I don’t see how one can seriously study macroeconomics until this complexity problem is solved first, but after the solution (which I have shown in SSRN2865571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Macroeconomics Modeling”) has been determined, its very clear that the aggregates are all 100% probable and no alternatives exist (or they have zero probability)! Those economists who insist on probability must surely mixing up micro- and macro- , which a part of the confusion.

The following poem should prove helpful; so as to better appreciate what is involved. The author was Kenneth Boulding, (1910 – 1993).

A system is a big black box

Of which we can’t unlock the locks

And all we can find out about

Is what goes in and what comes out.

Perceiving input-output pairs,

Related by parameters,

Permits us, sometimes, to relate

An input, output, and a state.

If this relation’s good and stable

Then to predict we may be able,

But if this fails us heaven forbid!

We’ll be compelled to force the lid!

Logic followed by lid-opening “persuasion” are the answers!

]]>The proposition ‘Man seeks to satisfy his needs with the least exertion could be taken to mean that man seeks an optimal cost/benefit trade-off, but following Herb Simon’s concept of ‘bounded rationality’ it seems consistent with the notion that Man is a creature of habit, so long as he is not aware of any undue down-side. At least, it is important to note that under some circumstances Man can fail to satisfy his needs, or be hugely wasteful. I agree that our current system is largely driven as if Man’s desires were unlimited, but this seems to me a problem to be overcome rather than necessarily an ‘axiom’. If you want to make it an axiom then surely we need to pay close attention to the dimensions in which Man’s desires are unlimited. Not, I think, always just money-wealth.

]]>The special axioms applicable to macroeconomics are self contradictory yet meet this need. “Man seeks to satisfy his needs with the least exertion” ,and, “Man’s desires are unlimited”–both by Henry George in 1879 book “Progress and Poverty” which sold 3 million copies and is still in print (he should of course included women too). These 2 axioms define macroeconomics as a combination of two opposing effects and it is only by taking this attitude that we can make progress in understanding how this particular subject works. Past confusion in it were by people who were unable to see it in this way.

My recent book “Consequential Macroeconomics” takes the logical process into the need for building a model as if our subject were an engineering one, having a logical core. (write to me at chesterdh@hotmail.com for a free e-copy. See also my working paper SSRN 2865571 “Einstein’s Criterion Applied to Logical Macroeconomics Modeling” which explains the way this most simple yet complete (another combination of opposites) model can be built using only 6 entities and 19 mutual flows of money verses goods, services, rights, taxes, etc.

“If I am not for myself, who is for me? And being for myself alone, what am I? And if not now, when” Hillel the Elder, cira about 0 CE.

]]>I accept that changes are easier to estimate than absolute values, but even here there is a problem.

]]>“When I [Cliff Zukin] first started doing telephone surveys in New Jersey in the late 1970s, we considered an 80 percent response rate acceptable, and even then we worried if the 20 percent we missed were different in attitudes and behaviors than the 80 percent we got. Enter answering machines and other technologies. By 1997, Pew’s response rate was 36 percent, and the decline has accelerated. By 2014 the response rate had fallen to 8 percent.”

The sophisticated contemporary methods pollsters use now make more detailed assumptions because extrapolation to the population requires information that isn’t present in the sample, so they are forced to use their best guesses just to get anywhere at all.

I agree that we can’t expect reliable poll findings that are predictions, but I think we can get reliable information about *changes* in public opinion. That is, I think the bias in poll results will be relatively stable and will cancel out when calculating differences (contra Andrew Gelman, who thinks differential nonresponse explained some big shifts in the polling in the last US election).

]]>Regards and seasons greetings, Dave

]]>Thank you for your views on your talk. Your response I mostly agree with. In future, I will state that mathematical modelling isn’t a field exclusive for mathematics, but it is a good field for them. In my professional experience, my job is to come in when mathematical models have gone wrong or the maths has been to complex for the model to be built. However, I must acknowledge the help of the SME who I questioned and interview, before I turn their ideas into mathematics. As for who is the right candidate to be a mathematical modeller? Well, this is a person who embraced a wide field of mathematics. In modelling – it a free for all, any method along as it is robust, logical and efficient works. A Mathematical modeller must have the confidence to challenge models that do not reflect reality and the ability to produce a model beyond a theoretical abstract world.

Best regards

Nira ]]>