Economist’s inexact models exactly defective 07 (R Myerson, E Maskin, L Hurwicz)

Economist’s inexact models exactly defective 07

(R Myerson, E Maskin, L Hurwicz)

Models do NOT meet the Terms of Alfred Nobel’s Will.

In perusing the works by the 2007 Economics Prize Winners it is clear that their work does NOT meet the Terms of Alfred Nobel’s Will.

The game-theory models by the joint-winners are mathematical theories at best, but nonetheless are scientifically untested and with serious defects.

Communications to/from a joint-winner, Roger Myerson, requesting proven application examples produced unsatisfactory responses and, later, silence.

_______________________

It is recommended that you read the previous papers in this series – click on ‘view now’ Historical Archives (lhs panel).

This series highlights the gross defectiveness of Economic Scientist’s models that are causing gross injustices & instabilities throughout the world. The previous papers concern:-

1. Milton Friedman, Lucas, Aumann

2. John Nash (portrayed in Beautiful Mind by Russell Crowe)

3 & 4. Edmund Phelps

5 Robert Mundell

6 Nobel Prize Hijacked

oOo

(Please Note: This website is about the pioneering of ENGINEERING into the SEBFL environments, it is about seeking truths; it is NOT about journalism, English grammar or prose, or quick-sell – it is down-to-earth engineering & pioneering requiring extensive & intensive THINKING.

SEBFL = social/economy/business/finance/legal environments.

Explaining transmission mechanisms & pre-empting catastrophic failures is NOT doom-prophecy, it is explaining probabilistic reality.)

oOo

THIS PAPER addresses key perspectives:

- the bases of the Nobel Prize

- the Scientific & other information compiled & presented by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

- specific works & references by Roger Myerson.

(note the third component is delayed to a separate paper)

It will be shown that:

- the 2007 joint-winners economics models/works are defective and causing massive disruptions throughout the world

- the joint-winners are mathematicians NOT qualified or experienced scientists

- their mathematical models are based upon multiple layers of mathematics without any one layer having any scientific testing & proving as foundation

- additionally, in the case of certain testings, that the testings are inadequate.

- the joint-winners refuse to provide clear details of application examples, it being contended by the writer that there are no proven applications. Further, no application examples could be found and experience popular auctions were found wanting.

- the awarding of the ‘Nobel’ Prize to the joint-winners promotes broad exclusivity not inclusivity of mankind

- the references by Myerson are themselves defective and, with particular reference to his ‘Force & Restraint’ paper, that it is entirely causal and/or supportive of, at best, passive global war-mongering and, at worst, active global war-mongering.

- that the work by the joint winners do not meet Alfred Nobel’s criteria, vis: ‘greatest benefit to mankind’, AND ‘most important discovery or improvement’, AND ‘the most worthy shall receive the prize’.

- the joint-winners work of game-theory focuses on people with financial wherewithal who represent only around 20% of the world’s population, whereas the writers work focuses on increasing inclusivity and produces far greater benefit to mankind and are far more important discoveries and/or improvements

- the nomination process by the Nobel Foundation potentially, and in fact, precludes eligible & more appropriate work than that of the joint-winners. This preclusion contravenes the terms of Will of Alfred Nobel.

- the reason that the writer’s work has NOT ‘conferred the greatest benefit to mankind’ is because scientists globally are refusing to acknowledge the significance of the work and hence are blocking appropriate, sound & ground-breaking advice to governments & corporates.

Consequently, and since the awarding of the Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize to the 2007 joint-winners is in contravention of Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will, it is respectfully requested that the decision in awarding the 2007 Prize be revoked, and the decision be addressed by Appeal Process.

__________________________________

INTRODUCTION:

The Nobel Prize, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, & Sveriges Riksbank:

Since 1901, the Nobel Prize has been honouring men and women from all corners of the globe for outstanding achievements in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and for work in peace. Alfred Nobel - scientist, inventor, entrepreneur, author and pacifist.

