Wednesday, October 21, 2020

Lawrence Summers attempts to criticise MMT – try not to die of laughter. Ralph Musgrave


Has Larry Summers actually read any MMT literature? MMT economists have already counter all his objections. 

My guess. This is political. The man cannot be that obtuse economically, can he? With the prospect of a Biden win, Summers is trying to head off MMT politically as a Democratic Establishment  stalwart vying for power and position.

RALPHONOMICS
Lawrence Summers attempts to criticise MMT – try not to die of laughter.
Ralph Musgrave


45 comments:

Matt Franko said...

yo there is no edict in platonism that says you have to read the other guy's stuff....

Greg said...

There’s no such edict in science either.

“Ways of thinking” don’t issue edicts

Matt Franko said...

In science youre trained to always read it if it works... saves you time and munnie...

Science is not a rules based methodology... it is a test based methodology...

Platonisim is a dialogue based methodology....

Matt Franko said...

“Ways of thinking”

I dont think this is fully descriptive of what is happening...

Its not “Ways of thinking” that is figurative language again...

maybe the literal " 'cognitive methodologies' dont blah blah blah....."

Tom Hickey said...

Its not “Ways of thinking” that is figurative language again... maybe the literal " 'cognitive methodologies'



"Way of thinking" includes cognitive methods but is not limited to them. All thinking is based on a frame of reference, which MMT economists call a "lens."

A frame of reference is a complex set of assumptions and attitudes which we use to filter perceptions to create meaning. The frame can include beliefs, schemas, preferences, values, culture and other ways in which we bias our understanding and judgment.

Tversky and Kahneman (1981) define a decision frame as ‘the decision-maker’s conception of the act, outcomes and contingencies associated with a particular choice.’


Cognitive studies show that there is no expression that is independent of a frame of reference. Much that reference frame is not reflected upon and simply presumed to be "the way thing are."

This is a reason that Richard Feynman warned against "cargo cult science," saying that the purpose of doing science is to prevent being fooled, and you are the easiest person to fool," e.g, owing to cognitive-affective bias of which one is not aware.

Tom Hickey said...

Science is not a rules based methodology... it is a test based methodology...

Language use is based on rules, e.g., at a minimum the rules of grammar. Logic and math are also sets of rules. Science rest on them as on a foundation. This is what founatonal studies is about.

Rule means regular versus random. The "rule" is the pattern, e.g., of behavior. "Rule" is closely related to "order." In ancient Greek thought, logos (literally "word, but also "reason") brings order (kosmos) out of chaos (xaos), randomness. Think signal to noise ratio in information theory regarding information transfer. Data has to be organized (ordered) into information to be useful.

Science is the search for invariants that can be quantified and expressed using mathematical expressions like functions.

In qualitative fields, the rules are less accurate and precise in the sense that it is difficult to quantify them the material, but there are generally agreed upon criteria for handling these types of subject matter, too, e.g., by using sets as the basis of abstraction.

Some fields are a combination of qualitative and quantitative. The hard sciences — physics and chem — are pretty much quantitative, but biology is less so, and social science, which includes econ, less than that. Philosophy mediates between the sciences on one hand and the arts and humanities on the other.

These fields are all rules-based and the technical aspect of the discipline involves in part mastering the rules and their application.

There is a study somewhere, I don't have it handy, showing that the mind even imposes some structure on a group of randomly selected dots, such is the preference for order.

Testing is a set of sets of rules used to increase objectivity and reduce subjectivity. In science some of these rules are called experimental protocols, for example.

Any kind of regularity can be expressed by a rule. Much of the quest for knowledge is the search for regularity and expressing regularity through rules. This is the case with technical knowledge (Greek technē), theoretical knowledge (epistēme), and practical wisdom (phronēsis). This study, encompassing all fields, began in the West in ancient Greece, which was influenced by Egypt, Persia, and India. Rules are the foundation of knowledge (epistemology, cognitive studies), action (ethics, value theory, action theory) and appreciation (aesthetics).

