Jump to content

Morals: Difference between revisions

Morals (edit)

Revision as of 06:27, 3 December 2025

20,072 bytes added ,  Yesterday at 06:27
→‎2021
Line 112: Line 112:


=== 2021 ===
=== 2021 ===
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366173073793027
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The [[Morals|moral]] of the story to me is this:
We can’t have outside folks calculating and theorizing while the inside economists are fudging and cooking the books.
And calling me crazy won’t change a thing when this is finally understood. It’s simply institutional academic malpractice.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366169257021441
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=One of the things my trolls like to point to is outrageous claims.
One of my most *outrageous* is that my joint work on a 2nd Marginal Revolution for economics was scuttled by the Harvard Department of Economics '''Boskin Commissioners'''.
Yet it’s admitted:
https://ritholtz.com/2010/01/why-michael-boskin-deserves-our-contempt/
|timestamp=4:12 PM ¡ Apr 14, 2021
|media1=Greg-Mankiw-CPI-Boskin-Ey8mtHXVoAMUYqS.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366170766987269
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s kind of an interesting puzzle. Why is it that a Harvard Professor (Mankiw) can say the truth which is that this was a conspiracy to cut entitlements. But the only two people who can CALCULATE a COLA for changing tastes are crazy for saying their work was deliberately buried?
|timestamp=4:12 PM ¡ Apr 14, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366171542876166
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=In any event, I stand by my claim. The [[Boskin Commission]] was organized by Moynihan and Packwood to deliberately break the [[CPI]] in a precise amount to avoid the US paying 1 trillion dollars over 10 years.
And I promise you no leading economist will call bullshit to debate this.
|timestamp=4:12 PM ¡ Apr 14, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1382366172302041100
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=On of the reasons is that one of the commissioners bragged about this being the motivation behind the scenes.
Okay. So why can’t we have gauge theoretic economics reevaluated? Everyone admits this is what happened. Why continue to bury the advance?
I dunno. But it’s amazing!
|timestamp=4:12 PM ¡ Apr 14, 2021
}}
|timestamp=4:12 PM ¡ Apr 14, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
{{Tweet
Line 234: Line 299:
}}
}}
|timestamp=1:59 PM ¡ Apr 22, 2021
|timestamp=1:59 PM ¡ Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1392546868006035460
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Morals|Moral]]: whoever constructs [[CPI]] and GDP numbers in a dynamic economy is in a position to fake higher growth and lower inflation if they are also in a position to stop the field from debating methodological advances that would restrict the freedom to make up index number recipes. 🙏
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1392546863098695681
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Claim: when it comes to inflation and growth, Economists don’t even understand the theory of their *own* price and quantity indices mathematically:
{{#widget:YouTube|id=h5gnATQMtPg}}
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=APompliano-profile-PxWzJo1H.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/APompliano/status/1392499942846083082
|name=Anthony Pompliano
|usernameurl=https://x.com/APompliano
|username=APompliano
|content=WILD IDEA: Maybe the economists don't actually understand what is going on right now? https://x.com/disclosetv/sta/disclosetv/status/1392488787838742536
|timestamp=6:26 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:26 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1392546864537374720
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The problem of inflation index calculation has not been adequately updated since Ragnar Frisch destroyed Irving Fisher’s attempt to axiomatize economic indices following the last great advances of F. Divisia and A. Konüs on continuous and welfare indices respectively.
|timestamp=6:26 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1392546865275555840
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Economists are holding their own field back by retaining their freedom to just cook up any revised index they want.
It’s as if physicists retained the right to define temperature differently every year based on a closed door meeting and manufactured new thermometers thereafter.
|timestamp=6:26 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1392546866005307392
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If you’re going to push us all to move to “true” “economic” indices & chain them to reflect dynamic actors (or to disguise true inflation!), you would end up chaining ordinal preferences. And you can’t do that without gauge theory because it is a problem in parallel transport.
|timestamp=6:26 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1392546866756083712
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Watch the US [[CPI]] revisions and methodology going forward. People who like to print money tend to want to change their definition of inflation and therefore don’t like anyone taking away freedom to make up methodologies to suit their political objectives involving wealth transfer.
|timestamp=6:26 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:27 PM ¡ May 12, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404695010600120326
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Morals|Moral]]: [[Gauge Theory]] fixes this intellectual corruption problem of economic imperialism, and #btc, blockchains and Crytpo can help.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693220848590851
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[CPI]] is broken. Why?
Think of [[CPI]] as a gauge like a thermometer. You can’t have politically motivated folks making your thermometers or they can change the design to cover up climate change. Likewise you can’t have economists changing the gauge to disguise the effect of printing.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=samkazemian-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/samkazemian/status/1404565972728487939
|name=sam.frax
|usernameurl=https://x.com/samkazemian
|username=samkazemian
|content=A crypto native [[CPI]] governed on the blockchain to create a decentralized stablecoin people can rely on to keep their standard of living the same across time. A true alternative to fiat rather than a speculative investment asset like most other coins.
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693222324989964
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The economists can’t yet compute a dynamic Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment or COLA or “Chained Changing Preference Ordinal Welfare Konus Index” to be perfectly pedantic. Not because it doesn’t exist. But because they don’t have the math and don’t want to lose their finger on the scale.
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693223138684929
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=We must take [[CPI]] away from those who wish to back out a political agenda of printing money, raising our taxes by indexed tax brackets and slashing our indexed social security & Medicare.
Economics can’t construct dynamic economic gauges like [[CPI]]/GDP until it learns [[Gauge Theory|gauge thy]].
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693223973347335
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But more importantly, we have a culture that economics literally trumpets (and I swear I am not making this up) “Economic Imperialism”. It is “we know math and you don’t”-culture.
No. They don’t know their own math. I will debate any high ranking economist on this point.
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693225063940103
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s time to reveal that economics, far from embracing math or having physics envy, is deliberately avoiding solutions to old problems so that it can make up new gauges for [[CPI]]/GDP at will while telling the rest of the soft sciences “We know your field better because we do math.”
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693225873448963
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=No. Economics is an avoiding gauge theory, connections, Lie Groups, etc so it can retain its political relevance as an expert consultancy. I’m with the crypto folks on this. Our economy must be protected from Seigniorage (printing money) and [[CPI]] tampering (e.g. [[Boskin Commission]]).
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693226695499782
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[CPI]] should not…MUST NOT…be adjustable to disguise inflation. It needs to be protected from the FED diluting the power of money and the BLS being free to disguise the effects by changing the method of construction.
{{#widget:YouTube|id=XjCAsXUDvno}}
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693228473880576
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=End the forced wealth transfers of central bankers covering up their own failures with “Relief”, “Easing”, “Stimulous”, “Rescues”, “Toxic Asset Purchases”, and other bailouts of our incompetent financial overlords.
We must protect [[CPI]] from economists disguising wealth dilution.
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1404693229245657094
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=P.S. before you remind me how arrogant this sounds, keep in mind, that I am willing to debate this publicly with any leading economist eager to defend the central bankers and triumphalist theorists openly bragging about their math. Read this, and be sick:
https://nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w7300/w7300.pdf
|timestamp=6:52 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:59 AM ¡ Jun 15, 2021
}}
}}


