At 11/18/2002, 09:52 AM, Ma Be wrote:
On Sat, 16 Nov 2002 08:49:41Sorry I was not more clear, Marcus. Here is what I am trying to say:
Jim Elwell wrote:
...
>>Maximization processes must take into account ALL peripheral constraints
>>and parameters pertinent to the problem....
>
>You have just admitted that no one can possibly optimize the "process" of
>metrication, since it is IMPOSSIBLE to "take into account ALL peripheral
>constraints and parameters pertinent to the problem."...
>
? Please forgive me for my not seeing how you could have possibly made that "jump" from my sentences above. I never said it would be 'IMPOSSIBLE' to consider 'ALL peripheral constraints', what I said was that we 'MUST take into account ALL peripheral constraints (or do his/her best to do so!)' (literal quote). If one did so I said I was convinced that 'complete free markets' would not 'necessarily' be 'THE (best) answer'.
(1) You claim that the management tool of "optimization" must take into account all peripheral constraints and parameters.
(2) I claim, with evidence from Frederick Hayek and W. Edwards Deming (and you apparently agree), that much of the necessary information in a complex system such as the US economy is both unknown and unknowable.
(3) Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the management tool of "optimization" is not appropriate to this particular problem, i.e., metricating the USA.
Marcus, I am not sure we are ever going to agree on #3. So I'll just ask you this:
If you were made USA Measurement Czar for a day, and you did your academic magic and applied all your optimization tools and took into account all of the parameters that were available, etc., and the end result of your analysis is to the effect of:
"The most optimal solution is to metricate the USA over the next 20 years."
Would you be willing to accept this?
Regards,
Jim