Calgacus said...

The silly stuff about "platonism" or science or arts degree "methodology" isn't even internally consistent from one moment to another. As in:


(1) yo there is no edict in platonism that says you have to read the other guy's stuff....

(2) Platonism is a dialogue based methodology


In the real world, Science is platonism, platonism is science. In dialogue with others you read the book of nature, dialogue with nature. "Figurative language" is figurative language. Most blabbering about "methodology" is just a way of avoiding the work of thinking while pretending to do something useful.

What is the point of making up these kooky theories and fake history that will always have exactly one person espousing it. Is another EKH or AA really needed?

Matt Franko said...

Tom, if you look back at the Dialogs it was always one person writing them...

iow say Plato would write this Dialog where he would have two characters the one character would advocate thesis and the other character would advocate the antithesis...

BUT in reality it was ONE PERSON writing both sides...

If you did your platonism like that you guaranty that the person (Plato) was at least looking at both sides of the issue...

That is not what is going on here...

You have two different people taking the opposing positions...

Its not going to work...

Matt Franko said...

" Science is platonism, platonism is science."

Science degree wasnt awarded until 1860... platonism around since Socrates at least...

Matt Franko said...

"Most blabbering about "methodology" is just a way of avoiding the work of thinking while pretending to do something useful."

Even morons can "think"... do they ever get anything correct? Nooooooo...

Matt Franko said...

"technical knowledge (Greek technē), theoretical knowledge (epistēme), and practical wisdom (phronēsis)."

These are not the same thing (yo thats why there are 3 of them...) ... they have different purposes.... and they are all taught and applied via different methodologies...

match the purpose to the correct methodology... 90% of all (material) problems go away immediately...

Tom Hickey said...

Tom, if you look back at the Dialogs it was always one person writing them... iow say Plato would write this Dialog where he would have two characters the one character would advocate thesis and the other character would advocate the antithesis... BUT in reality it was ONE PERSON writing both sides... If you did your platonism like that you guaranty that the person (Plato) was at least looking at both sides of the issue... That is not what is going on here... You have two different people taking the opposing positions... Its not going to work...

Actually, the dialogic approach that Plato used was not popular among latter writers. George Berkeley is a notable exception and his handling of the method was extremely good in communicating his points. Where the method survives is in not only asserting a position but meeting possible objections. This is the method that Aquinas used, for instance, and it is now more or less expected from professionals.

"Platonism" is a very broad terms, not restricted to the Dialogues, or even the work of Plato. For example, "Platonism" is often contrasted with "Aristotelianism" as a formal mathematical approach versus a causal and observational one. Thus it would be true to call most conventional economists "Platonist" in their approach to method focusing on the axiomatic method versus a data-based method.

"Platonic" has the meaning of ideal versus the real, as in Platonic love.

Plato's dialogic approach was very different from Hegel's dialectical one, for example. To call both of them "dialectic" obscures the difference. Plato's dialogic approach is similar to modern debate. Hegel's is not.

Plato draws out different positions on various questions through juxtaposition of views, showing how some views are insufficient as answers to the question. Then another point of view is considered and so on as the issue is developed. One point is that answering such questions is not as easy and simple as some presume.

The basis of Hegel's dialectic is capture in the German term "aufheben," which can mean cancel or to preserve. This is often explained in English as "sublation," which is not every illuminative. I prefer the term "transcend." Hegel's use of dialectic is to articulate the contents of reason through concepts, as mathematical expression might be articulated. Hegel's development of his dialectic was probably more influenced by Spinoza than Plato.

Neither Plato nor Hegel use the terms thesis, antithesis and synthesis. That was Fichte a student of Kant, who used thesis and antithesis in the transcendental dialectic section of the Critique of Pure Reason as a method of indirect proof.

Where the dialogic method survives is in open debate based on free and informed inquiry. This is supposed to be what happens in academia in peer-reviewed journals, for example.

