Friam

The case for universal basic income UBI

Classic

List

Threaded

124 messages Options

1 ... 34567

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

Finance 4.0—Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System

A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability

Download link: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 22:21, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

I heard a nice story at an annual meeting a long time ago: maybe seven or eight years now; maybe a decade. It was in a side-conversation, told by some high-flying economist who had been in the room where it happened. This was soon after Obama had appointed Tim Geithner to try to repair the mess of the 2007/2008 banking system collapse. Geithner was in one of the relatively early meetings with the bankers for whom he was trying to devise some regulatory scheme. The bankers were reassuring him that no scheme was needed, because they would self-regulate.

As I heard it told, Geithner answered immediately, with an expression that it is easy for me to visualize:

“Right. So self-regulation is to regulation as self-importance is to importance.”

That of course doesn’t purport to be a statement about limits to what could be possible in principle. Just an assessment in the context in situ at the time, of what would be the outcome of immediate decisions.

Eric

On May 14, 2021, at 4:11 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks each
of us has in mind.

My choice is a self-regulating participatory market society.

I quote from Dirk Helbing's Economics 2.0: The Natural Step towards A Self-Regulating, Participatory Market Society https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4078
"I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decisionmaking and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features. It will be
explained why, besides the “homo economicus” with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural selection has also created a “homo socialis” with other-regarding preferences. While the “homo
economicus” optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the “homo socialis” are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by the term “networked minds”. Notably, the “homo socialis” manages to earn higher payoffs than the “homo economicus”."

Interesting is the youtube presentation by Dirk Helbing about his new book Next Civilisation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TtSNNaNZTc&t=26s

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 19:55, jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each of the three citations was meant to evoke, distinct though related,
approaches to assigning quantities to qualities of networks. The Levine
paper[1] focuses on a technique for flattening a food web onto a chain
(trophic level). What I find novel is that the technique appears robust
to loops (cannibalism like breastfeeding) as well as larger circuits or
cliques (scavengers of all types and colors). I am also impressed by the
straightforward nature of the calculation familiar to all that work with
absorbing Markov chains[KS]: Reorder the transition matrix so that pure
source components come first, partition the position vector similarly,
find the fundamental matrix and then solve for position. Levine then
goes on to point out that the variance of path lengths gives a nice
measure of trophic specialization.

I became familiar with the Spring Rank algorithm through conversations
with its authors, and became more intimately familiar through recent work
applying the algorithm to networks of exchange. The central idea, there,
is that we can imagine an exchange network as a mechanical system of
weights (individuals) and springs (whose tensions correspond in some
way to transactions between individuals). There (and maybe this is how
it might correspond to Marcus' criticism) we write the Hamiltonian and
solve for position. In the work, my collaborators and I were (are?) doing,
we researched how such a model can be used as a suggestion engine for
*giving* exactly because one could suggest non-trivial ways to *balance*
one's exchange network.

Lastly, the reference to gauge-theoretic economic models is one where we
can apply an abstract notion of curvature or (cohomologically) measure
the distance from *exactness* flows experience on a given circuit. I would
not be surprised if this relatively new approach is already finding itself
useful in applied economics. My feeling is that the tools already exist
(to an extent more than we know, though less than we really want) and
that application is where things go awry. Also, I am unsure to what extent
these approaches land within the already stated criticism put forth by
Marcus. I haven't looked at the Kirkley paper. I suppose I wanted to
ground the models in some calculations so that we can more clearly argue
their merits.

To my mind, assigning qualities to graphs, like assigning qualities to
numbers, comes with a certain hermeneutic burden. OTOH, there is a
continued effort to discover sensible properties that graphs may have,
that is, the field is as rich as any[2]. I am not entirely sure why I feel
compelled to highlight this distinction, so please excuse the pedantry.

Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks each
of us has in mind. There are the graphic-theoretic (presently, my
favorite to think about) approaches, lawyer-theoretic(?) approaches that
ask, "For the benefit of whom?", as well as some axiomatic approaches.
Also, we appear to be discussing questions of reciprocity and asking,
"Economy, what is it good for"?[$]

[1] Reading about Eric's approach to his recent work, I was reminded
about the Levine paper. It has been several years since I had thought
about the details and attempts to reconstitute the idea for that context
have it on my mind for this one.

[2] Here, I suppose that I am not only thinking about more recent work
like that of Mark Newman or Lovasz or whomever, but also of the rich
history (summarized so playfully by Lokatos) going back to Euler and
Gauss and ...

[$] There is also the question of Evil, money, and their arborescent
relationship. I will leave this one alone for now ;)

[KS] Kemeny and Snell, 1960

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,RFYmKU9uafRaal9CHd_TSkQozsyjYN9Sav2JwZv9EsNjeXXzhVboCIEyhY90Ieq-KhlQg8-oiwpRJ56dimmBzRhVhF_eVeq1rNK8eO_q-aoH7rmfBTMUj0i2LLV2&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9u_x9l_Qwna63Vb7AjgvWi48is8dAKAGYBscN1dJiKUsfmZLB0rnM4vgUWh_C_AbaPJyIPd39XIYWpQoakYjc7uaP9oH9FWjqXdmu3BgFbKTRAavnR8T&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

David Eric Smith

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This is good to have; thank you Pieter.

