Editing George Stigler

{{stub}}

<blockquote>
''Another [new economic theory] has to do with bilateral trade and the geometry of markets, culminating eventually in a model of humans in which they're allowed to change their tastes. Now, it sounds very strange to say that economic theory falls apart when human beings change their tastes. But since at least the late 1970s, we've had an excuse in place in the work of Becker and [[George Stigler|Stigler]], that allows us to make assumptions about human beings that are known to be wildly untrue. And the way out, strangely enough, is through differential geometry, the differential geometry of markets. So that's something that I think we're going to be very interested in bringing to you. I don't know whether the idea of geometric markets is something that can be easily explained to a mass audience. But this theory of geometric marginalism is, in fact, a starter theory, that, if that is successful, might allow us to discuss an even more profound attempt, which would be this concept that I've called Geometric Unity.''

- Eric Weinstein on [[2: What is The Portal|The Portal Episode 2]]
</blockquote>

==On X==

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/2592919937
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Becker & [[George Stigler|Stigler]] go to Lunch. 

Waiter: For you, [[George Stigler|Dr. Stigler]]?
[[George Stigler|Stigler]]: I'll have what Gary's having. 
Waiter: Dr. Becker?
Becker: The Usual.
|timestamp=2:45 AM · Jul 12, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5759054875
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@ubfid Hi Fergus. The [[George Stigler|Stigler]] quotes come from the 'Eureka!' chapter in his autobiography: http://bit.ly/CoaseStigler
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5758808847
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="Economists could not understand how so fine an economist as [[Ronald Coase|Coase]] could make so obvious a mistake." -UChicago [[Peer Review|peer reviews]] [[Ronald Coase|Coase]] ['''Stigler''']
|timestamp=6:30 AM · Nov 16, 2009
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/5758892877
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content="[After] 2 hours of argument, the vote went from 20 against and 1 for [[Ronald Coase|Coase]] to 21 for [[Ronald Coase|Coase]]." -Chicago Econ. reviews itself. ['''Stigler''']
|timestamp=6:35 AM · Nov 16, 2009
}}
|timestamp=6:46 AM · Nov 16, 2009
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572729419354115
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And we are not even trying to measure that. To this day, I can't *really* understand what CPI-U is. That is either because I'm too dumb, or the field has gone mad agreeing with itself while disconnected from reality. And I believe no one is that dumb. Even on a really bad day...
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572718887555072
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You mean field. Economics is actually all about fields: field operators &amp; field theory.

Technically, inflation is classically like a Wilson Loop observable on path spaces. But economists have historically denigrated path-dependent approaches (e.g. 'cycling problems', 'drift').🤷
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=saylor-profile-8t0DGo6V.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/saylor/status/1457332967869665284
|name=Michael Saylor
|usernameurl=https://x.com/saylor
|username=saylor
|content=There is a different inflation rate for every consumer, varying all the time, depending on their consumption requirements and jurisdiction. Inflation is a vector, not a scalar. Just like fluid dynamics & aerodynamics, it is impossible to model an economy with simple arithmetic.
|timestamp=1:03 PM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572721081163778
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You have no idea how crazy econ got to make us all the same so that what we're saying can be ignored. Seriously, think about asserting that all folks have the same tastes &amp; that they can never change so that economists can use 'Stable preferences...relentlessly &amp; unflinchingly'.
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572722482028550
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You will see in the inflation literature various bizarre tendencies to introduce 'homogenous' or 'homothetic' utility functions and to hold these functions fixed. Ultimately it fell to 2 giants to claim that taste is universal. That way, rich/poor, you/me all have common utility.
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572723757027329
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“The combined assumptions of maximizing behavior, market equilibrium, and stable preferences, used relentlessly and unflinchingly, form the heart of the economic approach...” -Gary Becker

Followed by inexplicable &amp; inscrutable 'work' of  Becker &amp; [[George Stigler|Stigler]]:
https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016726818990067X
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572725145411588
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The move to look out for is 'Superlative price index numbers give an excellent approximation to the true 'Cost-Of-Living'!" which totally sidesteps the field issue you bring up, the dynamic taste issue (replaced by 'Stable preferences'), &amp; inequality (replaced by homotheticity).
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572726558834690
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=All of these simplifications are made better in a fully path dependent field theory framework with endogenously determined differential operators.