I don't see how the terms "Platonism" or "Platonist" are useful without carefully delineating how the term is being used. They appear as an attempt to look smart when one doesn't know what one is talking about. Better to just explain clearly what one is talking about without reference to terms that are ambiguous and can be understood in several ways.

Tom Hickey said...

"technical knowledge (Greek technē), theoretical knowledge (epistēme), and practical wisdom (phronēsis)." These are not the same thing (yo thats why there are 3 of them...) ... they have different purposes.... and they are all taught and applied via different methodologies... match the purpose to the correct methodology... 90% of all (material) problems go away immediately.

Nothing to disagree with about that.

My point in mention them was that all are rule-based. A method is a set of rules and criteria for applying them. Criteria and definition are also types of rules.

The whole idea behind knowledge acquisition of any type is that a subject matter exhibits some regularity, as does do minds in approaching it.

Studying method is also important to insure that the methods selected are effective for purpose and efficient in operation.

There is a huge tussle in economics over method, with conventional economists asserting that the methodological debate is over and they won. Everyone else can either do what they do or do something else. That might work if application of their method actually worked in a regular fashion, which is doesn't.

So Dani Rodrik's solution is to choose the appropriate method for conditions. But there is no rule for doing this. He calls it the "art" of doing economics, as I recall, but a better them would be craft. That is, no explicit criteria. That is supposed to be skill (technā) and practical wisdom (phronēsis), not science (epistēme), where the rules are explicit.

How can it be said that technā (art, craft, skill) is rule-based then. Because the expert handles the same type of issue essentially the same way, knowing from long experience which tool to select and how to use it.

Greg said...

Morons think they think. Having an idea pop into your head is not “thinking”.. Not any mental activity can be accurately described as thinking

Thinking is a process of taking an idea or thought and examining it in an ordered way. You want to talk about figures of speech, when many people say they “think” usually meaning “believe” x y z, they often are just repeating someone else’s words and saying they agree with it, usually without any critical thought about it. When you ask many people why they think or believe such and such, they have no thought about it they just believe what someone they see as authority on something says. Most religious thinking is this way. A child doesn’t “believe” in God. They are told to believe in God and they obey. You can’t truly believe anything you haven’t thought about critically.

Greg said...

Science degree wasnt awarded until 1860... platonism around since Socrates at least


Ha!!! So prior to 1860, no one was doing “science”?? If no one was doing science how would they suddenly on some day in 1860 say “Hey, let’s have this new degree and call it .............science?” Science was just made up out of thin air some day in 1860?

How did they know what to include in curriculum? How did they know the methodology they were going to teach was superior to some other?
Unless they had already been doing “science” this would have just been another exercise in creating a divine text or divine way, imparted by some all knowing supernatural being.

THINK before you write boy!!

Tom Hickey said...

You can’t truly believe anything you haven’t thought about critically.

Plato has Socrates say that philosophy (literally "love of wisdom") is reflection on experience, as in a life not reflected upon is not worth the living. "not reflected upon" is also rendered as "the unexamined life."

When I was teaching philosophy I would begin by saying, now that you have reached maturity it is time to question what your parents, preacher and president have told you. You needed structure and boundaries while growing up, but now it is time to becomes your own person. It is called being authentic.

Mike Norman said...

Summers is advising Biden.

Matt Franko said...

“Plato's dialogic approach “

I think what I’ve been terming “Platonism” is generally this ‘dialogic approach “. you identify here ,, where these people who don’t ever get anywhere are engaging in a dialogue as their methodology... vs science methodology, etc...

I think I’m going to refer to this as ‘dialogic method’...

Matt Franko said...

“Ha!!! So prior to 1860, no one was doing “science”?? “

Not really at that time no... it was formalized in 1860 ... that is a significant milestone... like 1971 as far as our numismatic system...

It may have been done in ancient times via what Tom.identifies above as the Greek ‘techne’... I think that is a whole overlooked methodology probably what I am terming ‘science methodology’...

