Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Faustine [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's not about central planning at all. Making any policy without using rigorous data-based research to get a sense of the way things really are (through analysis and measurement) rather than the way your theory tells you they OUGHT to be, is a dangerous prospect no matter what your politics are. The goal is more clear thinking and less bias. This is naive empiricism -- the idea that theory follows facts. How do you know which facts of the multitude available to follow without some prior existing theory about which facts are important? Economics is a theoretical social science (political economy) and your view of it depends on your starting axioms and whether they favour the individual or not. Do do you measure human behaviour? You can't. We aren't electrons that can be measured or reduced to Excel spreadsheets rather we are rational thinking, acting agents. The methodology of the physical sciences isn't suitable for the social sciences. Further it leads to a fallacy amongst engineers and the technically minded that you can engineer society in a scientific way. -- 1024/D9C69DF9 steve mynott [EMAIL PROTECTED] travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness. -- mark twain
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Tim May wrote: On Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 09:21 AM, Bill Stewart wrote: Perhaps the field has changed since I was in college, but back then, academic econometrics had the reputation of being dominated by Marxists - . . . I'll provide a data point about what corporations want: they hire a _lot_ of MBAs, but not a lot of economists. Sure, MBAs have to complete a series of econ courses, probably based on Samuelson and the various micro- and macro-econ courses, but mostly corporations are seeking those with tools to manage businesses, markets, product lines, etc. Classical economics is not a focus. And as Bill said in another post, Samuelson generated a very big book mainly (it seems) to sell more copies. Sort of like similar big books in molecular biology and organic chemistry. --Tim May Much of Microsoft's and Intel's profits of last year were from investment income, not from selling product. You really think a startup MBA and an Intel MBA get together, believe each other's line of bullshit and do a deal? Fucken grow up. A trillion dollars a day sloshes around in currency market transactions, every day. MBAs again, I'm sure. Best of all, corporate planning is not central planning. What a fucken laugh!
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk [ Samuelson-bashing ]
At 09:08 AM 04/22/2001 -0700, Tim May wrote: I haven't found Samuelson's textbook useful for any of the interesting discussions of markets, black markets, offshore havens, ... I used Samuelson's textbooks to study micro and macro in college. *Terrible*! Badly written, verbose, not structured well at all, especially for the mathematically literate student, and heavily tied up in the Keynesian government-knows-what's-best command economy view of the world. OK, the dude *did* have a Nobel prize in economics, but as near as I could tell, what he *really* specialized in was the economics of textbook sales, updating this heavy tome every year or two so students had to buy new ones instead of getting them used and selling them back to the campus bookstore at the end of the year. Most of the chapters had an appendix at the end which said most of the same material half as verbosely, but even that was still wading through molasses. I don't mind a certain amount of excess material if the author can write well and enjoyably, but this wasn't it. Some of the micro classes switched to a different textbook a year or two later - I think the author may have been Peterson? which was much thinner and more readable. My micro class was taught by a University of Chicago guy who was a good speaker, clear without oversimplifying, and who did a good job of balancing depth for his audience. Micro being what it is, this involved a certain amount of Ok, engineers, this is an integral, go back to sleep while I show the liberal arts majors areas under curves. That's easier to do well with micro than macro, but it still ain't that hard. I'd also taken economics in high school, and once Mrs. Borish was sick and the old retired guy who used to teach the course came in and subbed - he covered more in two days than we did the rest of the semester and a good third or half of the Micro 102 college course, though not in as much depth as the college material. It's worth reading Samuelson if you discuss economics much with people who learned it using Samuelson, just so you can balance the jargon and understand the themes they work with, but it's really dreck. Get the Cliff Notes if there are any :-)
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