Eric

On May 14, 2021, at 3:59 PM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Finance 4.0—Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System

A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability

Download link: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 22:21, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I heard a nice story at an annual meeting a long time ago: maybe seven or eight years now; maybe a decade. It was in a side-conversation, told by some high-flying economist who had been in the room where it happened. This was soon after Obama had appointed Tim Geithner to try to repair the mess of the 2007/2008 banking system collapse. Geithner was in one of the relatively early meetings with the bankers for whom he was trying to devise some regulatory scheme. The bankers were reassuring him that no scheme was needed, because they would self-regulate.

As I heard it told, Geithner answered immediately, with an expression that it is easy for me to visualize:

“Right. So self-regulation is to regulation as self-importance is to importance.”

That of course doesn’t purport to be a statement about limits to what could be possible in principle. Just an assessment in the context in situ at the time, of what would be the outcome of immediate decisions.

Eric

On May 14, 2021, at 4:11 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks each
of us has in mind.

My choice is a self-regulating participatory market society.

I quote from Dirk Helbing's Economics 2.0: The Natural Step towards A Self-Regulating, Participatory Market Society https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4078
"I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decisionmaking and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features. It will be
explained why, besides the “homo economicus” with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural selection has also created a “homo socialis” with other-regarding preferences. While the “homo
economicus” optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the “homo socialis” are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by the term “networked minds”. Notably, the “homo socialis” manages to earn higher payoffs than the “homo economicus”."

Interesting is the youtube presentation by Dirk Helbing about his new book Next Civilisation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TtSNNaNZTc&t=26s

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 19:55, jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each of the three citations was meant to evoke, distinct though related,
approaches to assigning quantities to qualities of networks. The Levine
paper[1] focuses on a technique for flattening a food web onto a chain
(trophic level). What I find novel is that the technique appears robust
to loops (cannibalism like breastfeeding) as well as larger circuits or
cliques (scavengers of all types and colors). I am also impressed by the
straightforward nature of the calculation familiar to all that work with
absorbing Markov chains[KS]: Reorder the transition matrix so that pure
source components come first, partition the position vector similarly,
find the fundamental matrix and then solve for position. Levine then
goes on to point out that the variance of path lengths gives a nice
measure of trophic specialization.

I became familiar with the Spring Rank algorithm through conversations
with its authors, and became more intimately familiar through recent work
applying the algorithm to networks of exchange. The central idea, there,
is that we can imagine an exchange network as a mechanical system of
weights (individuals) and springs (whose tensions correspond in some
way to transactions between individuals). There (and maybe this is how
it might correspond to Marcus' criticism) we write the Hamiltonian and
solve for position. In the work, my collaborators and I were (are?) doing,
we researched how such a model can be used as a suggestion engine for
*giving* exactly because one could suggest non-trivial ways to *balance*
one's exchange network.

Lastly, the reference to gauge-theoretic economic models is one where we
can apply an abstract notion of curvature or (cohomologically) measure
the distance from *exactness* flows experience on a given circuit. I would
not be surprised if this relatively new approach is already finding itself
useful in applied economics. My feeling is that the tools already exist
(to an extent more than we know, though less than we really want) and
that application is where things go awry. Also, I am unsure to what extent
these approaches land within the already stated criticism put forth by
Marcus. I haven't looked at the Kirkley paper. I suppose I wanted to
ground the models in some calculations so that we can more clearly argue
their merits.

To my mind, assigning qualities to graphs, like assigning qualities to
numbers, comes with a certain hermeneutic burden. OTOH, there is a
continued effort to discover sensible properties that graphs may have,
that is, the field is as rich as any[2]. I am not entirely sure why I feel
compelled to highlight this distinction, so please excuse the pedantry.

Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks each
of us has in mind. There are the graphic-theoretic (presently, my
favorite to think about) approaches, lawyer-theoretic(?) approaches that
ask, "For the benefit of whom?", as well as some axiomatic approaches.
Also, we appear to be discussing questions of reciprocity and asking,
"Economy, what is it good for"?[$]

[1] Reading about Eric's approach to his recent work, I was reminded
about the Levine paper. It has been several years since I had thought
about the details and attempts to reconstitute the idea for that context
have it on my mind for this one.

[2] Here, I suppose that I am not only thinking about more recent work
like that of Mark Newman or Lovasz or whomever, but also of the rich
history (summarized so playfully by Lokatos) going back to Euler and
Gauss and ...

[$] There is also the question of Evil, money, and their arborescent
relationship. I will leave this one alone for now ;)

[KS] Kemeny and Snell, 1960

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,RFYmKU9uafRaal9CHd_TSkQozsyjYN9Sav2JwZv9EsNjeXXzhVboCIEyhY90Ieq-KhlQg8-oiwpRJ56dimmBzRhVhF_eVeq1rNK8eO_q-aoH7rmfBTMUj0i2LLV2&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9u_x9l_Qwna63Vb7AjgvWi48is8dAKAGYBscN1dJiKUsfmZLB0rnM4vgUWh_C_AbaPJyIPd39XIYWpQoakYjc7uaP9oH9FWjqXdmu3BgFbKTRAavnR8T&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,4WY1j4oMp1lhNm2zrbyVKi8tzq4k43gODthd0rNFnBQqK17EYn9dorsyVQLBGaQMrq2qf4URW03OUbv26xYIBvDqN95G2f4VDQFODLyHVMBSTI0GWjw,&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,48bkhBRPRqXAmJycl_aNyr8AYyO6EOIG52xqkVd2FT0t8pWznkMBI53cn9ljMqhIuB2EDUfKR1Np4BBHxojX_7T-opWRcdkrGbV-zp4eWGgn7_yIhw,,&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by Pieter Steenekamp

Interesting that you should send this (I haven't had a chance to look at it much yet). Someone just sent a link to something rather similar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_Without_Growth.

