meaningless data and meaningless correlations) are not repeatable. This however applies to small sample size, constructed tests, and reported data, not discovered data.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155930902569996288

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @clairlemon As for Psychology and Sociology and some Economics, it’s true that many shallow hypotheses (observations from meaningless data and meaningless correlations) are not repeatable. This however applies to small sample size, constructed tests, and reported data, not discovered data.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155930902569996288

  • As for Psychology and Sociology and some Economics, it’s true that many shallow

    As for Psychology and Sociology and some Economics, it’s true that many shallow hypotheses (observations from meaningless data and meaningless correlations) are not repeatable. This however applies to small sample size, constructed tests, and reported data, not discovered data.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-29 19:59:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155930902569996288

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155930469004804096

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @clairlemon …then you don’t know what the F* you’re talking about.
    Secondly, if you can’t say what you aren’t measuring (in his case, available opportunities under the population curve) then you don’t know what you’re talking about. He doesn’t do either. He doesn’t know what he’s saying.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155930469004804096

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @clairlemon …then you don’t know what the F* you’re talking about.
    Secondly, if you can’t say what you aren’t measuring (in his case, available opportunities under the population curve) then you don’t know what you’re talking about. He doesn’t do either. He doesn’t know what he’s saying.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155930469004804096

  • then you don’t know what the F* you’re talking about. Secondly, if you can’t say

    …then you don’t know what the F* you’re talking about.
    Secondly, if you can’t say what you aren’t measuring (in his case, available opportunities under the population curve) then you don’t know what you’re talking about. He doesn’t do either. He doesn’t know what he’s saying.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-29 19:57:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155930469004804096

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155930112115609600

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @clairlemon He tells people that they’re idiots or inummerate in reductive use of correlations. Conversely, if you can’t operationalize it you don’t understand it. In other words, if you can’t via-positiva construct a demonstrated behavior and via-negativa statistically define its limits …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155930112115609600

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @clairlemon He tells people that they’re idiots or inummerate in reductive use of correlations. Conversely, if you can’t operationalize it you don’t understand it. In other words, if you can’t via-positiva construct a demonstrated behavior and via-negativa statistically define its limits …

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155930112115609600

  • He tells people that they’re idiots or inummerate in reductive use of correlatio

    He tells people that they’re idiots or inummerate in reductive use of correlations. Conversely, if you can’t operationalize it you don’t understand it. In other words, if you can’t via-positiva construct a demonstrated behavior and via-negativa statistically define its limits …

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-29 19:56:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155930112115609600

    Reply addressees: @clairlemon

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155929570891014144

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @clairlemon My followers tell me to come to Quillette and go after Taleb thoroughly and get his little game of deception out on the table. Because he’s just trying to play his own ethnic game with the data – just what he accuses others of. Cherry picking data.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155929570891014144

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @clairlemon My followers tell me to come to Quillette and go after Taleb thoroughly and get his little game of deception out on the table. Because he’s just trying to play his own ethnic game with the data – just what he accuses others of. Cherry picking data.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155929570891014144

  • You want to settle disputes forever in an empirically sound test? Swap populatio

    You want to settle disputes forever in an empirically sound test? Swap populations. Of course, that won’t fly. The Russians did it. You wouldn’t. Because you know the outcome. Don’t make race an issue when it’s pandering government. Kentucky was democratic during its decline.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-29 18:39:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155910736616538114

    Reply addressees: @smudgey62 @realDonaldTrump @GOP

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1155910106648895490

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @smudgey62 @realDonaldTrump @GOP Um. I don’t think you understand that Baltimore is in Maryland and is port on the atlantic, while and kentucky is a torn state consisting of a rich state(industrial) with 40% of the people, and a poor state (coal mines), with 60% of the people still in the coal regions.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155910106648895490

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @smudgey62 @realDonaldTrump @GOP Um. I don’t think you understand that Baltimore is in Maryland and is port on the atlantic, while and kentucky is a torn state consisting of a rich state(industrial) with 40% of the people, and a poor state (coal mines), with 60% of the people still in the coal regions.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1155910106648895490

  • COMPETITION, COMPETITION EVERYWHERE, AND NOT AN INDEX (MEASUREMENT) TO BE FOUND.

    COMPETITION, COMPETITION EVERYWHERE, AND NOT AN INDEX (MEASUREMENT) TO BE FOUND.

    You see, ‘you’ as in what you perceive as the self, are continually presented with competitions from which you (we) select winners. In the case of voluntary action, if you conceive of it, it’s already pre-processed and you simply ‘let the greyhound out of the box’ to act.

    In every human era we develop models. we are still working with the physical machine model of the brain, the electrical model of thought, the justificationary model in logic – but these are not how anything in nature or man operates. Instead, nature uses competition. And everything we do is not maintained against a MEASUREMENT but against COMPETING forces. This is one of the most important lessons I’m trying to teach you in the Course “Foundations”. There is no memory of things, but of the prediction of things. There is no plan of action, but competing plans of action. There is no BASELINE or prescription for a human being – other than survival and reproduction. Our thoughts are not linear but infinitely recursive with a slow forgetting curve that we perceive as ‘us’ (our conscious self), that is maintained as a continuous circuit in very evident and obvious areas of the brain.

    –“basal ganglia primarily in action selection – in helping to decide which of several possible behaviors to execute at any given time. In more specific terms, the basal ganglia’s primary function is likely to control and regulate activities of the motor and premotor cortical areas so that voluntary movements can be performed smoothly. Experimental studies show that the basal ganglia exert an inhibitory influence on a number of motor systems, and that a release of this inhibition permits a motor system to become active. The “behavior switching” that takes place within the basal ganglia is influenced by signals from many parts of the brain, including the prefrontal cortex, which plays a key role in executive functions.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-07-26 15:36:57 UTC

    Original post: https://gab.com/curtd/posts/102508489372620332