I had thought that the signifigance of choas and complexity theory
is that they establish in a fairly incontestable way the limits on what
"pre-non-linear" model (i.e. most of the neoclassical position) can
accomplish. If you demonstrate that economic phenomena embody
chaotic processes then
I think that this thread is about sewed up, but one
final remark in response to Doug Henwood's remarks about
the "dehumanization" implied by "interacting particle
systems" models. This was the dialectical model of
socio-economic transformation of Marx and Engels as drawn
from Hegel.
In a message dated 98-02-08 17:28:24 EST, you write:
has a
lot in common with a whole lot of neoclassicals and even some radicals, is
the impulse to view society as something that can or should be thought of
as something that can be represented using the same kinds of models used to
Doug,
I think that you are overreacting here to phraseology.
Yes, I realize that "interacting particles" can sound
pretty awful, miniscule even. But as noted these agents
react to each other and learn from and about each other.
There is nothing in the approach that says the agents have
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Doug,
You are interested in analyzing capitalism aren't you?
It's a system isn't it?
Also, you are one of the most intrepid and capable
data wonks in cyberspace. Why the sudden horror of data?
Look, I have nothing against analyzing society
Doug,
You are interested in analyzing capitalism aren't you?
It's a system isn't it?
Also, you are one of the most intrepid and capable
data wonks in cyberspace. Why the sudden horror of data?
Barkley Rosser
On Thu, 5 Feb 1998 19:25:54 -0500 Doug Henwood
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doug,
Actually, when I was first asked, one of the things
that I mentioned is something that Michael Perelman also
mentioned, namely highlighting how fragile a system can be
that does not look fragile at all on the surface, the
famous "butterfly effect" or "sensitive dependence on
Doug,
Just for the record, I have no great feeling or love
for the Santa Fe Institute itself. It is not going to
question the Establishment too much, at least partly
because it has gotten funding from such places as the Ford
Foundation. It is the ideas coming out of it that I find
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Actually, when I was first asked, one of the things
that I mentioned is something that Michael Perelman also
mentioned, namely highlighting how fragile a system can be
that does not look fragile at all on the surface, the
famous "butterfly effect" or
Doug Henwood wrote: A paragraph of English prose, not to mention an
acquaintance with economic
history, can make this point just fine. My question was what all the fancy
math adds to the mix.
Poor Doug just does not get it. He is not an economist, so he might not
understand the subculture.
Doug,
As a sophisticated analyst of financial market
shenanigans and gallivants, you are not at all surprised by
such remarks. Others are less accepting.
More generally, this is turning into game playing.
You say, "give me an English prose sentence that explains
the math." So I
Michael Perelman wrote,
My comment and Barkeley's was intended to show how
you can use chaos theory to talk to economists. They do not understand prose.
I have been told on many occasions that an assertion about the economy is
illegitamate unless I have a model to back it up. On the other
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Another wiggle, close but not the same, is that a
system can be behaving very regularly and then quite
suddenly start behaving very erratically ("chaotically"),
with different and smaller changes than the first case.
I don't like this use of the word "system,"
In a message dated 98-02-05 13:56:57 EST, you write:
like so much econometrics, with little power to clarify
real human life?
Oh no!!!
I've been found out!! There goes my 401(k) money!
J
Doug Henwood wrote:
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Another wiggle, close but not the same, is that a
system can be behaving very regularly and then quite
suddenly start behaving very erratically ("chaotically"),
with different and smaller changes than the first case.
I don't like this
Doug Henwood wrote:
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Another wiggle, close but not the same, is that a
system can be behaving very regularly and then quite
suddenly start behaving very erratically ("chaotically"),
with different and smaller changes than the first case.
I don't like
Doug writes, in response to a post from Barkley concerning chaos theory,
A paragraph of English prose, not to mention an acquaintance with economic
history, can make this point just fine. My question was what all the fancy
math adds to the mix.
Well, the paragraph of English prose can't really
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
Focusing purely on
economics and a notch or two up mathematically, but
probably still more accessible than anything else is my
1991 book, _From Catastrophe to Chaos: A General Theory of
Economic Discontinuities_, Boston: Kluwer, not available in
paperback. I am
On Tue, February 3, 1998 at 17:47:51 (-0500) Rosser Jr, John Barkley writes:
Well, as I confess that I did indeed have our man Doug
H. in mind when I mentioned "former English majors" let me
as a published poet attest that I think that poetry and
plays are a better way to elucidate
Bill Lear,
You are asking something to which there is not a
simple answer. In fact, my immediate response is to ask
you what you consider to be "of interest" in the economy
that requires "explaining" by whatever means?
Three other points, however:
1) Many chaos models are very
In my response to Bill Lear when I referred to the
the Santa Fe AI models as "not opaque" I should have said
that they are opaque. That is one of the methodological
issues surrounding such simulation techniques. One may get
a result that one cannot really see how it came about, e.g.
--- Begin Forwarded Message ---
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 1998 11:22:27 -0600 (CST)
From: "William S. Lear" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Santa Fe-Krugman-Arthur
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: POST-KEYNESIAN THOUGHT [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, February 3, 1998 a
This is going to try to reunite to recently bifurcated
threads on pen-l and pkt that started out together, having
been asked specifically on pen-l in particular to comment.
Here goes:
1) I have not read the specific debate between
Krugman and Arthur, but if Krugman is poking at
23 matches
Mail list logo