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 2:01 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Finance 4.0—Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System

A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability

Download link: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 22:21, David Eric Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
I heard a nice story at an annual meeting a long time ago: maybe seven or eight years now; maybe a decade. It was in a side-conversation, told by some high-flying economist who had been in the room where it happened. This was soon after Obama had appointed Tim Geithner to try to repair the mess of the 2007/2008 banking system collapse. Geithner was in one of the relatively early meetings with the bankers for whom he was trying to devise some regulatory scheme. The bankers were reassuring him that no scheme was needed, because they would self-regulate.

As I heard it told, Geithner answered immediately, with an expression that it is easy for me to visualize:

“Right. So self-regulation is to regulation as self-importance is to importance.”

That of course doesn’t purport to be a statement about limits to what could be possible in principle. Just an assessment in the context in situ at the time, of what would be the outcome of immediate decisions.

Eric

On May 14, 2021, at 4:11 AM, Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Re Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks each
of us has in mind.

My choice is a self-regulating participatory market society.

I quote from Dirk Helbing's Economics 2.0: The Natural Step towards A Self-Regulating, Participatory Market Society https://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4078
"I argue that, as the complexity of socio-economic systems increases, networked decisionmaking and bottom-up self-regulation will be more and more important features. It will be
explained why, besides the “homo economicus” with strictly self-regarding preferences, natural selection has also created a “homo socialis” with other-regarding preferences. While the “homo
economicus” optimizes the own prospects in separation, the decisions of the “homo socialis” are self-determined, but interconnected, a fact that may be characterized by the term “networked minds”. Notably, the “homo socialis” manages to earn higher payoffs than the “homo economicus”."

Interesting is the youtube presentation by Dirk Helbing about his new book Next Civilisation at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TtSNNaNZTc&t=26s

On Thu, 13 May 2021 at 19:55, jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:
Each of the three citations was meant to evoke, distinct though related,
approaches to assigning quantities to qualities of networks. The Levine
paper[1] focuses on a technique for flattening a food web onto a chain
(trophic level). What I find novel is that the technique appears robust
to loops (cannibalism like breastfeeding) as well as larger circuits or
cliques (scavengers of all types and colors). I am also impressed by the
straightforward nature of the calculation familiar to all that work with
absorbing Markov chains[KS]: Reorder the transition matrix so that pure
source components come first, partition the position vector similarly,
find the fundamental matrix and then solve for position. Levine then
goes on to point out that the variance of path lengths gives a nice
measure of trophic specialization.

I became familiar with the Spring Rank algorithm through conversations
with its authors, and became more intimately familiar through recent work
applying the algorithm to networks of exchange. The central idea, there,
is that we can imagine an exchange network as a mechanical system of
weights (individuals) and springs (whose tensions correspond in some
way to transactions between individuals). There (and maybe this is how
it might correspond to Marcus' criticism) we write the Hamiltonian and
solve for position. In the work, my collaborators and I were (are?) doing,
we researched how such a model can be used as a suggestion engine for
*giving* exactly because one could suggest non-trivial ways to *balance*
one's exchange network.

Lastly, the reference to gauge-theoretic economic models is one where we
can apply an abstract notion of curvature or (cohomologically) measure
the distance from *exactness* flows experience on a given circuit. I would
not be surprised if this relatively new approach is already finding itself
useful in applied economics. My feeling is that the tools already exist
(to an extent more than we know, though less than we really want) and
that application is where things go awry. Also, I am unsure to what extent
these approaches land within the already stated criticism put forth by
Marcus. I haven't looked at the Kirkley paper. I suppose I wanted to
ground the models in some calculations so that we can more clearly argue
their merits.

To my mind, assigning qualities to graphs, like assigning qualities to
numbers, comes with a certain hermeneutic burden. OTOH, there is a
continued effort to discover sensible properties that graphs may have,
that is, the field is as rich as any[2]. I am not entirely sure why I feel
compelled to highlight this distinction, so please excuse the pedantry.

Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks each
of us has in mind. There are the graphic-theoretic (presently, my
favorite to think about) approaches, lawyer-theoretic(?) approaches that
ask, "For the benefit of whom?", as well as some axiomatic approaches.
Also, we appear to be discussing questions of reciprocity and asking,
"Economy, what is it good for"?[$]

[1] Reading about Eric's approach to his recent work, I was reminded
about the Levine paper. It has been several years since I had thought
about the details and attempts to reconstitute the idea for that context
have it on my mind for this one.

[2] Here, I suppose that I am not only thinking about more recent work
like that of Mark Newman or Lovasz or whomever, but also of the rich
history (summarized so playfully by Lokatos) going back to Euler and
Gauss and ...

