[FRIAM] The case for universal basic income UBI

[Pieter Steenekamp]

Re
*Ultimately, I am probing the group to see what kinds of frameworks eachof
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 <jonzingale at gmail.com> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20210513/acdf2176/attachment.html>