On Tuesday, April 24, 2001, at 09:21 AM, Bill Stewart wrote: Perhaps the field has changed since I was in college, but back then, academic econometrics had the reputation of being dominated by Marxists - the more-Scientific Socialists who understood that if you want a centrally planned economy, you have to measure it so you can control it, as opposed to the purely political Scientific Socialists who believed in centrally planning an economy based on class struggle and rewarding heroic truck factory workers and shooting bourgeois greedy bankers and other warm fuzzy liberal values stuff. While the US government doesn't strongly believe in central planning, it has still supported that kind of field because if you want to spend lots of money, either on liberal welfare state programs, right-wing Anti-Commie military-industrial-complex welfare programs, or good old fashioned bi-partisan pork for your friends, you need to know how and where to squeeze the economy to maximize revenue without overly disrupting the processes that generate it. I'll provide a data point about what corporations want: they hire a _lot_ of MBAs, but not a lot of economists. Sure, MBAs have to complete a series of econ courses, probably based on Samuelson and the various micro- and macro-econ courses, but mostly corporations are seeking those with tools to manage businesses, markets, product lines, etc. Classical economics is not a focus. And as Bill said in another post, Samuelson generated a very big book mainly (it seems) to sell more copies. Sort of like similar big books in molecular biology and organic chemistry. --Tim May
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Quoting Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Richard Fiero wrote: James A. Donald wrote: . . . You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not academically respectable. But much of it, most famously that by David Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain topics, it is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer. Oh, what science is that? Economics is not a science. What about econometrics? It seems to belong in the same conceptual category as mathematics, statistics, operations research, etc. I dont think econometricians would generally appreciate being called softies... I think any economic theory worth its salt requires good data obtained by some kind of scientific methodology. Some economic theories are more scientific than others, it all depends on the approach. Kind of reminds me of this nuclear physicist I knew who heaped scorn on economics as 'soft' every chance he got. But then, he also had reservations about including the life sciences (like biology) as 'hard science' i.e, 'real' science. And heaven help the person who got him started on psychology and sociology. I guess some people are just more hard core than others! ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Faustine wrote: Quoting Jim Choate [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Richard Fiero wrote: James A. Donald wrote: . . . You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not academically respectable. But much of it, most famously that by David Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain topics, it is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer. Oh, what science is that? Economics is not a science. What about econometrics? It seems to belong in the same conceptual category as mathematics, statistics, operations research, etc. I dont think econometricians would generally appreciate being called softies... I think any economic theory worth its salt requires good data obtained by some kind of scientific methodology. Some economic theories are more scientific than others, it all depends on the approach. Kind of reminds me of this nuclear physicist I knew who heaped scorn on economics as 'soft' every chance he got. But then, he also had reservations about including the life sciences (like biology) as 'hard science' i.e, 'real' science. And heaven help the person who got him started on psychology and sociology. I guess some people are just more hard core than others! ~Faustine. . . . Agreed. There are some nested quotes above. I'd never attempt to criticize for being unscientific. My response was to James A. Donald's troll which stated that one kind of economics was more scientific than another. Now James A. Donald can talk circles around me any day and has a long and exemplary history which I'll not attempt to summarize here. With respect to measuring things, econometricians do measure things, lots of things. Is what is being measured even interesting? Now for the interesting part-- what is David Friedman doing and why does what he is doing resonate here? You can read him at http://www.best.com/~ddfr/ or buy his books. It seems to me he is doing game theory, auction markets and jurisprudence. The foundations of the most successful economies on the planet and studies which are sanctioned in scientific circles, CalTech for one. However, I read Marx, Keynes and Hayek. Those, for example, who state that California power deregulation has failed because it is not deregulated enough are theologians in my view. I also note that the supply/demand graph on page three of any Econ 101 text has really dark, bold lines because it's a total fiction and has no basis other than being a very useful fiction. About Faustine's pal who scorns soft sciences: it's what you get for hanging out with libertarians.
