[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[jon zingale]

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/