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 )
-
Yes maybe not semantics but slight miscommunication :p (I didn’t mean measuring for measuring’s sake or used in isolation, measuring here is with the clear intention of targeting)
-
I think you haven't understood why its important you don't say it the way you did.
End of conversation
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.

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?