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Quoting "James A. Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: At 04:08 PM 4/20/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: I still think the quickest way to get a firm technical grasp of micro and macro economics is to sit down and work through problems for yourself with textbooks like Samuelson's and Krugman's, respectively. Had one done this fifteen years ago, one would have received a woefully inaccurate account of the Soviet Union. Hm. Still, there's plenty of inaccurate analysis to go around, no matter how you cut it. That's exactly why it's better to know about a variety of basic techniques so you can be in a position to make up your mind about who has accurate and useful data responsibly presented, versus who's doing funky things to it to get where they want to be. And so on. Does everyone 'need' to look at it this way? Of course not. But if more libertarians and other pro-freedom types did, as a whole they could have a greater impact and influence on society in the long run. So it seems to me, at any rate. One would have received a far more accurate and up to date account of the problems of price control and central planning by listening to old Reagan speeches, than by reading Samuelson. Ouch. But if you have the time and interest, why not read 'Road to Serfdom' and see where it all came from? To hell with Peggy Noonan, here's a condensed version right now: http://catalog.com/jamesd/hayek.htm Ha! Political speeches on economics : Hayek :: gravy train dog food : prime rib Nevertheless, I still don't think taking in basic econ textbooks ever did anyone with an open mind any harm... Samuelson is good. But he is not good on topics that disturb the politically correct. Indeed no book that is good on such topics is likely to be widely adopted by universities and colleges. True. But part of having an analytic approach involved not dismissing anything out of hand because it's 'premises' (please note the randianism) are wrong. How do you know good analysis from junk analysis? By understanding the methods used to produce it. If you don't have the ability to analyze and critique any work 'from it's underbelly', so to speak, you're basically stuck taking someone else's word about their conclusions. You are implying that libertarian analysis is unscientific and not academically respectable. I certainly didn't mean to! Like anything, there's a lot of wheat and a lot of chaff. Just make sure you can know the difference, that's all. But much of it, most famously that by David Friedman, is as hard core as anyone would wish, and on certain topics, it is a lot more hard core than most universities would prefer. Exactly: I didn't mean to make this a Friedman-versus-Samuelson debate, just to get out a point about the benefit of reading an econ 101 textbook. You don't like the Samuelson, get one by somebody else, I'm certainly no great critic here. Hm, what else do I have on my shelf: how about Hal Varian's 'Microeconomic Analysis'; the Obstfeld and Rogoff 'Foundations of International Macroeconomics'; David M. Kreps, 'A Course in Microeconomic Theory'... whoever else floats your boat. The goal here is to fill in the gaps you might miss be only reading books on particular topics. And to get out of the habit of only reading things you know you agree with ahead of time. When it comes down to a question of partisans and ideologues versus analysts and scientists, I think we all know where to put our money. You are claiming that libertarian economists are partisans and ideologues, and that those dispute their position are analysists and scientists. Not at all! Nobody has a monopoly on either of these categories. How much easier it would be if they did, huh. The trick is in being able to pluck the emeralds from the shale. And knowing if it really is an emerald or just beryl. And being able to tell how much the flaws and inclusions affect their value. Okay, enough of my lame analogy, you get where I'm going... If you compare Milton Friedman and David Friedman with Samuelson on topics on which they used to disagree, it is clear who was being more analytic and scientific. That's precisely the point! Knowing how to compare. And you value who comes out on top in this area, right? I don't mean to get into price theory or any other specific issue here: if Friedman wrote an econ 101 textbook, then I might have something useful to say about how he stacks up to Samuelson's textbook, since that's all I meant to talk about. As for the rest I likely agree with you. ~Faustine. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
Re: The Well-Read Cypherpunk
Quoting "James A. Donald" [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -- At 08:28 PM 4/18/2001 -0400, Faustine wrote: True, but my point was that the 'Samuelson technical stuff' has its place. All that technical stuff is in the Friedman's books, I still think the quickest way to get a firm technical grasp of micro and macro economics is to sit down and work through problems for yourself with textbooks like Samuelson's and Krugman's, respectively. Personally, I started with Rand at 15 and worked my way through a lot of the whole damn Laissez Faire book catalog before I ever got around to the purely analytic stuff. I really do think it would have been easier for me to get the technical basics by working through problems for myself first. My basic error was that I was so swept up in the social and political ramifications of these works, my own personal analytic rigor took something of a back seat. And, being so convinced of the fundamental 'rightness' of my free market heroes, I could hardly even see it. If you don't have the ability to analyze and critique any work 'from it's underbelly', so to speak, you're basically stuck taking someone else's word about their conclusions-- and in no position to debate issues with people who made hardcore analysis part of their intellectual toolkit. And frankly, that's a shitty place I don't want to be. When it comes down to a question of partisans and ideologues versus analysts and scientists, I think we all know where to put our money. So if the people we look up to take this approach, why shouldn't we? and where there was a conflict between sound economics, and the politically correct fashions of the day, Samuelson tended to cringe before whatever was PC fashion, until the fashion changed and he could get away with more accurate and realistic economics. I'm not out to say what a great guy he is, only that his technical introductory 'econ 101' textbook was helpful to me. Though now that I think about it, his 1958 volume on linear programming might be of interest to anyone interested in the turnpike conjecture of linear von Neumann systems. Most infamously, when many observers noticed that the Soviet Union was imminent danger of collapse, he assured us the Soviet economy was working just fine. Join the club on that one, heh. Though I do know of one senior analyst who said that CIA's economic over-estimates were actually a good thing in the long run, in that it led to the Reagan defense build-up, which in turn put us in a stronger negotiating position, which forced them into Glasnost, and thereby for a quicker demise for the whole system than if we'd got our economics straight in the first place. Have to find the spin wherever you can, I guess! ~Faustine. p.s. if any of you haven't already seen the Laissez Faire book catalogue, it's http://www.laissezfairebooks.com/. Get Tim's books there, heh. 'We live in a century in which obscurity protects better than the law--and reassures more than innocence can.' Antoine Rivarol (1753-1801).
