The Portal Wiki

Paul Samuelson: Difference between revisions

Page Discussion

Paul Samuelson (edit)

Revision as of 06:35, 10 January 2026

8,268 bytes added ,  10 January
→‎2025
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 115: Line 115:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I would take a look at [https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/samuelson-lecture.pdf '''Paul Samuelson'''’s Nobel lecture]. He goes into depth on revealed preference and preference field non-integrability. I think we have lost track of the fact that integrability of tastes was never actually settled except by fiat. Will talk on this.
|content=I would take a look at [https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/samuelson-lecture.pdf '''Paul Samuelson'''’s Nobel lecture]. He goes into depth on [[Revealed Preference|revealed preference]] and preference field non-integrability. I think we have lost track of the fact that integrability of tastes was never actually settled except by fiat. Will talk on this.
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 255: Line 255:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I am not sure. But the first question I have is do we believe ordinal preference maps are constructable from revealed preference.
|content=I am not sure. But the first question I have is do we believe ordinal preference maps are constructable from [[Revealed Preference|revealed preference]].
|timestamp=1:59 AM · Nov 5, 2021
|timestamp=1:59 AM · Nov 5, 2021
}}
}}
Line 413: Line 413:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I was lucky enough as a younger man to get to know Ken Arrow and '''Paul Samuelson''' slightly. They didn’t have this trait. Talking to Arrow or '''Samuelson''' was like talking to a research mathematician, biologist or physicist at the time. It wasn’t switching between reality & propoganda.
|content=I was lucky enough as a younger man to get to know [[Ken Arrow]] and [[Paul Samuelson]] slightly. They didn’t have this trait. Talking to [[Ken Arrow|Arrow]] or [[Paul Samuelson|Samuelson]] was like talking to a research mathematician, biologist or physicist at the time. It wasn’t switching between reality & propoganda.
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Aug 1, 2022
|timestamp=1:05 AM · Aug 1, 2022
}}
}}
Line 487: Line 487:


=== 2023 ===
=== 2023 ===


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 495: Line 494:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=He was very supportive of me. If I had to make a single choice it might be him or '''Samuelson'''.
|content=He was very supportive of me. If I had to make a single choice it might be him or [[Paul Samuelson|Samuelson]].
|thread=
|thread=
{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 512: Line 511:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=François Divisia or [[Ken Arrow]] or '''Paul Samuelson''' or Satoshi or [[Ronald Coase]] etc.... would be easy to defend.  
|content=[[François Divisia]] or [[Ken Arrow]] or [[Paul Samuelson]] or Satoshi or [[Ronald Coase]] etc.... would be easy to defend.  


But Graciela Chichilnisky or Bert Balk would be more interesting offbeat choices I could defend. I don't think they got their due for what is coming in mathematical econ.
But Graciela Chichilnisky or Bert Balk would be more interesting offbeat choices I could defend. I don't think they got their due for what is coming in mathematical econ.
Line 536: Line 535:
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Ken Arrow|Arrow]], Frisch, '''Samuelson''', VonNeumann, Nash, Friedman, Smith, Mill, Divisia, '''Coase''', Marshall, Fisher, Debreu, Tinbergen, etc.  
|content=[[Ken Arrow|Arrow]], Frisch, [[Paul Samuelson|Samuelson]], VonNeumann, Nash, Friedman, Smith, Mill, [[François Divisia|Divisia]], [[Ronald Coase|Coase]], Marshall, Fisher, Debreu, Tinbergen, etc.  


