On Sat, 27 Apr 2002, R. A. Hettinga wrote:
> Except if they're, paradoxically, "Austrian" economists, like Hayek, or von
> Mises, who reject "scientism" and, oddly enough, equilbrium theory.
Then again Mises equated 'capitalism' with 'economics'...even the great
fallfor a good intro to some
On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No.
Maybe.
> People who think like economists or libertarians will conclude
> that markets tend to stability, because humans will analyze
> fluctuations,
The examples of stable free markets include lots of examples that are not
involved with hum
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Ken Brown wrote:
> One of the classic examples of what is now called "chaos" (a word that I
> don't like in this context). The exact trajectory taken by simple models
Uhuh...
> of predator-prey systems is often very sensitively dependent on initial
> conditions. Of course
--
At 12:15 PM -0700 on 4/27/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > People who think like economists or libertarians will conclude
> > that markets tend to stability, because humans will analyze
> > fluctuations, attempt to predict them, and then take
> > precautionary action to protect themselves
At 12:15 PM -0700 on 4/27/02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> People who think like economists or libertarians will conclude
> that markets tend to stability, because humans will analyze
> fluctuations, attempt to predict them, and then take precautionary
> action to protect themselves, which will ha
--
On 25 Apr 2002 at 18:26, Ken Brown wrote:
> This kind of thing has implications for economics & technology &
> markets of course (cf Santa Fe, ad infinitum). People who think
> like ecologists tend to assume that a more complex market, with
> more participants, and more kinds of interacti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> For example, when a sheep dies you get more
> grass for the remaining sheep, which gets you more sheep again,
> so you can do a reasonable job of predicting sheep population
> without knowing anything about the fates of individual sheep.
Actually as the cycle ti
On 23 Apr 2002 at 18:56, Tim May wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2002, at 11:18 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
> > Back nearer to on-topic, Tim's explanation why the world could not be
> > predicted even if it were locally (microscopically) predictable sounds
> > spot-on.
>
> It's not my idea, obviously.
