Intellectual Kryptonite
This article is a stub. You can help us by editing this page and expanding it.
I feel confident of what I have said about Gauge theory and Inflation. Here is something much more far out: George Soros' Thy as a gauge Thy
Soros' General Thy of Reflexivity:
Markets tell worldviews how to move. (Cognitive) Worldviews tell markets how to curve. (Participating)
I think Soros may well be trying to tell us something Deep but we are holding him back with ugly nonsense about mkt actors.
So G.Soros: It ain't nutty. I'll try rendering your theory of Reflexivity in elegant mathematics...If you'll spring for beer.
I am not ignoring the micro/macro divide. I just don't buy this "micro is healthy and macro is sick." B-S always goes metastatic.
I am also not ignoring the freshwater/saltwater divide. The difference between these two schools is nothing compared to science/silliness.
VaR -> Kayfabe
Good Work (e.g. Black Scholes) doesn't have to be perfect. But if it's sillier than Dr. Seuss, it should .. y'know .. probably rhyme.
Now let me unpack my point about Inflation. The vulnerability of Kayfabe economics is that it can't come into contact with economics.
Inflation exists in Microeconomics, In Macroeconomics, and in Kayfabe Economics. So Kayfabe is forced into convulsions to avoid the topic.
Kayfabe solves it by fiat while, as the quotes show, it is thought unsolvable even in standard theory. But In Gauge theory it is solvable.
What happened in 1996 is that Economics and Kayfabe Economics accidentally ran into each other head on at Harvard over inflation.
This is where I learned not only about the very existence of a made up world of economics but its power and ubiquity. Kayfabe is amazing!
To @stevenzenith: I disagree with reasoning that says "you need a theory that does x." Jagger be damned: You can't always get what you need.
Imagine you say to Ken Arrow: "Well you still need a voting system that gets a group to act like an individual." He says: Fuggedaboudit.
On behaviors: We haven't even gotten there. I am just trying to allow market actors to change their tastes. Taste change is econ kryptonite.
Litterally, folks like Becker have tried to write the ability to study taste change out of economics in the definition of the field.
Econ is: "The combined assumptions of maximizing behavior, market equilibrium, and stable preferences, used relentlessly and unflinchingly"
Explaining away evolving preferences (as due to advertising) is an obsession for UChicgao Folks as taste change is an existential threat.
Now you don't have to know ANY econ to see that after being the lede at ScienceBlogs.com no one engaged @dabacon on the science question.
No @stevenzenith, evolving tastes in econ is modeled by making the foliation of the space of goods by indifference leaves time-dependent.
This is serious "Did you just tell me that all people have the same fixed tastes...and you are in the NAS?" blow-your-brains-out-stupid.
I don't know what to say. In science you would measure taste change. You'd have a theory of social behavior. Here, you just assert stuff.
So @aldoric, I'm trying to open the mathematical door to biology so we can see "Markets as the Continuation of Selection by Other Means."
The idea @aldoric is to show economists that by embracing humanity in models (heterogeneous taste in evolution) they don't lose everything.
But @stevenzenith, our tweets about semiotics, market collapse, and field theory risk crowding out f-rt jokes. This is twitter..