I admit something important. I (purposefully) did not properly attend to the Paul's question of how Nash's words could/should be interpreted to not mean what Paul felt they meant. I will explain this properly shortly in an writing and I think he will admit to understanding :)
aren't they the same thing? targeting to a price signal X == measuring inflation rate with the reference set to X?
-
-
Targeting involves measuring but I don't think you can suggest they have the same meaning.
-
Maybe I'm being dense but I'm not quite sure I see the distinction…
E.g. if your currency has a one-to-one peg to a price signal X, doesn’t that mean a zero rate of inflation w.r.t. X? -
You have said that measuring and targeting are the same action. These are different words with different meanings. Your example isn't showing measuring == targeting.
-
Oh I see what you mean. Yes of cos measuring is only part of targeting, hence part (a) of my summary. Choosing what/how to measure is a prerequisite to targeting, I’m merely separating out the 2 concerns.
-
Yes but you weren't separating them you were conflating them no?
-
No I wasn’t conflating them in my summary. Maybe in the follow-up tweet I should have said “measure AND THEN CORRECT if necessary”. But I thought this is pretty obvious, why measure something if you don’t do anything with it?

-
So with the semantics out of the way. Is my understanding of Nash’s argument correct? (a) & (b) work together not in isolation.https://twitter.com/hugohanoi/status/999190170460078080?s=21 …
-
Yes i think the x% (ie 2%) is not "too" arbitrary but it is quite arbitrary, it is arbitrary. And I am not "being semantical" I think you came to me for semantics (Not saying you are accusing me, just being clear because I don't like semantic based debates etc ;p )
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