[$] There is also the question of Evil, money, and their arborescent
relationship. I will leave this one alone for now ;)

[KS] Kemeny and Snell, 1960

--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2fredfish.com%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2ffriam_redfish.com&c=E,1,RFYmKU9uafRaal9CHd_TSkQozsyjYN9Sav2JwZv9EsNjeXXzhVboCIEyhY90Ieq-KhlQg8-oiwpRJ56dimmBzRhVhF_eVeq1rNK8eO_q-aoH7rmfBTMUj0i2LLV2&typo=1
FRIAM-COMIC https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=http%3a%2f%2ffriam-comic.blogspot.com%2f&c=E,1,9u_x9l_Qwna63Vb7AjgvWi48is8dAKAGYBscN1dJiKUsfmZLB0rnM4vgUWh_C_AbaPJyIPd39XIYWpQoakYjc7uaP9oH9FWjqXdmu3BgFbKTRAavnR8T&typo=1
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by gepr

Glen,

Re Wow. That reads like good, hard science fiction. In my skim, the only thing I missed was an adversarial effort, positioning of white, black, and grey hatted *attacks*. There was plenty of waterfall-like structure for assessing vulnerability. But I missed the adversarial effort. Is it in there? If so, take pity on me and toss some clues my way.

Methinks I understand stuff on a very shallow level and you're the deep thinkin guy. I see the approach of the Finance 4.0 as focussing very much on participatory as opposed to adversarial effort, so on a shallow level I can't toss any clues to you. Instead of answering your specific question (because I really can't), let me ramble a bit on the proposed Finance 4.0 system.

Finance 4.0 is a spinoff of the European FuturICT 2.0 project and I quote from https://futurict2.eu/the-project-2/ :

"To manage scarce resources and support endangered people and communities, powerful global information systems need to be built, based on big data and artificial intelligence."

The FuturICT 2.0 project is a relatively big effort, the European Union takes it seriously.

Now to focus on Finance 4.0

Two (there are more, but in my view these two represents the very basic concepts) of the legs of Finance 4.0 are:

* to use agent based modeling (ABM) as a primary tool to understand the economy and to design tools to manage it, because the the economy is considered to be a complex system where top-down analytical tools do not work well

* to consider the human participants not as Homo Economicus as per conventional economic analyses but as Homo Socialis.

I'll talk very briefly about each of these.

Using ABM to understand and design tools for a complex system
Dirk Helbing has done very successful projects on traffic systems using the ABM to understand the dynamics of the complex system and then to use these insights to design efficient control systems for it.. From this he genaralises on complex systems (with good explanations) as follows:
Two approaches to control a system are top down, central control system, like the government's control of money ánd bottom up control like in a swarm of ants.
In traffic systems he found the following:
A selfish bottom up control system outperforms the top down central but only up to a point. If the system becomes very busy and moves closer to its saturation point, the selfish bottom up approach breaks down and the top down system functions better.

But, if you have a local bottom up approach with local decentralized optimization considering local neighbors, it does not break down and outperforms the top down central control system over the whole spectrum.

He argues that there are universal complexity forces at play and the complex economy will behave in a similar way. He gives good explanations (including the results of some ABM models) for this argument.

Second leg is to consider the human participant in the economy as Homo Socialis

Conventional economic theory is based on considering the human participants as selfish agents Homo Economicus where each wishes to maximise his own benefits. Helbing argues that humans act more as Homo Socialis, each not only acting to maximise his own interest, but also considering others. Again he explains this approach in the document.

A top down approach will work better as a financial control system over the whole spectrum (like we have now) if humans act like Homo Economicus.

But a bottom up approach could be engineered that outperforms the top down control system, provided humans act like Homo Socialis. He goes into some details defending this assumption and of this design of the bottom up control system with local optimization considering local neighbors. (It's a complicated system, sort of like an expanded Bitcoin incorporating other factors that humans value like planting trees or caring for children. )

Just a side-note, he considers Bitcoin to be a bottom up financial control system designed for where the participants are Homo Economicus. Although he does not say it explicitly he implies Bitcoin will not outperform the current central government's financial control system. (Note that I'm giving his views and it does not necessarily represents my own)

In the words of the father of capitalism Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
"How ever selfish man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and renders their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it"

On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 16:51, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Wow. That reads like good, hard science fiction. In my skim, the only thing I missed was an adversarial effort, positioning of white, black, and grey hatted *attacks*. There was plenty of waterfall-like structure for assessing vulnerability. But I missed the adversarial effort. Is it in there? If so, take pity on me and toss some clues my way.

On 5/13/21 11:59 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Finance 4.0—Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System
>
> A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability
>
> Download link: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf>
>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: The case for universal basic income UBI

An editorial in the Boston Globe this morning notes that both Chelsea and Cambridge, two cities adjacent to Boston, are experimenting with UBI to reduce food insecurity:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/17/opinion/solution-hunger-takes-shape-chelsea-cambridge/

Analysis of the Chelsea program shows 75% of the money turns up spent on groceries. The editorial approves.

I think the government should provide a tax credit to businesses which employ people at a living wage, to move the employees out of poverty, to keep the businesses from being undercut by low ball competitors, and to move the economy toward more sustainable wealth distributions.