The funding for ‘The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2007’ (Loosely put: Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize) - is provided by the Sveriges Bank, but the decision for the awards have been determined by Alfred Nobel in his will.

The key parts of his will are that a sizeable part of his residual estate will be used to fund 5 prizes:

- to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind - AND -

- one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; (see website for other prize details)

- prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences;

- AND - it is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration whatever shall be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be a Scandinavian or not.

The Nobel Prize is for the discovery or improvement - this does not mean it must have been implemented into society because, as we have seen with economic models, various powers (financial, government etc.) can purposefully obstruct implementation. The point about Alfred Nobel’s will is that his intention was to PREVENT obstructions to meaningful discoveries & improvements that benefit society, by those with narrow self interests, so that new discoveries & improvements DO get to see the light-of-day. The RSAS appear to have missed this critical point by focusing on micro-model developments that are untested.

It is also important to note that a candidate for the Prize need not be qualified – an unqualified person who genuinely discovers or develops an improvement that is both ‘the most important’ AND ‘greatest benefit of mankind’ would qualify, but it must nonetheless be suitably engineered & tested to prove its worth and not simply bandied about in theoretical terms. The point is that the Prize is open to anyone, not purely scientists, who makes an appropriate contribution.

The Sveriges Bank provides the funding for the Economics Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel, the criteria for which is on the same basis as Alfred Nobel determined for the Physics & Chemistry prizes – vis: to that person who shall have made the ‘greatest benefit to mankind’ AND the most important [economic science] discovery or improvement.

‘The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, founded in 1739, is an independent organization whose overall objective is to promote the sciences and strengthen their influence in society. Traditionally, the Academy takes special responsibility for the natural sciences and mathematics.’ (direct from www.nobelprize.org)

It is also important to note that whilst an orderly process needs be adopted the Terms of Will are clear that the ‘most worthy shall receive the prize’; the import of this is that any established process CANNOT in itself be a means of exclusion.

Consequently the Nobel Foundation and RSAS have erred by not acknowledging the submissions sent by the writer and ensuring that they received consideration. Further, should an error be made then the import of the will, to ensure full effect is given, would be for an appeal process to be established.

oOo

A series of email communications to/from Roger Myerson are pasted at then end of this paper – despite numerous requests for Myerson to provide brief but concise details & game-play steps of just ONE practical application/implementation of game theory into the real world not one has been provided.

Myerson however referred to a book by Paul Klemperer – but Klemperer did not get the Nobel Prize nor does his book contain a practical example with clear game-theory play steps & brief details. The examples that were given had very little information and no insight to the game-theory play steps, nevertheless the small information available showed that the examples were defective.

Myerson argued: ‘that the problems of the world deserve our best efforts’, yet despite numerous requests to him to engage constructively he has refused to engage and no longer responds to communications.

Correspondences to Myerson were copied to joint 2007 Laureates Eric Maskin & Leonid Hurwicz and the Board & Trustees of the Nobel Foundation, and to Sveriges Riksbank (Swedish Central Bank) who fund the Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize. No response was forthcoming other than from the CEO of the European Science Foundation who said that he was not interested in the issues raised. The CEO of the European science foundation is not concerned that the Nobel Prize is being diminished by defective inexact science models???!!!???!!!

It should be noted however that Leonid Hurwicz is extremely elderly & frail and it is not expected that he should engage in communications.

It is also noted that Hurwicz experienced gross oppressions under various tyrannies before arriving in the USA. With absolutely no intention of diminishing the sincerity of the efforts that he put into his work it would nonetheless be wrong to remain silent about the gross defectiveness of it.

It is not doubted that his sincere work was inspired by the oppressions & many deaths during the times he lived through, and possibly even witnessed. But, it is also not doubted that if he were sufficiently active that he would not wish for defects within his work to remain covered up, especially as it would, as it is doing, lead to incorrect government & corporate policies that are causing ongoing severe hardships & oppressions throughout the world.

The truth is that defective economics models are being used by institutions to bolster global frauds.