Line 331: Line 582:
}}
}}
|timestamp=7:49 PM ¡ Oct 23, 2021
|timestamp=7:49 PM ¡ Oct 23, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734921029177353
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=And, no, the answers to these questions are NOT in the BLS handbook on [[CPI]] methodology. I’ve looked.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734095313408000
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Surprise.
[Word to the wise: watch very very carefully how your [[CPI]] is constructed. You have the right to know EXACTLY how it is constructed.]
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=business-profile-fjgaR2p.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/business/status/1465707440725393414
|name=Bloomberg
|usernameurl=https://x.com/business
|username=business
|content=NEW: Powell says it's time to retire the word "transitory" regarding inflation https://www.bloomberg.com/news/live-blog/2021-11-29/powell-and-yellen-in-the-senate-kwkw102n
|media1=business-X-post-1465707440725393414-FFc9JmJUYAAfogN.jpg
|timestamp=3:41 AM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:26 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734099130146821
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It’s hard to imagine how confused Economics is. Imagine you work for the @BLS_gov and you have to admit that your agency claims to compute our Inflation within a Cost-Of-Living framework, but doesn’t maintain the central ingredient needed to compute or even impute Cost-Of-Living.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=JosephPolitano-profile-BgypCCjy.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/JosephPolitano/status/1457096567429599233
|name=Joey Politano
|usernameurl=https://x.com/JosephPolitano
|username=JosephPolitano
|content=There are no preference maps, chained CPI employs a superlative Tornqvist formula to account for substitution. The documents introducing the chained CPI do a better job outlining the methodological and theoretical structures than I could.(https://bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/chained-cpi-introduction.pdf)
|timestamp=10:24 PM ¡ Nov 6, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:26 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734101000802309
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Follow the thread back from here. This is where the conversation ends. #EconTwitter may tell you terrible things about me.
Maybe. Or maybe they don’t have a theory that works and they refuse to admit it while transferring billions through CPI releases.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1457110028792463360
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Wait. Slow down.
Did you just say that BLS is claiming to work within a Cost of Living framework which *requires* preference maps *definitionally*, but…words fail me…has no preference maps? At all??
I must not be understanding. Chaining Tornqvist indexes isn’t an answer here.
|media1=ERW-X-post-1457110028792463360-FDix2ViVkAA64YY.jpg
|timestamp=10:17 PM ¡ Nov 6, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:26 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734104264032261
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=You cannot keep mumbling Economic word salad forever “Modified Laspeyres…core inflation…Lowe generalization of the Laspeyres…Chained Tornqvist with revisions…chain drift…superlative index approximates flexible functional form…”
|timestamp=5:26 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734110681321472
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Tastes change. Cost-Of-Living inflation is about tastes. If tastes evolve in time, the economists’ COL framework disintegrates. That is: there is NO theory. #EconTwitter can tell you I don’t get it.
It is THEY who don’t get it. They can’t escape it. It’s in their own literature.
|timestamp=5:26 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1465734110681321472-FFdVZ6YVUAQYY9k.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734113332129795
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What you are seeing reported as Inflation is not coming from a well grounded theory. It is coming from human beings making policy level judgements as if they were merely making technical adjustments to a technical time series devoid of values about who should benefit or suffer.
|timestamp=5:26 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1465734615037931527
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Morals|Moral]]: you have a right to know what’s in your food and how your pharmaceuticals were tested. You have a right to ask your surgeon what she plans to do during an operation.
You have a right to demand what economists are actually measuring as Cost-Of-Living W/O abuse for asking.
|timestamp=5:28 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
|timestamp=5:30 PM ¡ Nov 30, 2021
}}
}}