But then you had the dark ages and Roman Catholicism took over which was not techne , Aquinas and the other founders were philosophers... Platonist school... you had anti science Platonist philosophers running everything...

So if. We didn’t really get anywhere for thousands of years... horses, pony express, gold, silver, sailing vessels, pretty much same conditions ...

Once it was formalized (maybe reformalized? after 1000s of years hiatus?) we are shooting forward pretty rapidly... ofc not in all Disciplines ... yet...

Matt Franko said...

For reference:

https://archive.org/details/thechristianplat00bigguoft

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm

These guys founded the whole thing dominated by Platonist philosophy till (formally) 1860... Ushered in the dark ages and no technical progress for almost 2,000 years...

Then Darwin came up with his whole BS thing out of that methodology and looks like that was the last straw that broke the camels back.. ‘techne’ was brought back in (formally)...

Now we are getting ahead again... materially...

Peter Pan said...

Science follows Australian rules and breaks all the plates.

Tom Hickey said...

These guys founded the whole thing dominated by Platonist philosophy till (formally) 1860

Not exactly. Western civ is dominated now by four major influences—Greek thought, Roman law and organization, the Judaeo-Christian tradition and modern thought, in particular the rise of scientific method.

Very early in the Christian era, Greek thought, Roman law and organization where combined with the Judaeo-Christian tradition to produce Christendom as the political system of the West and Near East. Platonic thought (different from Plato in that it incorporates Neoplatonism) was dominant until the Middle Ages,in part since Aristotle's works were lost to the West. They were preserved by the Arabs, however, and reintroduced to the West around the 12-13th c. Aristotle was used by Aquinas to construct the the foundation of his system, which very soon became dominant in the West since it was adopted by the institutional Church. Previously, Augustine had been the go-to theologian and he was heavily influence by Neoplatonism.

This persisted until the modern era and the advent of modern thought, which can be understood to begin with Augustinian friar Luther and the Protestant Reformation that broke the hold of the institutional Church. This could have brought Augustine and Neoplatonism back to counter Aquinas's Aristotelianism (he called Aristotle "the Philosopher" and Paul "the Apostle). But Protestantism focused on scripture and denied an equal footing to tradition.

The Reformation was accompanied by the rise of modern thought, thought having been liberated to a degree from dogma. The rise of science was particularly important in the longer run and being evidence-based is now dominant as the final arbiter of argument in professional circles.

Modern thought had two major strands, rationalism-formalism following Plato and realism-empiricism following Aristotle. This culminated in the 18th c. Enlightenment and the triumph of Newtonian physics.

The US founding fathers were influenced in particular by John Locke who was in the realist (Aristotelian) tradition. British and American though have been in this pattern, emphasizing realism and empiricism over rationalism and formalism.

The West has not be heavily influenced by Plato and Platonism since the Renaissance. Plato is more associated with the mystical tradition which has never been prominent in the West owing to opposition from thee institutional Church and its marginalization in Protestantism.

Sweeping summary, but these are major trends. I think now it would be more useful to talk about the distinction between rationalism-formalism and realism-empiricism since these are still operative influences as ways of thinking. Ways of thinking are different from thinking styles, in that ways of thinking are reference frames ("lenses") rather than tools of thought.

Another important matter is dissemination of information culturally. It takes 50 to 100 years for new ideas to permeate the culture. So cultures tend to be way behind the curve wrt new knowledge. It is only the intellectual elites that are more or less up to date, but the era of being able to know everything worth knowing is over due to proliferation of information.

Tom Hickey said...

Summary of the above summary.

Western thought is dominated by Aristotle rather than Plato, even though Plato surfaced most of the enduring question, so that Whitehead could assert that the Western intellectual tradition is a series of footnotes to Plato.

But Plato's method was far different from Aristotle and Aristotle's method became dominant. Plato used dialogue and myth while Aristotle used descriptive prose. Reading Plato now seems quaint, whereas Aristotle reads pretty much like an other professional or academic prose.