-- rec --

On Sat, May 15, 2021 at 12:40 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Glen,
Re Wow. That reads like good, hard science fiction. In my skim, the only thing I missed was an adversarial effort, positioning of white, black, and grey hatted *attacks*. There was plenty of waterfall-like structure for assessing vulnerability. But I missed the adversarial effort. Is it in there? If so, take pity on me and toss some clues my way.

Methinks I understand stuff on a very shallow level and you're the deep thinkin guy. I see the approach of the Finance 4.0 as focussing very much on participatory as opposed to adversarial effort, so on a shallow level I can't toss any clues to you. Instead of answering your specific question (because I really can't), let me ramble a bit on the proposed Finance 4.0 system.

Finance 4.0 is a spinoff of the European FuturICT 2.0 project and I quote from https://futurict2.eu/the-project-2/ :

"To manage scarce resources and support endangered people and communities, powerful global information systems need to be built, based on big data and artificial intelligence."

The FuturICT 2.0 project is a relatively big effort, the European Union takes it seriously.

Now to focus on Finance 4.0

Two (there are more, but in my view these two represents the very basic concepts) of the legs of Finance 4.0 are:

* to use agent based modeling (ABM) as a primary tool to understand the economy and to design tools to manage it, because the the economy is considered to be a complex system where top-down analytical tools do not work well

* to consider the human participants not as Homo Economicus as per conventional economic analyses but as Homo Socialis.

I'll talk very briefly about each of these.

Using ABM to understand and design tools for a complex system
Dirk Helbing has done very successful projects on traffic systems using the ABM to understand the dynamics of the complex system and then to use these insights to design efficient control systems for it.. From this he genaralises on complex systems (with good explanations) as follows:
Two approaches to control a system are top down, central control system, like the government's control of money ánd bottom up control like in a swarm of ants.
In traffic systems he found the following:
A selfish bottom up control system outperforms the top down central but only up to a point. If the system becomes very busy and moves closer to its saturation point, the selfish bottom up approach breaks down and the top down system functions better.

But, if you have a local bottom up approach with local decentralized optimization considering local neighbors, it does not break down and outperforms the top down central control system over the whole spectrum.

He argues that there are universal complexity forces at play and the complex economy will behave in a similar way. He gives good explanations (including the results of some ABM models) for this argument.

Second leg is to consider the human participant in the economy as Homo Socialis
Conventional economic theory is based on considering the human participants as selfish agents Homo Economicus where each wishes to maximise his own benefits. Helbing argues that humans act more as Homo Socialis, each not only acting to maximise his own interest, but also considering others. Again he explains this approach in the document.

A top down approach will work better as a financial control system over the whole spectrum (like we have now) if humans act like Homo Economicus.

But a bottom up approach could be engineered that outperforms the top down control system, provided humans act like Homo Socialis. He goes into some details defending this assumption and of this design of the bottom up control system with local optimization considering local neighbors. (It's a complicated system, sort of like an expanded Bitcoin incorporating other factors that humans value like planting trees or caring for children. )

Just a side-note, he considers Bitcoin to be a bottom up financial control system designed for where the participants are Homo Economicus. Although he does not say it explicitly he implies Bitcoin will not outperform the current central government's financial control system. (Note that I'm giving his views and it does not necessarily represents my own)

In the words of the father of capitalism Adam Smith in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)
"How ever selfish man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and renders their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it"

On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 16:51, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Wow. That reads like good, hard science fiction. In my skim, the only thing I missed was an adversarial effort, positioning of white, black, and grey hatted *attacks*. There was plenty of waterfall-like structure for assessing vulnerability. But I missed the adversarial effort. Is it in there? If so, take pity on me and toss some clues my way.

On 5/13/21 11:59 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> Finance 4.0—Towards a Socio-Ecological Finance System
>
> A Participatory Framework to Promote Sustainability
>
> Download link: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf <https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-71400-0.pdf>
>

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Russ Abbott

“Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

In reply to this post by David Eric Smith

Bill McKibbon writes a regular email sponsored by The New Yorker about climate change. His latest (no link since it's apparently not on the New Yorker website) how people (or corporations, e.g., oil company executives) knowingly continue to exacerbate the damage caused by climate change. He goes on to talk about "an interesting explanation in a new book from the British psychoanalyst Sally Weintrobe. “Psychological Roots of the Climate Crisis”. The answer, he says, in the book's subtitle: Neoliberal Exceptionalism and the Culture of Uncare.

McKibbon goes on, "Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” Neoliberalism—especially the ideas of people such as Ayn Rand, enshrined in public policy by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher—“crossed a Rubicon in the 1980s,” and neoliberals “have been steadily consolidating their power ever since.” Weintrobe calls leaders who exempt themselves in these ways “exceptions” and says that, as they “drove globalization forwards in the 1980s,” they were captivated by an ideology that whispered, “Cut regulation, cut ties to reality and cut concern.” Donald Trump was the logical end of this way of thinking, a man so self-centered that he interpreted all problems, even a global pandemic, as attempts to undo him. “The self-assured neoliberal imagination has increasingly revealed itself to be not equipped to deal with problems it causes,” she writes."

This is all related to the discussion we were having about whether a society of reciprocity is possible.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

I downloaded a free Kindle sample of Psychological Roots of the Climate Crisis and scanned through it. I consider it to be a valid view of the world.

But there are other valid views of the world too, for example The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein.
Neither is right or wrong, it simply represents different valid views.