Line 479: Line 850:
}}
}}
|timestamp=7:02 AM ¡ Dec 2, 2021
|timestamp=7:02 AM ¡ Dec 2, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471139659472248834
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=But most *simple* humility in science is false humility. That said, we are all humbled by nature, and sometimes by our peers. But most have to be at least a bit arrogant to survive abusive colleagues. So it is uncommon to find someone who is always humble. And yet, they do exist.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471139655366037504
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=A different wrong idea the Internet loves: “True scientists are humble”.
Typically Newton’s quote to Hooke is invoked “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
Ahem. Great scientists are all over the map on this. Nowhere close to always humble.
|timestamp=3:26 PM ¡ Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471139657106661377
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Great minds have made fun of this through the years.
There is an old story that the great Sidney Coleman once walked into the Harvard Physics department office and said “If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I am surrounded by midgets.”
Scientists aren’t simple.
|timestamp=3:26 PM ¡ Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471139657878732805
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Most successful scientists are combinations of arrogant ambitious people, together with humble self-critical people.
But the Internet can’t be bothered with that complexity. So it traffics in a crazy idea: if you aren’t always humble you aren’t a scientist.
Which is bananas…
|timestamp=3:26 PM ¡ Dec 15, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1471139658717302789
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Feynman wasn’t simply an arrogant prick. He was “Schodinger’s Prick” if you will. Sometimes an insufferable bully. Sometimes a humble teacher. Generally a show-off. Sometimes a supporter of others. At times a saboteur.
[[Morals|Moral]]: simple statements about science are generally false.
|timestamp=3:26 PM ¡ Dec 15, 2021
}}
|timestamp=3:26 PM ¡ Dec 15, 2021
}}
}}


Retrieved from "https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/24571"