The Well-Read Cypherpunk
At 1:21 PM -0700 4/15/01, Greg Broiles wrote: At 01:46 AM 4/15/2001 -0700, Ryan Sorensen wrote: Read the hundreds of articles on these matters. Read "The Enterprise of Law: Justice without the State," by Bruce Benson. Read David Friedman's "Machinery of Freedom," and his other books. Read... The point is, Aimee, _read the background material_. Admittedly, I'm not Aimee. I was wondering if I could get a few helpful pointers towards the background material? Any assistance would be much appreciated. You might also take a look at Robert Axelrod's _The Evolution of Cooperation_. And there are a dozen other books. The Well-Read Cypherpunk should know something about free market economics (not the Samuelson technical stuff taught in introductory econ classes in college), a litte bit about game theory and evolutionary game theory, some basic anarchist theory (left or right, provided one can see through the ideology), and should have an exposure to primitive cultures and how they trade for goods, how international commerce evolved, etc. It used to be that wide reading in "Scientific American" would supply a lot of the basics, stripped of any ideology. (Martin Gardner's "Mathematical Games" column was a staple...fortunately, his couple of dozen books are widely available.) The point of course is not to lay out a "logical proof" that crypto anarchy and related things are inevitable, but to establish a series of "paving stones" that allow the reader to stand and see how the gaps are likely to be filled in. (There are places where rigorous proof is useful, mainly in filling in these gaps. This view is in sharp contrast to the "pure logic" worldview demolished by Godel, Turing, Kleene, Chaitin, and others. Yes, such things have applicability even to epistemology.) Even fields dominated by ostensibly rigorous proof, like mathematics, fit this model. Before one can read a proof, a set of concepts has to be established. A few proofs, relating to geometry and number theory (no largest prime) are accesssible to young kids with little formal education, but even these kids must understand numbers and triangles and such, else the "proofs" are only manipulations of abstract symbols. (There's a small faction within mathematics which thinks this is all math is.) A demand that a "proof" be given that crypto anarchy is inevitable is thus not very interesting. What is more interesting is to establish the "paving stones" which make it more obvious what the implications of certain technologies are. (And thoughtful government analysts, even those who are no great friends of crypto anarchy, point to the dangers of crypto anarchy for the precise reason that they have enough of the paving stones to see how things are likely to unfold if certain trends continue.) Those of us who started the list, or who arrived in the first few years, were generally immersed in the writings of David Friedman, Bruce Benson, Vernor Vinge, Orson Scott Card, Robert Heinlein, Douglas Hofstadter, Hakim Bey, Martin Gardner, Robert Axelrod, Henry Hazlitt, and, last but not least, Ayn Rand. Not all of us had read all of this stuff, but it was a common enough set amongst techno-libertarians. Some were more knowledgeable about evolutionary game theory, others more knowledgeable about Unix. But when someone referred to Friedman's essays on Icelandic anarchy, it didn't draw the blanks I think we now see. Maybe people in those days, pre-Web, read more books. If someone didn't understand the reference, they tended to ask politely. Lately, we've had outsiders arrive on the list hostile to the core ideas. Though there is no ideological purity test, it is not interesting when someone like Aimee Farr--just the latest in a series--arrives and says, essentially, "OK, prove it to me!" Lacking the paving stones, the basis vectors, the building blocks, giving her some kind of logical proof would be pointless. And, as I said to her, if she wants one from me she can pay my daily consulting fee for as long as it takes me to write one. Many reading lists have been given over the years. Use search engines to find them (much Cypherpunks traffic shows up in Google, for example.) My Cyphernomicon has a bunch of book references, too, as well as supplying mini-essays on hundreds of topics. Read Steven Levy's article in "Wired." Read the essays of Eric Hughes, Duncan Frissell, and many others. Read about the Law Merchant, about international trade even before nation-states existed, much less international courts of justice. Read about the early bankers and how they enforced contracts. Read, read, read. I'm not saying every subscriber or interested person here should read hundreds of books. Just reading half a dozen, and thinking "outside the box" about the implications, is more