I have deep issues with economics. But I don’t think I understand your point.
I have deep issues with economics. But I don’t think I understand your point.
Line 550: Line 549:
}}
}}
|timestamp=8:43 PM · Feb 13, 2023
|timestamp=8:43 PM · Feb 13, 2023
}}
=== 2024 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1823488036459700708
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You mean the Friedman money and banking seminar where [https://x.com/haralduhlig @haralduhlig] was the principal critic who then started to understand only after the seminar?
I’d be happy to do this with Harald on board. It might motivate us to finish our work that happened after the seminar.
I don’t know you @florianederer. But I do know you as a consistantly bad actor. As you may know, the most famous Chicago seminar was that of Coase. Where the seminar became famous *because* Chicago got it wrong. And it took much longer to see the argument.
Harald got it wrong during the seminar. And I also know that Chicago, at least historically, eventually usually gets it right. But I’d be happy to structure a bet that would penalize your being a bad actor.
I write this not because I care about your opinion. But because Cliff is a colleague. And, at least here, you are a troll. Let’s figure out if there is a mutually agreeable bet that gives me an ability to inflict a cost on this behavior of yours.
And one last point. [[Ken Arrow|Arrow]] and '''Samuelson''' were both supportive of this work. But perhaps you see what they do not. Who knows. You are certainly very sure of your position. As am I.
One of us is wrong.
|timestamp=10:33 PM · Aug 13, 2024
}}
=== 2025 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1909999954338484731
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Let me be clear. This post is not targeted at foreign born STEM. [My apologies to those of you who know me well on this point for decades. But it is always deliberately misinterpreted by those who seek to depress salaries.]
Read carefully, it's target is American STEM employers who lie as a way of life about the quality of our own STEM people in order to gain access to foreign labor.
My contention is that we destroy American STEM which is the best in the world because it is expensive, irreverant and high risk/high return.
If you want to go shopping abroad for future americans who are expensive, irreverant and high risk/high return, let me know and I will design your labor market.
But I will never put up with Americans who misportray just how good U.S. STEM really is in order gain access to oceans of plient low variance high value labor.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1909997395406098622
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Woah. Slow down. Because then we would be stuck with American STEM workers. Ya know, those lazy, stupid, unmotivated can't do, low-IQ pseudoscientific stoners who play video games all day long and can't be bothered to crack a book.
It would be like being stuck with R. Feynman, J Watson, M Gell-Mann, K. Arrow, G. Hopper, JR Oppenheimer, S. Weinberg, '''P Samuelson''', M. Nirenberg, J Lederberg, S. Smale, D. Mumford, J Doudna, S. Coleman, B. McClintock, and M. Ptashne all over again. And we can all agree that we need the best and the brightest.
<nowiki>;-)</nowiki>
cc: @VivekGRamaswamy.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=ProfMJCleveland-profile-HnRm_lk_.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland/status/1909611292832194571
|name=Margot Cleveland
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ProfMJCleveland
|username=ProfMJCleveland
|content=Just waiting for Trump to counter China's latest move by pulling all the student visa and sending all the spies home.
|timestamp=2:16 PM · Apr 8, 2025
}}
|timestamp=3:50 PM · Apr 9, 2025
}}
|timestamp=4:00 PM · Apr 9, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1989612740046905377
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s as if we, the U.S., hate being the worlds premier homegrown scientific community. All it takes is reversing self inflicted damage. That’s it. That’s all.
We seem to hate our own scientists.
It makes no sense. At least to me.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1989608579163460068
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Yes. I’m saying that the [[Jim Simons]], [[Richard Feynman]], [[Jim Watson]], [[Steven Weinberg]], [[Sidney Coleman]], [[Ken Arrow]], [[Linus Pauling]], [[Isadore Singer]], [[Joshua Lederberg]], [[Steve Smale]], [[Paul Samuelson]], [[Mark Ptashne]], [[John Milnor]], model of homegrown American scientific genius is being destroyed.
|timestamp=8:17 AM · Nov 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1989608581470327007
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Is anyone concerned about this? It sure doesn’t seem it.
Science needs [[Academic Freedom|academic freedom]]. It needs resources. It needs independence.
Fauci and Collins would have been impossible if we were healthy.
It is not safe to make scientists into mere employees.
It’s way too dangerous.
|timestamp=8:17 AM · Nov 15, 2025
}}
|timestamp=8:33 AM · Nov 15, 2025
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1998178143006589049
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Gary wasn’t stupid. He was just on a failed dead end mission of intellectual suicide. He was shrewd, creative and wildly wrong about human beings at levels that are difficult to convey.
And so it fell to him to tell the ultimate academic lie on behalf of his profession of economics: all humans have stable unchanging tastes.
So dumb. So unethical. Such an intellectually pathetic move. But then he was refereeing the same game within which he was flagrantly cheating.
He was easy to beat in any argument not judged by ideologues. But in Chicago and elsewhere they pretended this was genius rather than a flagrant attempt at patching the vulnerabilities that will sink Neo Classixal economic imperialism.
He lived, and died, in a protected world, not unlike an academic Hermit Kingdom. An intellectual North Korea where people were always bowing before him if they wanted to survive and needed his favor.
But the vulnerability is real. And believe me, he and I both knew it. It was tense as hell dealing with him for a reason:
The fiction of Stable Tastes is THE analog of rhe exhaust vent on the Death Star of NeoClassical Economjc Imperialism. His life’s work.
I look forward to showing you just how that little exhaust vent works.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1998178143006589049
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Unlike [[Paul Samuelson]] & [[Ken Arrow]],
[[Gary Becker]] was cut from different cloth. He reminded me of my dealings w/ [[Lenny Susskind]], Larry Summers, Brad Delong, Jagdish Bhagwati, [[Ed Witten]], Mildred Dresselhaus & others, so possessed by ideology that academic reason could just vanish.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=BobMurphyEcon-profile-to4MBQzT.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/BobMurphyEcon/status/1998097742741250169
|name=Robert P. Murphy
|usernameurl=https://x.com/BobMurphyEcon
|username=BobMurphyEcon
|content=In my recent interview of @EricRWeinstein, he referred to "stable preferences" as Achilles' heel of neoclassical econ. Exhibit A is this famous quote from Becker. At face value, Becker is saying a model w/dynamic preferences wouldn't even be economics anymore. Do others agree?
|media1=BobMurphyEcon-X-post-1998097742741250169-G7qrSZ4W8AAZZcz.jpg
|timestamp=6:29 PM · Dec 8, 2025
}}
|timestamp=11:49 PM · Dec 8, 2025
}}
|media1=ERW-X-post-1998178143006589049.gif
|timestamp=11:49 PM · Dec 8, 2025
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/23288...25399"