Now Plato is more associated with rationalism and formalism, since he heavily emphasized math and geometry in particular. Aristotle is more associated with realism-empiricism in that he emphasized description and observation.

These are different ways of thinking that employ different tools (method). But modern science is a synthesis of formalism and math as the theoretical aspect of science and realism and observation as the experimental and evidential aspect of science.

For example, in econ conventional economists tend to emphasize the formal and mathematical. Heterodox economists the evidential, e.g., institutionalists. MMT is heavily institutionalist, focusing on "praxis," that is, institutional arrangements and operations.

Calgacus said...

Matt:Even morons can "think"... do they ever get anything correct? Nooooooo...

Almost all talk about methodology is a waste of time. Your stuff, Matt, is no different. Awards and names of degrees have absolutely nothing to do with science- ness.

The morons who "think" - get a lot more right than 99% of methodologists, or those making up a crazy fake history of science dating it at 1860 or asserting that Darwin was wrong. Every biologist in the world follows Darwin. Why not just decide Galileo or Faraday is wrong? All of these things are a good way to make yourself look like a crackpot. John Baez has a good questionnaire for one's crackpot index IIRC.

That there was no technical progress or science until 1860 is mad. Read a book. One can look at historical artifacts even. Would we great if genuine technical or scientific progress picked up to the level of 1860.

Greg:You can’t truly believe anything you haven’t thought about critically.

But you can't truly think about anything critically until you've believed in it. Most modern stuff about "critical thinking" is the same valueless "methodological" stuff that only pretends to be doing something useful. This mistake is typified by the limitations of Kant's critical philosophy - as Hegel said, it is like the wise resolution to not go into the water until you have learnt to swim.

Tom: Plato's dialogic approach was very different from Hegel's dialectical one, for example. To call both of them "dialectic" obscures the difference. Plato's dialogic approach is similar to modern debate. Hegel's is not.

Hegel disagreed, strongly. He felt he was doing basically the same thing as Plato & Aristotle, and I agree. By and large, Twentieth century philosophy was/is obsessed with making secondary, derived distinctions while carefully avoiding the exploration and understanding of the concepts which they are based on - which is the real meat of philosophy. The commonality of dialectical, speculative philosophers is far more important than their stylistic differences.

Tom Hickey said...

Calgacus: The commonality of dialectical, speculative philosophers is far more important than their stylistic differences.

I would agree on this based on the distinction between the dialectical style of thinking and the categorical style of thinking.

Regarding Hegel and influences like Plato and Aristotle, it's complicated and there is a range of scholarly opinion in it. No reason to get into that here since it is hardly the venue.

Here is my short take on what Hegel was about and how it went about it. If you are not into philosophy or the history of the Western intellectual tradition, forget about it. You won't miss anything. I am writing it for the fun of it and I have some free time today.

Plus, Hegel exercises my brain as one of the great systems thinkers. In my view, Hegel is significant because he was so prodigious a thinker, regardless of whether one agrees with him. Beats reading science-fiction for stretching the mind.

Hegel was a classist who was very familiar with Greek thought. Hegel admired Plato for this conception of the idea (Greek eidos). Plato was an idealist (idea-ist) philosopher. So was Hegel. Some hold that Hegel was the greatest idealist that the West produced so far. Since many conclude that idealism is over and materialism won, end of story. I don't think so.

Hegel's project was documenting the process of the Absolute knowing itself as absolute idea in which Substance (real) is united with Subject (ideal). This is similar to Aristotle's God as "self-thinking thought," but Aristotle did not work this out to Hegel's satisfaction.

The other pillar of Hegel's method is the abstract-concrete relationship, which is traceable to Aristotle. While Hegel appreciated Plato more than Aristotle in that Plato was a fellow idealist and Aristotle was more a realist, he criticized Plato as too abstract (he criticized Eastern thought for this too). Aristotle, on the other hand, didn't adequately bridge the abstract-concrete dichotomy. Self-thinking thought is separate and uninvolved for Aristotle. Not for Hegel. IN my reading it seems to that one rarely finds someone that knows what the Greeks were doing. Hegel did.

