Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law distributions

From: the Campaign for Real Economics (camrec@mmu.ac.uk)
Date: Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:34:41 GMT

  • Next message: the Campaign for Real Economics: "Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law distributions"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA03528 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:37:24 GMT
    Message-Id: <200012151737.RAA03528@alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk>
    Errors-To: b.edmonds@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: camrec@mmu.ac.uk
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    To: CAMREC list members <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
    From: the Campaign for Real Economics <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
    Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:34:41 -0800 (PST)
    Subject: Re: CAMREC: Egalitarianism in a world of power-law   distributions
    

    --- the Campaign for Real Economics <camrec@mmu.ac.uk>
    wrote:

    > Allusions to a (possible prerequisite) 'fairly
    > stable environment' seem
    > problematic when discussing evolutionary dynamics.
    > I'd rather allude to a
    > slowly evolving 'agents' or 'networks' in a chaotic
    > environment. Everything is changing except the
    > speed of light.

    In a possible strong form of the statement I disagree,
    but fairly stable is a relative concept. Therefore, we
    might argue about whether the glass is half-full or
    half -empty
    For me matter relative speeds between changes in and
    of the environment relative to speed of mutations
    tracking these, resp. mutations bringing about new
    "ways of earning your life" eg entering a new niche
    due to a new function/property - to argue from the
    biological point of view.
    I don't like "chaotic", even in the sense of
    deterministic chaos, because also in social systems
    there is next to all that change a lot of cultures,
    traditions, imitation etc which constrains change to
    certain "chreodes" (to take an expression of
    Waddington from the area of developmental biology)
    watching politics which was fun because: the
    development of debates was usually pretty well
    predictable in the sense that you could predict the
    next few rounds of the discussion based on the last
    step in the context of the history of the debate. I
    could also form pretty strong convictions about sth
    like an attractor where the issue would end up in the
    end... which sometimes was not too much off the mark.
    Surprise, surprise - thats what a lot of people do
    when predicting stock performance traditionally or
    using neural networks
    I felt pretty sure that the same is true for
    historical processes in general esp. if you took
    account of the frames/mindsets of political actors -
    but that is easy to state for an historical process
    and difficult to prove...so I left the area of history
    and went into management/economics

    <snip>
    > I probably should apologize. Bringing up
    > egalitarianism is essentially a
    > request for a conversation on 'welfare' and here I
    > am joking around as if
    > I'm above the semantic quagmire.

    nobody can be above that, I guess, that's just
    included in the concept and the different value
    judgement people make...

    <snip>

    > BTW, what is Stauffer's relexitivity?
    He certainly did not include it in his
    analysis/prediction so I don't think he cares. He just
    pointed me to Sornette that his (Sornette's) theory,
    or I should say model, might be better suited to deal
    with such effects than his own (Stauffer's)

    I got to reflexitivity by common sense but didn't know
    how to call it and finally came across the concept in
    the literature

    Best regards,
    CHR

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
    http://shopping.yahoo.com/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 17:37:26 GMT