On Thu, 20 May 2021 at 20:08, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

Bill McKibbon writes a regular email sponsored by The New Yorker about climate change. His latest (no link since it's apparently not on the New Yorker website) how people (or corporations, e.g., oil company executives) knowingly continue to exacerbate the damage caused by climate change. He goes on to talk about "an interesting explanation in a new book from the British psychoanalyst Sally Weintrobe. “Psychological Roots of the Climate Crisis”. The answer, he says, in the book's subtitle: Neoliberal Exceptionalism and the Culture of Uncare.

McKibbon goes on, "Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” Neoliberalism—especially the ideas of people such as Ayn Rand, enshrined in public policy by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher—“crossed a Rubicon in the 1980s,” and neoliberals “have been steadily consolidating their power ever since.” Weintrobe calls leaders who exempt themselves in these ways “exceptions” and says that, as they “drove globalization forwards in the 1980s,” they were captivated by an ideology that whispered, “Cut regulation, cut ties to reality and cut concern.” Donald Trump was the logical end of this way of thinking, a man so self-centered that he interpreted all problems, even a global pandemic, as attempts to undo him. “The self-assured neoliberal imagination has increasingly revealed itself to be not equipped to deal with problems it causes,” she writes."

This is all related to the discussion we were having about whether a society of reciprocity is possible.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

The world is the better for all not having the same views on everything.

Surely there's a difference between facts and opinions? Your "But it is *NOT* a sound, sensible, or rational view, any more than a stopped clock is right twice per day." is your opinion, it's not a fact.

Interesting work by Jonathan Haidt on different moral values of libertarians https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 . It's good to be mindful in having a discussion with someone with different moral values, you see the world with different biases.

Take for example global warming.
We might agree on the following facts:
The earth has been getting warmer and the sea levels have been rising since the end of the mini ice age circa 1850
CO2 contributes to the earth getting warmer
Humans are causing CO2 to increase

What we might disagree on is in the interpretation of the facts, for example:
The use of RCP 8.5 as reason for alarm
The accuracy of the models, for example the significant differences between balloon measurements and model predictions
The empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity is low enough that we probably don't have reason for alarm about global warming
All the benefits of fossil fuels for humanity
The climategate evidence of deliberate dishonesty of prominent climate scientists like Mickael Mann

The facts are not relative, it's absolute, so I don't subscribe to the postmodernists' "relativism" for factual matters.

Our opinions are guided by our moral values. This is where it;s good to allow others their place under the sun too.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 16:56, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Interesting. We hear from righties like Brett Weinstein and Ben Shapiro all the time how postmodernists' "relativism" is diluting our culture and sending us on the path to Hell. Is this such a relativism?

I'm reminded of the "all sides" fallacy or the snowflake idea that any arbitrary opinion of any arbitrary person is just as "valid" as any other opinion of any other person. I blame psychotherapy. >8^D Nobody's ever *wrong*. We all just have different points of view! And we all deserve trophies just for participating.

Last week the concept of a broken clock being "right" twice per day came up. This highlights, I think, the differences between a) validity vs. soundness, b) descriptive vs. mechanistic models, and c) correlation vs. causation. The broken clock is *not* accurate twice per day. The clock is THE canonical mechanism. A "stopped clock" is almost self-contradictory. If it's stopped, it's not a clock.

So, no. Sure, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels may be a valid view, in some unhinged yet logical fantasy. But it is *NOT* a sound, sensible, or rational view, any more than a stopped clock is right twice per day. Had it been written in, say, 1950, I might be more generous.

On 5/20/21 10:59 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> But there are other valid views of the world too, for example The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by Alex Epstein.
> Neither is right or wrong, it simply represents different valid views.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

I agree with you. It's very challenging to make sense of the world, and the human mind is amazing at building generative models of the world and those models become the reality for the mind. With the models we can make conclusions and explain how the world actually works. Now the clincher, to make progress, the conclusions must have clear explanations that are independant of the different layers that we used to generate the model to get to the conclusion.

I repeat, sure, use a complex layered approach to get to an understanding. But after you have formed your conclusions, don't rely on the complex layered model to explain the phenomena, distil it and get to a clear conclusion and back it up with good explanations. Always try to verify it using evidence.

For example, in the narrative of Russ, it is assumed that they have knowledge of the effects of Reagan and Thatcher on the world. I argue that it is impossible to have any level of confidence in that. The world is a chaotic complex system and we have some knowledge about what different actors (eg Reagan and Thatcher) did and what consequently happened, but nobody has a clue what the causal relationships were. It is simply impossible to know that. Sure, one can speculate, but tag it as speculation. ABM generative models show some promise in helping humans to understand such complex systems, but it's early days and current ABM models are not even close to answer questions like that.

I don't know the answers and I speculate it's beyond any human's capability to make statements like “The self-assured neoliberal imagination has increasingly revealed itself to be not equipped to deal with problems it causes,” and have any level of confidence in this. Yes, it's a good process to speculate that, but be real and admit that it's only speculation and/or the result of a generative model in your mind and not rooted in the real world. I tag it as "opinion" and respect the person to have that opinion.