Hegel viewed bridging the (apparent)) divide between abstract (theory)and concrete (observation) as a key contribution of Aristotle. For Aristotle, the mind begins as blank slate, not informed with total knowledge as with Plato. For Aristotle knowledge begins with perception and observation, not remembrance as with Plato. Ideas are abstracted not eternally abstract in a metaphysical realm of "forms" mofrl after the geometrical shapes and solids.

Aristotle's work can be viewed as the progression of the mind from being a blank slate to God as self-thinking thought in the Metaphysics. For Aristotle, God is eternally self-thinking thought, while humans can be temporarily in that state through contemplation. God is also separate from the world.

Hegel understood this and sought to give it superior expression through his own view and method, which was influenced by others to a degree. But it was largely original with him, wherein lies one claim to greatness.

continued

Tom Hickey said...

continuation

All the great thinkers are breathtaking in their views. Hegel got that and he sought to transcend what had been accomplished before by applying a new and unique method. But this required a holistic and systemic way of thinking that was matched only by the greatest minds, Plato and Aristotle being examples. Similarly, Newton had a new view of the universe and he also had to develop a notation of calculus capable to express it.

Hegel can be summarized in his dictum is "the rational alone is real." Showing this required him to use the abstract-concrete dichotomy to avoid the slide toward subjective idealism like Kant's transcendental idealism and its expression in Fichte, or objective idealism like Schelling.

Hegel was an absolute idealist that viewed subject and object are really one, historical reality being the manifestation of the rational in history through the unfolding of the idea dialectically. This amounts to viewing substance (real, objective, concrete) and subject (thought, reason, idea) as two sides of the same coin so to speak — different in aspect but really one. If this sounds "mystical," Hegel was quite aware of mystical literature and was influenced by it, as well as Spinoza's pantheism.

In Hegel view, both mystical experience and speculation are insufficient to achieve the whole, which requires uniting the real (objective) and the rational (ideal, subjective). Abstract and concrete must be united in the self-knowingness of the Absolute, and this is evinced in history if properly understood. It can be also be demonstrated, he asserted, in his new approach to logic. This is why although Hegel was influenced by others, he saw his contribution as unique and final, based both on his way of thinking (lens) and the method he developed. This is the way the system works in his view.

For Hegel, the Absolute (self-thinking thought) realizes itself as Absolute Idea through the historical dialectic that unites the abstract with the concrete through concretization in history (Phenomenology), with abstract understanding being provided by the unfolding the idea as set forth in the Logic. The Logic proceeds to show how this is a rational process involving the articulation of the idea as concept (Greek eidos, German Begriff).

This found in Eastern thought, too, from the time of it's having been recorded. But the thought itself is more ancient than the earliest records of it.

Science is having its day now, but the story is far from over. In fact, Western thinkers and scientists are now beginning to look in that direction again. That they ever looked away completely, see process philosophy, only that those who did look were either marginalized or misunderstood for the most part. A. N. Whitehead is chiefly remembered for his part in the Principia Mathematica rather than Process and Reality.

Marx on the other hand, rejected the idealist orientation and embraced materialism, which was in keeping with the rise of science and its influence on modern thought.

Matt Franko said...

“ Calgacus: The commonality of dialectical, speculative philosophers is far more important than their stylistic differences.”

This is my point... and that commonality of methodology does not include the scientific method...

Matt Franko said...

To the extent you guys keep trying to use that dialogic or dialectic non-scientific methodology you will continue to fail...

The only time you get anywhere is when you refer to some knowledge from the science side... then scientific people can understand you ...

But then your same type of dialogic people don’t understand what you are trying to say...

You should just abandon your present preferred methodology... go over exclusively to the science side...

You’ll get a lot further....

Matt Franko said...

Your methodology is manifestly ineffective and you’re not getting anywhere... make an adjustment already...

