Thread split from 'Just saying': ideas on macroeconomics

[juansk]

Re: Just saying...

Cognitive dissonance strikes again. 7 days isn't the end of the world.

A fop can't complain that a place contains too many lops if the fop leaves the place, creating a higher density of lops. Just ask Dr. Suess.

*grabs a hostage* Don't make me do it!

But really, this post was only demonstrating pink:

^This is completely unsubstantiated. If I ask "What are you doing and how are you doing it?", I'm honestly expecting you to respond with "I can't tell you because it's a secret", which doesn't accomplish or prove anything.

Even after reading ^this, I'm expecting "Well, you'll know when you hear about me in the news as I revolutionize macroeconomics.", which also doesn't accomplish or prove anything. Because, well, we have no idea who you are or what to look for.

But we don't have to go there. All you need to do is explain what you're talking about. The choice is yours. (Sometimes this place has a steep learning curve).

Personally I no longer have a pathological fear of sharing my ideas because there's no way in hell I could ever accomplish them all in 1000 lifetimes.

The model im developing is a general case for the phillips curve. So the current model is a particular case from my model. And you can use the expectations setting you consider (adaptatives, rational, dumb people, etc). So, its a very powerful tool, and it demonstrates that a moderated-high inflation equilibrium is a nash suboptimal, which is a big deal. I got the math quite polished, the only thing left to do is estimate the model for actual economies, im getting help from a guy thats into econometrics (i know some, but im not a pro unlike him). So, it'll be very helpful for people to understand the implications and maybe even help to develop better policies in the future.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: Just saying...

The point is that this guy believes he will be more succesful than us just cause he's INTJ and not INTP. Thats plain wrong, i spoke up not because i wanna impress somebody, but because im delivering, so im a counterexample to his hypothesis, do you get me?.

BTW, i dont have to prove to you how smart i am.

This whole sequence of ours was supposed to lead up to the use of Ron Paul memes. But you cut it short.

Spoiler

But I'm still using them anyway.

The model im developing is a general case for the phillips curve. So the current model is a particular case from my model. And you can use the expectations setting you consider (adaptatives, rational, dumb people, etc). So, its a very powerful tool, and it demonstrates that a moderated-high inflation equilibrium is a nash suboptimal, which is a big deal. I got the math quite polished, the only thing left to do is estimate the model for actual economies, im getting help from a guy thats into econometrics (i know some, but im not a pro unlike him). So, it'll be very helpful for people to understand the implications and maybe even help to develop better policies in the future.

I like this.

How difficult would it be to transform your model into one that's purely agent-based and incorporates perception, i.e. an agent can only react to what's within its sphere of perception/knowledge? This takes it from merely categories to a full gradient of adaptability, and produces a more refined equilibrium region (a region as opposed to a point because of adaptation and because of perceptions that extend outside of the economy, like input shocks. A region because if it's a point, it's in constant motion. But this doesn't prevent you from refining the specific area that the point occupies, through the use of triangulation).

 

[juansk]

Re: Just saying...

This whole sequence of ours was supposed to lead up to the use of Ron Paul memes. But you cut it short.

Spoiler

But I'm still using them anyway.

I like this.

How difficult would it be to transform your model into one that's purely agent-based and incorporates perception, i.e. an agent can only react to what's within its sphere of perception/knowledge? This takes it from merely categories to a full gradient of adaptability, and produces a more refined equilibrium region (a region as opposed to a point because of adaptation and because of perceptions that extend outside of the economy, like input shocks. A region because if it's a point, it's in constant motion. But this doesn't prevent you from refining the specific area that the point occupies, through the use of triangulation).

You can incorporate different types of perceptions/reactions, ive let the door open to it. Thats part of the beauty of it. Depending on that set of perceptions you will obtain different results.

On the other hand, I know that its not the ultimate possible model, but its better than the one thats tought at universities right now. Of course, after i present it, there will be people that will improve it, big time, and even discard it, but thats science, its meant to be like that.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

Re: Just saying...

*just noticed that this was split into its own thread*

You can incorporate different types of perceptions/reactions, ive let the door open to it. Thats part of the beauty of it. Depending on that set of perceptions you will obtain different results.

On the other hand, I know that its not the ultimate possible model, but its better than the one thats tought at universities right now. Of course, after i present it, there will be people that will improve it, big time, and even discard it, but thats science, its meant to be like that.

I'm basically just saying... why not push further toward the ultimate endpoint before investing the work into real economic comparisons? Start the improvement process before the paper even gets published?

Otherwise, triangulation is a nice little game theory shortcut.

Spoiler

[bimgx=600]http://api.ning.com/files/Ls-i7jJXgRAALV66B4l-RgqbHNU*Y4dHAd*mMNBxPYmOXbOoQfk9KYYFbQ4-R9kH9inG6MQQbdS9HaWgQ*eOXKKb3miJUSwB/triangulation.jpg[/bimgx]
If each dot were an agent, and each circle their perception, equilibrium lies at the epicenter. Kind of earthquakey...

Let me know when it gets published.

 

[Cavallier]

*just noticed that this was split into its own thread*

You managed to derail a pointless mud-flinging thread into something more interesting.

Kudos.

 

[juansk]

Re: Just saying...

*just noticed that this was split into its own thread*

I'm basically just saying... why not push further toward the ultimate endpoint before investing the work into real economic comparisons? Start the improvement process before the paper even gets published?

Otherwise, triangulation is a nice little game theory shortcut.

Spoiler

[bimgx=600]http://api.ning.com/files/Ls-i7jJXgRAALV66B4l-RgqbHNU*Y4dHAd*mMNBxPYmOXbOoQfk9KYYFbQ4-R9kH9inG6MQQbdS9HaWgQ*eOXKKb3miJUSwB/triangulation.jpg[/bimgx]
If each dot were an agent, and each circle their perception, equilibrium lies at the epicenter. Kind of earthquakey...

Let me know when it gets published.

We're on the same page, ive been improving the model since the first idea came out.
I started with a linear idea, and now i got this. But I dont wanna focus on the set of expectations, im willing to make a general model, like an open code.
Then ill try different responses according to some default settings (adaptative, rational..)
BTW, maybe the most interesting part is that behavior can change according to the context, so its not a linear/fixed response. Its dynamic and non linear.

I got quite reasonable results 2 days ago (the results i was expecting), so im kinda happy about it.
This friday i got a meeting with a Ph.D guy, he's like my mentor on this, so im reporting the new advances. Now i gotta polish the writing part, then estimate it for a couple real cases and thats it.

If everything goes as expected, I could use this for my Ph.D.

Glad you're interested, i enjoy talking about ideas