On Fri, 21 May 2021 at 21:30, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

There's a layering in the relationship between fact and opinion. And what the postmodernists warned us about is that many of us are unable to unravel those layers. The idea that there exist absolute facts and (mere) interpretations of those facts can often be an indicator for the inability to unravel those layers. Sometimes, it's evidence of bad faith (e.g. when a fossil fuel profiteer funds or advocates for rhetoric on, say, the moral good of burning fossil fuels). Sometimes it's just an efficiency problem. It's more efficient, for the purposes of some limited scope episode, to take some assertion *as* fact in order to get on with assessing the suite of actions available. And sometimes it's simply that we're finite creatures and can't continually deconstruct everything to first principles all the time.

Here, in this context, Russ points to a well-unraveled attempt at a *cause* ... a mechanistic model. Alex Epstein and those who advocate variations on his story, like Pinker or Shermer, *truncate* the layering and take a particular *slice* of the "facts" abstracting away the rest of the inconvenient goo in which their skeleton is embedded. That *sampling* of the data can then be fleshed out by something like an interpolation, a shrink-wrap *hull* around the "facts" they chose. The model that obtains, the model that has been so *induced*, amounts to a descriptive model. No matter how well that model can fit the data, it's still an artificial fitting, quite distinct from a mechanistic model. Such fitted models have a huge host of practical fragility problems. Add a new triangulating fact and the whole model crumbles. Shift the distribution to a slightly different (in time or space) distribution of facts and the whole model crumbles. Etc.

So, sure, we can often agree on some assertions that we'll take as facts and iterate forward from there. But the ontological status of models thereby built will always be questionable. Only generative modeling helps us extract ourselves from that trap.

On 5/21/21 9:05 AM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> The world is the better for all not having the same views on everything.
>
> Surely there's a difference between facts and opinions? Your "*/But it is *NOT* a sound, sensible, or rational view, any more than a stopped clock is right twice per day./*" is your opinion, it's not a fact.
>
> Interesting work by Jonathan Haidt on different moral values of libertarians https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366 <https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366> . It's good to be mindful in having a discussion with someone with different moral values, you see the world with different biases.
>
> *Take for example global warming.
> We might agree on the following facts:*
> The earth has been getting warmer and the sea levels have been rising since the end of the mini ice age circa 1850
> CO2 contributes to the earth getting warmer
> Humans are causing CO2 to increase
>
> *What we might disagree on is in the interpretation of the facts, for example:*
> The use of RCP 8.5 as reason for alarm
> The accuracy of the models, for example the significant differences between balloon measurements and model predictions
> The empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity is low enough that we probably don't have reason for alarm about global warming
> All the benefits of fossil fuels for humanity
> The climategate evidence of deliberate dishonesty of prominent climate scientists like Mickael Mann
>
> The facts are not relative, it's absolute, so I don't subscribe to the postmodernists' "relativism" for factual matters.
>
> Our opinions are guided by our moral values. This is where it;s good to allow others their place under the sun too.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

Did I already post this here?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:03 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, to be clear, it wasn't (I don't think) Russ' rhetoric but Weintrobe via McKibbon. Russ was simply pointing it out to us.

But further, Weintrobe's argument seems to be (I haven't read the book, only a couple of reviews of it) a mechanistic explanation for how we in the northern hemisphere have become inured to externalities. She's proposing neoliberalism (and/or it's ancillary appendages) is causal. It's fine to disagree with that. But it's an entirely different thing to propose a fact-accumulating, fitted *hull* of a model like Epstein's as equivalent ... or even similar in kind.

Whether it's beyond any human's ability to *make* the assertion she made is obvious. It is within any human's ability to make such assertions. The question is, if we take her hypothesis seriously, how do we *test* it? What measures can we take that stand a chance of falsifying this causal role of neoliberalism?

And, I think, asking that question ... Can we test it? ... helps distinguish between purely descriptive and mechanistic models. If it's your claim that Weintrobe is making an untestable hypothesis, that's fine. But in order to lift up Epstein's just-so story to the same level as Weintrobe's, we'd have to also ask how can we test Epstein's (implicit) hypothesis?

So, again, my answer is: No, Epstein's case is unhinged in some crucial variables, fragile to the inclusion of ignored facts. And regardless of whether Weintrobe's turns out false or too weak, because it's mechanistic, isn't fragile in that same way.

On 5/21/21 1:44 PM, Pieter Steenekamp wrote:
> I agree with you. It's very challenging to make sense of the world, and the human mind is amazing at building generative models of the world and those models become the reality for the mind. With the models we can make conclusions and explain how the world actually works. Now the clincher, to make progress, the conclusions must have clear explanations that are independant of the different layers that we used to generate the model to get to the conclusion.
>
> I repeat, sure, use a complex layered approach to get to an understanding. But after you have formed your conclusions, don't rely on the complex layered model to explain the phenomena, distil it and get to a clear conclusion and back it up with good explanations. Always try to verify it using evidence.
>
> For example, in the narrative of Russ, it is assumed that they have knowledge of the effects of Reagan and Thatcher on the world. I argue that it is impossible to have any level of confidence in that. The world is a chaotic complex system and we have some knowledge about what different actors (eg Reagan and Thatcher) did and what consequently happened, but nobody has a clue what the causal relationships were. It is simply impossible to know that. Sure, one can speculate, but tag it as speculation. ABM generative models show some promise in helping humans to understand such complex systems, but it's early days and current ABM models are not even close to answer questions like that.
>
> I don't know the answers and I speculate it's beyond any human's capability to make statements like */“The self-assured neoliberal imagination has increasingly revealed itself to be not equipped to deal with problems it causes,”/* and have any level of confidence in this. Yes, it's a good process to speculate that, but be real and admit that it's only speculation and/or the result of a generative model in your mind and not rooted in the real world. I tag it as "opinion" and respect the person to have that opinion.