Tom Hickey said...

Matt, most of what is said here is popularization. It's about presentation and persuasion. The scientific approach is a flat tire there. You lose most of you audience in the first paragraph. Obviously, academic papers are a different matter but who read academic papers? Just about nobody.

Excepting Bill the MMT economists have pretty much given up blogging. They are on Twitter where the discussion is in no way scientific in that amount of space.

People that do talk scientifically, like Jason Smith, for instance, link to formal stuff that one has to leave Twitter to see — and then have the math chops to understand it. MMT economists sometimes link to papers, too. Basically this about the only way to be rigorously scientific about matters of any complication. Again, how many read papers?

Someone following your advice to be scientific would be talking mostly to themselves. Take your example of leverage ratios that you claim MMT economists don't take into account. Most people probably don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and you never spell it out in any detail or provide references. Who are you talking to other than yourself?

As I have said, MMT is articulated in depth academically in a number of papers and books and that is continuing. The second aspect of MMT is getting it out there and the MMT economists talked about the strategy for doing to some time ago on the blogs. Now they have hit on a strategy and are working it. The greatest popular success is, of course, Stephanie's book. But they are also working behind the scenes on people in a position to make a different politically.

MMT is not just an economic theory. It is a program for change.

Matt Franko said...

Well then maybe try ridiculing the morons ?

It certainly works for Trump....

Use the science and hit them hard where it hurts... make them feel pain....

You gotta try something..,

Matt Franko said...

“Take your example of leverage ratios that you claim MMT economists don't take into account. Most people probably don't have a clue as to what you are talking about and you never spell it out in any detail or provide references. Who are you talking to other than yourself?“

I’ve explained it to degreed Accountants and they understand it in a few minutes..,, pen and paper and diagrams... it’s not very complicated or profound to technically qualified/competent people ... this is what is frustrating,,,,

Matt Franko said...

If you are trained clarinet player you’re not going to get it ever..,,,

Tom Hickey said...


I’ve explained it to degreed Accountants and they understand it in a few minutes..,, pen and paper and diagrams... it’s not very complicated or profound to technically qualified/competent people ... this is what is frustrating,,,,

I explained MMT to a CPA/lawyer and his answer was, How else could it be? But these people are trained in this kind of thinking. Try explaining it to a broad range of people from high school seniors to economists and people in finance and everyone in between. That is what popularization and persuasion are about.

You haven't explained it in any detail in comments that I recall, nor do I recall your ever writing a blog on it either.

I have recommended writing a paper, posting it on SSRN, and then using it to link to as a reference to others.

Tom Hickey said...

If you are trained clarinet player you’re not going to get it ever..,,,

I couldn't resist this one about Einstein.

“Music helps him when he is thinking about his theories,” said Elsa, who became his second wife in 1919. “He goes to his study, comes back, strikes a few chords on the piano, jots something down, returns to his study.” (Read "Einstein’s Evolving Universe: Beyond the Big Bang" in National Geographic magazine.)

The great physicist himself once said that if he hadn’t been a scientist, he would certainly have been a musician.


Inside Einstein’s Love Affair With ‘Lina’—His Cherished Violin

Matt Franko said...

“You haven't explained it in any detail in comments that I recall, nor do I recall your ever writing a blog on it either.”

I have it’s here Tom... open source no attribution... anybody can simply read it at any time...

Screen grabs and links to the regulations, screen grabs of the relevant reports H.4.1, H.8, FDIC Call Reports, simple computations of the resultant regulatory ratios, etc. it’s all here...

I did it years ago by now...

Matt Franko said...

I play too Tom... I hear a new song melody I like... walkover to the guitar... sit down figure out how to play it ... and then never play it again... I’m not a musician... I enjoy the “figuring out” part...

And the thing is you’re making my point here:

“ if he hadn’t been a scientist, he would certainly have been a musician.”

You can’t be both... it’s one or the other...

The rigorous ritualistic activity and all the rote memorization required to be a musician acts against one’s ability for abstraction required for science or applied science...