__________________________________

Functions/Functionalities

We need to clarify various functions/functionalities in broad terms:–

- Mathematics is an abstract concept that is highly important in understanding & analysing the sciences & engineering.

- Science concerns the theoretical Research & Development & Implementation assistance of the R&D.

- Engineering is the practical application of the sciences.

- Applied Mathematics concerns the utilisation of tested & proven scientific theory.

A Theorist is NOT a Scientist

A Scientist is NOT an Engineer

Of course there are people who operate in a number of these domains BUT their CVs would give evidence of this.

The key point is that a large number of ‘Nobel’ Economics Laureates are in fact Mathematical Theorists, they are not Economic (Inexact) Scientists, and certainly not Engineers. And their CVs prove this point.

_____

Mathematical equations that attempt to describe the realities of the world are NOT the proofs of the realities, repeated observations are the proofs.

- Mathematical equations explaining the force & dynamics acting on a pencil when released approximates what happens when it falls to the ground. The repeated experiments prove on a probabilistic basis that the same will happen every time & without fail (whilst the earth’s parameters remain the same). The mathematical equations are NOT the proofs they are the approximated explanation, the repeated experiments prove/disprove the equations.

- A scientist may theorise about a chemical concoction, and convincingly with high level mathematics; but the scientist at this point is simply operating within the mathematics domain; it is only when he tests the theory in the laboratory does he progress into the scientific theory domain; and only when he practically engages with an engineer to verify its practicability in the real world, does the scientific theory become proven. Prior to being proven it is theory NOT science.

One of the great failings of ‘economic science’ to date is that mathematics have been layered upon increasing multiple layers, and with any layer not having been tested, nor engineered, nor proven.

Society has been misled into being ‘brainwashed’ with multiple layers of defective mathematics promoted incorrectly under the guise of science.

Further, whilst a number of persons have contributed in the sincere belief that what has preceded is sound, many others have knowingly contributed to perpetuating deception, and dishonesty.

______________

The 2007 joint-winners, and many previous winners, are NOT qualified in Science or Engineering – they are mathematicians – their CVs show this to be so.

However, as stated earlier, that in itself does NOT preclude them from being a Nobel Prize winner as the criteria is that person ‘who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind …… who shall have made the most important [chemical, physics, economics] discovery or improvement… ‘.

ANY person is eligible, regardless of background, for consideration of the prize, BUT if a person is NOT qualified in the sciences fields it is obvious that great care must be taken in ensuring that the work by that person is original, their own & correctly tested & proven.

The point at which the awarding of the Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize has failed is with the testing of the substance of the work of recipients.

Reiterate: it must be BOTH ‘greatest benefit on mankind’ AND ‘most important [economic science] discovery or improvement’.

Reiterate again:

The key words are:

- ‘greatest benefit on mankind’ AND

- ‘most important [economic science]’,

- ‘discovery or improvement’

These words mean that the winner must not only have made the most important discovery or improvement but it must also be of the greatest benefit on mankind.

The greatest scientific theory alone is NOT sufficient.

This means, for e.g.,

- that the work of a scientist engaged primarily in developing weapons of war must be viewed with extreme caution. It does not necessarily preclude that person but the ‘gain’ must be viewed in balance with the ‘negatives’ and especially that the ‘gain’ was not merely a secondary/tertiary manipulation of a ‘negative’ pursuit.

(Note: This would perhaps throw doubt on Einstein’s award as correspondence to President Roosevelt shows that he initiated the work on the atomic bomb)

oOo

The RSAS ‘takes special responsibility for the natural sciences and mathematics’.

The point about Economic (Inexact) Science is that it is NOT an Exact Science, and the Exact scientists within RSAS are NOT admitting to their lack of experience/understanding in delving into the INTANGIBLE domain of economies.

Further, whilst the RSAS are acknowledging that mathematics is separate from the sciences, (i.e. mathematics is in itself NOT a science, but a theoretical abstract tool for furthering development within the sciences & societies), they are nevertheless wrongly including it as a science.

__________________________________

Commentary on the various release by the RSAS in regard to 2007 Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize.