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

gepr

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Frank Wimberly-2

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

Sorry. I admire your memory.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:

Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative.

On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Did I already post this here?
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent>
> ---

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Prof David West

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

What started the problem (at least in the West)"

"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” [Christian Bible]

Potential way out:

Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far... [Sir Francis Bacon]

davew

On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:

Sorry. I admire your memory.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative.

On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Did I already post this here?
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent>
> ---

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Pieter Steenekamp

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

Thank you DaveW, I support this!

On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 04:53, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

What started the problem (at least in the West)"

"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” [Christian Bible]

Potential way out:

Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far... [Sir Francis Bacon]

davew

On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Sorry. I admire your memory.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative.

On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Did I already post this here?
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent>
> ---

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

Russ Abbott

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

Glen is right. I was quoting McKibbon writing about Weintrobe. Of course I did that because I thought that see made an important point. Here's the extract again.

"Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” ...

I found this interesting because it related back to our earlier discussion of reciprocity. If it is in our nature to have these two warring parts of our psyches, there is probably no hope that the "caring part" will ever fully triumph over the "uncaring part" and reliably hold the uncaring part in check. Presumably, this has to do with evolution and the need for both parts for successful long-term survival of a species.

If you buy that, and I think it's right, then what kind of society can be constructed of organisms with these two components that drive their behavior? That's the question we've been struggling with both in this discussion and over the ages. The answer presumably has to do with as much freedom as possible but freedom reigned in by enforced rules that prevent our uncaring parts from destroying that society.

The neoliberalism discussion has to do with the observation that our society has been moving in the direction of giving the uncaring parts too much power.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 6:42 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you DaveW, I support this!

On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 04:53, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

What started the problem (at least in the West)"

"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” [Christian Bible]

Potential way out:

Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far... [Sir Francis Bacon]

davew

On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Sorry. I admire your memory.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative.

On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Did I already post this here?
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent>
> ---

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

thompnickson2

Re: “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

Dear Russ,

Nothing worse than the elderly citing themselves, but what alternatives do I have?

By the way, in this case “genetic out come” refers neither to “the genes” in general or to “benefits to the species” but to the specific competition between the “genefur” supporting collective action and the “genefur” individually directed action. Thus, for the article to make sense to you, you already have to believe in “genesfur”. As you know, I have worried with increasing frequency about the possibility of “genesfur”. How do you get fur on a gene, anyway?

Nick Thompson

[hidden email]

https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/

From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of Russ Abbott
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2021 2:26 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] “Don’t they have grandchildren?” was The case for universal basic income UBI

Glen is right. I was quoting McKibbon writing about Weintrobe. Of course I did that because I thought that see made an important point. Here's the extract again.

"Weintrobe writes that people’s psyches are divided into caring and uncaring parts, and the conflict between them “is at the heart of great literature down the ages, and all major religions.” The uncaring part wants to put ourselves first; it’s the narcissistic corners of the brain that persuade each of us that we are uniquely important and deserving, and make us want to except ourselves from the rules that society or morality set so that we can have what we want. “Most people’s caring self is strong enough to hold their inner exception in check,” she notes, but, troublingly, “ours is the Golden Age of Exceptionalism.” ...

The neoliberalism discussion has to do with the observation that our society has been moving in the direction of giving the uncaring parts too much power.

-- Russ Abbott
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 6:42 AM Pieter Steenekamp <[hidden email]> wrote:

Thank you DaveW, I support this!

On Sat, 22 May 2021 at 04:53, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

What started the problem (at least in the West)"

"Then God said, “Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.” [Christian Bible]

Potential way out:

Those who have taken upon them to lay down the law of nature as a thing already searched out and understood, whether they have spoken in simple assurance or professional affectation, have therein done philosophy and the sciences great injury. For as they have been successful in inducing belief, so they have been effective in quenching and stopping inquiry; and have done more harm by spoiling and putting an end to other men's efforts than good by their own. Those on the other hand who have taken a contrary course, and asserted that absolutely nothing can be known — whether it were from hatred of the ancient sophists, or from uncertainty and fluctuation of mind, or even from a kind of fullness of learning, that they fell upon this opinion — have certainly advanced reasons for it that are not to be despised; but yet they have neither started from true principles nor rested in the just conclusion, zeal and affectation having carried them much too far... [Sir Francis Bacon]

davew

On Fri, May 21, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
Sorry. I admire your memory.

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz,
Santa Fe, NM 87505

505 670-9918
Santa Fe, NM

On Fri, May 21, 2021, 3:11 PM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[hidden email]> wrote:
Only about 100,000 times. >8^D The trick is whether or not you believe that sort of modeling is mechanistic or *merely* generative.

On 5/21/21 2:08 PM, Frank Wimberly wrote:
> Did I already post this here?
>
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228446085_Simulation_validation_using_Causal_Inference_Theory_with_morphological_constraints#fullTextFileContent>
> ---

--
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

1 ... 34567