Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

[Link] Dodging a bullet: "the price of insufficient medical vigilance can be very high."

3 James_Miller 18 January 2017 04:11AM
Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 04:44:24PM 0 points [-]

You figure that is the extent of John Nash's argument he spent 20 years defining for us? And you just defeat it in a sentence:

But don't we already have a global currency market?

Do you know who John Nash is? He is the guy that it took 40 years for us to recognize the significance of his works. Do you think maybe the significance has simply gone over your head?

Comment author: James_Miller 17 January 2017 11:09:46PM 1 point [-]

Flinter, do you know who John Nash is? He had a brilliant mind and produced some remarkable works but he also had mental illness that occasionally caused him to misunderstand reality and so we can not just assume something he passionately believed in is right.

Comment author: Flinter 17 January 2017 05:13:37PM 0 points [-]

Yes it is isn't it. It is also widely criticized. What Nash explains is that Keynesianism is simply an advance opaque form of bolshevik communism. It's an excuse to sell the public bad money under the label "good" money". Nash explains that we can view it as it has a missing axiom:

I think there is a good analogy to mathematical theories like, for example, “class field theory”. In mathematics a set of axioms can be taken as a foundation and then an area for theoretical study is brought into being. For example, if one set of axioms is specified and accepted we have the theory of rings while if another set of axioms is the foundation we have the theory of Moufang loops.

So, from a critical point of view, the theory of macro-economics of the Keynesians is like the theory of plane geometry without the axiom of Euclid that was classically called the “parallel postulate”. (It is an interesting fact in the history of science that there was a time, before the nineteenth century, when mathematicians were speculating that this axiom or postulate was not necessary, that it should be derivable from the others.

So I feel that the macroeconomics of the Keynesians is comparable to a scientific study of a mathematical area which is carried out with an insufficient set of axioms. And the result is analogous to the situation in plane geometry, the plane does not need to be really flat and the area within a circle can expand hyperbolically as a function of the radius rather than merely with the square of the radius. (This picture suggests the pattern of inflation that can result in a country, over extended time periods, when there is continually a certain amount of gradual inflation.)

The axiom is effectively that our currency system should be arranged for a different result:

The missing axiom is simply an accepted axiom that the money being put into circulation by the central authorities should be so handled as to maintain, over long terms of time, a stable value.

People (these days) are trying to postulate and theorize about how we can idealize our money, or in other words, how can we design the perfect money. Nash (and Hayek) points out that perfect money is FREE from such design, and so its actually an logical absurd pursuit.

This is what Keynesians are doing with the argument "There is no better way but clear and admitted sanity".

Nash proposes a money: " …intrinsically free of “inflationary decadence”..a true “gold standard”, but the proposed basis for that was not the proposal of a linkage to gold"

But it is not by design per se.

He says everyone is Keynesians even post-Keynesians, can we understand that?

Also James Miller. I got in trouble from the community for saying that its silly that a game theory professor could never have heard of 20 years of Nash's works, especially his lifes passion, that is wholly and perfectly related to game theory. Do you think thats wrong of me to suggest?

Comment author: James_Miller 17 January 2017 06:37:48PM 2 points [-]

I was unfamiliar with Nash's theory of ideal money until I looked it up on Wikipedia in response to your comments on LW. It's possible I heard about it before but forgot it since I don't study macroeconomics or monetary policy. Based on this reading, I don't understand why ideal money is important to the art of rationality.

Comment author: Lumifer 17 January 2017 04:03:12PM *  3 points [-]

The standard mainstream view is that money has three main functions:

  • Medium of exchange
  • Store of value
  • Unit of account

There is no single dominant function (for all times and all societies) while others are secondary.

I'm not sure what monetary policy (and/or Keynes) is doing here. The government has always attempted to control and manipulate money, with greater or lesser success. That's just the normal state of affairs. Whether the government should have an activist monetary policy is a question with the standard answer: it depends. As usual, it depends on the context and what are you optimizing for.

Comment author: James_Miller 17 January 2017 04:06:16PM 1 point [-]

Yes, this is the standard economic approach..

Comment author: Flinter 16 January 2017 10:46:48PM *  0 points [-]

No, you can't give me feedback. It's above you. I have come here to explain it to you. I made 3 threads, and they are equally important.

The first is a thought exercise, in which I provide a device that solves all difficult problems on Less wrong: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogp/a_proposal_for_a_simpler_solution_to_all_these/

The 2nd questions our shared meaning of the word ideal because I think most people are mistaken in their application of it: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ogt/do_we_share_a_definition_for_the_word_ideal/

And the third is a proper introduction and the levation of John Nash's Ideal Money which he lectured and wrote about for 20 years and spent his whole career developing. That's the one that should be on the main page but instead the mod turned it into a draft.

I think that is not reasonable.

edit: you study game theory are you aware of "ideal money" Nash's life's work?

Comment author: James_Miller 16 January 2017 10:51:42PM 1 point [-]

No, you can't give me feedback. It's above you.

Why do you think it's above me?

Comment author: Flinter 16 January 2017 10:31:18PM *  0 points [-]

I am new and a moderator already made a clearly irrational action against me and I am dumbfounded. I mean to present a very difficult subject that no one else can present, and I did so perfectly and in the only way possible and the moderator moderated the attempt out of existence.

Doesn't irrationality run counter to this site's stated mission?

To be clear, I am presenting the most important topic in the world, with the assumption that it is probably significant and correct because it's John Nash's (most significant) work.

Why is Less Wrong censoring out Nash's work and implying that it is irrational?

Comment author: James_Miller 16 January 2017 10:36:59PM 1 point [-]

What did you post? I study game theory and might be able to give you more feedback.

Comment author: James_Miller 15 January 2017 09:25:06PM 9 points [-]

Related to EY's Lonely Dissent, and Hanson's comment on such "In addition to suffering social disapproval when they first make their contrary claims, the lonely dissenter should realize that even if they are eventually proven right, they will likely still lose socially compared to if they had not so dissented."

[Link] Be someone – be recognized by the system and promoted – or do something

3 James_Miller 15 January 2017 09:22PM
Comment author: entirelyuseless 13 January 2017 04:12:05AM 0 points [-]

It comes into play quite a bit when talking about why one side won as well, since you keep seeing people say, "We didn't win because we weren't faithful enough to our principles," when it is obvious from the beginning that political parties will tend to lose because they are too faithful to their principles, i.e. not centrist enough.

Comment author: James_Miller 13 January 2017 03:17:32PM 2 points [-]

To test this, go to a hyper-partisan news service that holds political views you disagree with but which also is trying to appeal to high IQ people. (The Weekly Standard if you are on the left would work.) You will find the website's policy analysis difficult to take, but will probably agree with, or at least find reasonable its analysis of why one side won or lost a particular political battle.

Comment author: Elo 12 January 2017 09:54:07PM 4 points [-]

I am uneasy about this link being here because Brexit was politics. I am not removing it yet.

Comment author: James_Miller 13 January 2017 12:12:53AM 12 points [-]

Please keep it. Politics is the mind killer mostly comes into play when debating which side is morally right, not when trying to figure out why one side won.

View more: Next