Rocker ohne amputiertes Gehirn (personal)

18 August, 2017 at 19:27 | Posted in Varia | 4 Comments

 

Advertisements

4 Comments

  1. It seems you are on your way….The problem as I see it is that social systems tend to behave in a predictible way. How come? Whats the psychology? How can you measure social behaviour? How come? It still leaves macro economics as it is, but the analysis of Micro agents like the FED or different organisations (not forgetting the Riksbank or Treasury) seems based on the wrong concept. The individual not to mention.The participants are not optimizing their own wellbeing, theire needs are not individually determinende. Your the master, I’m the bug.

  2. Keynes with the term weight seem to make it operational through knowledge about the subject. The probability individually perceived, is strengthen by further evidence which is relevant. So the probablility is increased. It’s an individual view on probalility that it’s logically conceivable. It’s very interesting as people obviously evaluate the surroundings and the prospects of different events taking place. Even more amazing as Keynes looked on probablility as logical relations between subject and object which has an obvious psykological bearing contrasting to mainstream individually oriented psychology. (By the way, Swedish is my native tounge)

    • I think I got it a bit wrong, its not the probalility that is increased by improved weight but the relevant knowledge about the subject and possible alternatives strengthens the relevance of the estimated probalility. We may conclude the estimate is buildt on solid ground.

      But the estimated probalility is dependent on the environment and much of this world can’t even be measured with numbers and it may not be possible to use numbers or even greater than or less than if different outcomes follow different scales that is the attributes chosen for comparison are not the same and the environment surrounding the variables differ.

      Frequency statistics can’t be used individually and even when used in large samples the environment may differ significantly or in modern saying, it might be impossible to control for all relevant variables

      Well, I’m not sure, Keynes treatise on probability is above my understanding, but I find it intriguing and un understanding of Keynes scepticism on the to use of mathematical economics in a world where objective randomness, that is even with full knowledge of dependecies no causal relation might be identified, but randomness must be presume..

      It’s very interesting to follow your blog mr Syll, I learn a lot about the controversys within economics. Thanks for your eagerness and stubborness!

  3. Vielen dank , Herr Syll, und wie sie sagen in Hamburg , wo Udo leben,hummel hummel, mors mors 🙂 !


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.