This commentary is not exhaustive, the purpose is to show that the statements by RSAS (concerning the work by the 2007 joint-winners) and the joint-winners work are:

- in error and/or defective,

- not fully scientific, even in its defectiveness,

- are less than comparable to other work both in discovery and/or improvement

- have little benefit for mankind comparable to other work that does provide greater benefit for mankind AND is the most important discovery/improvement.

oOo

Speed Read – Optimising Social Institutions.

Some key extracts:

‘In the mid 20th century, economists found themselves in need of a new theoretical framework with which to tackle the comparison of fundamentally different types of economic organization, such as capitalist and socialist institutions.’

‘Mechanism design theory is a branch of game theory . …… as a method of demonstrating which mechanism, out of all conceivable allocation mechanisms, gives the optimal result, mechanism design theory can be applied to problems as diverse as the auctioning of radio frequencies to mobile phone companies to the building of social welfare systems. Mechanism design theory lies at the heart of many organizations whose operation we now take for granted.’

‘Mechanism design theory lies at the heart of many organizations whose operation we now take for granted.’

_____

The fundamental error in the first extract is that economists have been locked into ‘ismic’ thinking. In other words they have been analysing the various ‘ismic’ economic organisations (capitalism, socialism, etc.), to determine which is optimal.

This is like comparing a Model T to a Bugatti and remaining locked within a particular era of technology. Instead the focus should be on pioneering new technology to advance the benefit to mankind.

The fundamental error in the second extract lies in the restriction to the prevailing ‘conceivable allocation mechanisms’. The error lies in exactly assuming that the mechanisms identified, which are identified whilst living within an unstable economy environment, are the only options to choose from.

This approach is similar to wrongly treating the symptom of an ailment rather than determining/identifying the ailment (causal problem).

A doctor would be blasted for such negligence in failing to address the cause of the symptom.

Similarly for an engineer.

The fundamental error in the third extract is that the organisations ‘whose operations we now take for granted’ include those organisations that have been defrauding society for decades. Further, many of those organisations who argue that they were/are not defrauding society are nonetheless remaining silent about the proven frauds against their respective employees.

What this release statement is essentially doing is wrongly giving ‘credibility’ to already grossly defective economics models.

The most glaring fault is that the RSAS, in rewarding defective mathematical models, have not recognised that there are far more serious economy problems that can be fixed by applying sound engineering.

oOo

Press Release – The design of economic institutions.

‘Mechanism design theory, initiated by Leonid Hurwicz and further developed by Eric Maskin and Roger Myerson, ...... allows us to distinguish situations in which markets work well from those in which they do not. It has helped economists identify efficient trading mechanisms, regulation schemes and voting procedures. Today, mechanism design theory plays a central role in many areas of economics and parts of political science.

______________

As we will see in the commentary on the Scientific Background release popular trading mechanisms are not efficient, thus confirming that the mechanism design theory does not work even in popular circumstances.

Further the claim that it has central (and by implication, a significant) role in …. political science, is ENTIRELY wrong; and to the point that it actually increases conflict potential. This will come to light when we address one of Myerson’s papers ‘Force and Restraint in Strategic Defence’.

This release also confirms that joint-winners are Mathematicians, not scientists.

The CVs of the joint-winners also confirm that they are mathematicians who have ‘drifted’ into economics - the point being that they did not have a science/scientist background or training. As will be seen later this is a significant deficiency which is a large cause for the errors in their & other’s work.

Whether their errors were intentional because of external influences, or because of sincere but misguided & unqualified work, is not known. BUT, the fact that they are refusing to engage constructively, transparently & honestly is cause for real & serious concern.

oOo

Information for the Public – The Prize in Economic Sciences 2007.

Asymmetric information and economic institutions.

(Commentary on this release will be in general terms – you would need to cross check with the pdf file from www.nobelprize.org for greater detail)

An important point about mechanism design theory as proposed by game-theorists is that it is developed as a micro-model, as the examples given confirm. Whilst these models may have been used by many organisations, correctly or incorrectly, the simple multiple use of a micro-model does NOT produce a macro (mankind) impact.