Matt Franko said...

Here Tom:

https://psychology.stackexchange.com/questions/4538/is-abstract-knowledge-incompatible-with-literal-memorization

“Solomon Shereshevsky (Luria, 1968) had an almost perfect literal memory. He remembers strings of hundreds of digits for years after only having read them once. I would like to explain this by his awesome synesthesia: everything is encoded in so many ways that everything is considered as new, and so a new memory trace is formed to remember it (we know that "first time" experiences are well remembered (Robinson, 1993), as are distinctive features (Hunt & Worthen, 2006)). Shereshevsky's gift was compensated by big difficulties recognizing (visages, which he considered extremely changing) and had basically no understanding of abstraction: metaphor, figurative language.“

They work against each other...

Matt Franko said...

I think this is what is holding us back in medicine...

There is A LOT of rote memorization and ritual required in the training to become an MD.... so you see someone like Fauci as an example where he can’t ever figure it out.., keeps getting nowhere..,

But he probably has tons of medical information memorized I’d bet... or Amy Coney Barrett has all the case law memorized so she doesn’t need any notes when being grilled by the Senators..., but ask them to figure something out and it’s not going to go very well...

So you don’t want those two in high position of material systems administration or management...

Tom Hickey said...

@ Matt

Wrong conclusion, I believe. As I understand the psychological research, the reason that most people don't remember everything consciously is that it inhibits the ability to filter information in order of potential importance and too much unfiltered data gets in the way of other cognitive operations related to processing data in information and using it constructively to seize opportunities and meet challenges. It's a reason that we sleep eight hours on average. It's a purging process and a restructuring the data base operation.


BTW, there are people with "photographic memories" that become very successful in life and in their fields. So there is a happy medium between memory and other cognitive operations.


Solomon Shereshevsky is an outlier and apparently suffered from a type of mental dysfunction.

Tom Hickey said...

You can’t be both... it’s one or the other...

The rigorous ritualistic activity and all the rote memorization required to be a musician acts against one’s ability for abstraction required for science or applied science...


Matt, this is bonkers. Alan Greenspan payed the clarinet and also got a PhD in economics, which is heavy math and that would be applied math, too. Ray Dalio gave up a musical career when he realized the income was limited other than for those that broke through to the top and he saw he was not one of them. He was educated in math and applied his math skills to the market.

Tom Hickey said...

Screen grabs and links to the regulations, screen grabs of the relevant reports H.4.1, H.8, FDIC Call Reports, simple computations of the resultant regulatory ratios, etc. it’s all here...

Have you put it together in one place and explained with a link so I can see it?

Tom Hickey said...

There is A LOT of rote memorization and ritual required in the training to become an MD

Another nonsense. Of course, pre-med and med school are heavy on memorization, anatomy and organic chem. This is the groundwork that physicist need to begin thinking about application. After that they spend years in practice as interns and residents, when they practice hands-on problem solving.

Peter Pan said...

What needs to be understood by the public is not rocket science. Yet you guys continue to fail in your role as educators. A blog comprised of academics, policy wonks and political junkies, is destined to change nothing in this world.

Great entertainment though!

Greg said...

Fauci as an example where he can’t ever figure it out.., keeps getting nowhere..,


Wtf are you even talking about!? Can’t figure what out? How to get 40% of the population to do ANY of the basic things known to work when dealing with contagious respiratory diseases?? That 40% is following a fake tanned con man and just want to do everything that sticks in the eyes of “liberals”. Period. That is their ONLY operating principle .....troll/own the libs

Fauci is not working on vaccines or researching cures. He’s way more trusted than Trump on the matters he deals with and that why you guys have turned on him, because Trump has felt threatened by his presence.

You have gotten ridiculous Matt. It’s hilarious that you hold yourself out as some sort of scientific, nothing but testable/provable facts, kind of guy. You’re a RWNJ probably looking up more “proof” of QAnon BS as we speak