Claiming we all have the same unchanging tastes (e.g. Becker-[[George Stigler|Stigler]]) and working in simplified regimes isn't at all understandable.
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457572728098152452
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It's like publishing a number for the temperature in the US in 2020. Your path dependent price index measure of inflation is as individual as your commute. It's *mildly* meaningul to posit a 'representative commute to work' that doesn't depend on our various routes. But not very.
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}
|timestamp=4:56 AM · Nov 8, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990534949397803328
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=So to sum it up: he is not wrong. 

I think what I said to him is that after the 1950s, inflation became a modern tool/weapon rather than a measurement starting with the Stigler Commisson. I explained my view that the @BLS_gov is a quiet version of the @federalreserve. An insanely powerful “Statistics” organization where economists actually implement policy by simply chosing how to compute economic numbers.

Numbers that just so happen to automatically transfer trillions and touch every aspect of our lives. 

He already knew a lot of the [[Boskin Commission|Boskin]]/GaugeTheory story from Harvard. Less about [[George Stigler|Stigler]] if I remember correctly. 

I’d love to ask Larry about all this now.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990530011191992536
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I believe Epstein is referring implicitly to the “Stigler Commission” of 1959-1961. 

This comes from a phone conversation around 2004.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=nkulw-profile-gpcdbDoT.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/nkulw/status/1988837873513033941
|name=noah kulwin
|usernameurl=https://x.com/nkulw
|username=nkulw
|content=“inflation is a concept from the 50s” what did he mean…
|media1=nkulw-X-post-1988837873513033941-G5nFgW9XsAAL4lW.jpg
|timestamp=5:14 AM · Nov 12, 2025
}}
|timestamp=9:18 PM · Nov 17, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1990530014107107416
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In a telephone conversation around 2004, he somehow was already well aware of the [[Boskin Commission|1996 Boskin Commission]] and Harvard Economics department burying our work on [[Gauge Theory]] in economics called “[[Geometric Marginalism]]”. That seemed pretty weird at the time. 

With the benefit of hindsight and scrutiny, I now understand that he was connected to AT LEAST two of my colleagues from my time as an Economist in the @HarvardEcon department and @nber. To say nothing of the fact that he was connected to AT LEAST two more of colleagues from my time as an math graduate student in the @HarvardMath department. He was evidently in the background of *everywhere* I was over three and a half decades from 1985-2019. It’s astounding.

I believe from memory what he means is the following:

In the 1950s inflation was not yet the tool of policy that it became after the [[Price Statistics Review Committee (Stigler Commission)|“Price Statistics Review Committee”]] around 1960, and the indexing of Social Security to [[CPI]] in the mid 1970s. It was a simple gauge.

After that time, it became a quiet tool. And a weapon. You could use it to transfer not billions…but trillions. Why? Because a GIANT amount of all U.S. Federal receipts are indexed. 

He thought it was funny that we expected our work to be heard given that trillions were being stolen.

I hope that there is a transcript of this conversation as well as the gravity phone calls about [[Theory of Geometric Unity|GU]]. If so, it will likely point back to Litauer and Rosovsky, Jorgenson and Summers.
|timestamp=9:18 PM · Nov 17, 2025
}}
|timestamp=9:38 PM · Nov 17, 2025
}}

== Related Pages ==

* [[Eric’s Most Important Set of Books]]
* [[Gauge Theory of Economics]]
* [[Price Statistics Review Committee (Stigler Commission)]]

[[Category:People]]
[[Category:Economics]]