The express requirements of Alfred Nobel’s will are for the ‘greatest benefit on mankind’, and ‘most important discovery or improvement’

Consequently the micro game-theory models by the joint-winners do not fulfil Nobel’s Terms of Will requirements when compared to other macro works.

______________

Page 1

In comparison to the micro-models by the joint-winners, the work by CDADD on macro-models such as interest rate, or defective financial investment models (which defects are wrongly aided by the joint-winner’s defective models), and other general macro-economy understandings, each individually far exceed the benefits to mankind than the joint-winner’s micro game-theory models.

Economics is not simply about developing models based upon ‘price’ it is about holistic values, which include tangible & intangible issues. The game-theory micro-models fail to bring the values into play and focus purely on reducing decisions to ‘price’.

The claim that ‘mechanism design theory shows why an auction is typically the most efficient institution for allocation of private goods..’ is not sufficient ground to argue that this is a discovery or an improvement. Societies have intuitively felt that an auction is the best option; the game-theory models have not developed or imp[roved the auction types, at best they have confirmed suitable parameters.

Auctions are only of benefit to people that are economically active, and the examples quoted by Myerson are for those with plenty of money, and his involvement has been largely in dealing with high value auctions (it’s where his referrals led).

Addressing mathematical models that essentially benefit less than 20% of the world’s population does not satisfy Nobel’s Terms of Will requirement: ‘greater benefit of mankind’.

_____

Page 2:

‘Applications of mechanism design theory have thus led to major breakthroughs in many areas of economics, including regulation theory, corporate finance, the theory of taxation, and voting procedures’

The applications that Myerson has referred to do not support this claim and Myerson has failed to provide details of any example. For some reason Myerson is not being forthright, he is hiding issues.

Bearing in mind that Klemperer discusses the aspect of collusion (= fraud) it is entirely a reasonable concern that Myerson & others have fallen to temptation in dealing non-transparently with high-value auction consulting.

‘Finding the best of all direct mechanisms for a given problem is often straightforward, and once the best direct mechanism has been found, the researcher can “translate back” that mechanism into a more realistic mechanism.

Within tangible engineered systems finding the best direct mechanism is NOT straightforward, and ‘translate back’ is not possible; it is an extremely difficult reiterative trial & error ‘forward’ (not ‘backward’) process that requires much skill.

It follows therefore that within systems that have high intangibility it becomes virtually impossible to achieve this.

Consider: a complex engineering system can be represented by a theoretical diagram setting out the various components & transfer functions. To analyse its stability it is necessary to reduce this to a simple 1 block diagram with a composite transfer function. The likelihood of it being stable on first pass is probably about zero – that means ‘tweaking’ needs to be done, BUT one CANNOT translate back from the result (vis: unstable system) exactly what needs to be ‘tweaked’. One has to go back to the original block diagram to determine what needs to be ‘tweaked, this is a reiterative process.

Loosely, one can visualise this with an out-of-focus photo. A singular object point translates to a multiple of points on the photo in what are termed ‘circles of confusion’. One cannot ‘translate back’ the circles of confusion to the singular object point. (Having said that it is possible for very small circles of confusion for an approximate translation backwards, but this is requiring high-powered processing which is not within the domain or feasibility of real-world auctions)

Therefore a mathematically derived model for analysing a predominantly intangible system is impossible, in real-world auctions, to ‘translate back’ – one must reiterate ‘forward’.

Myerson is once again asked to give examples to demonstrate his claim.

_____

Page 3 - 6:

Eric Maskin has derived ‘Implementation theory’.

In engineering terms implementation is what is done to put a theoretical model/design into practice, it is not theory but practice.

It appears that theorists are confused because they do not operate in the real world.

The remainder concerns ‘a detailed example: bilateral trade’

This example puts into mathematical terms a micro-auction event, whilst the mathematics of this micro-model sound fine the point is that it is not Economic Science, and can hardly be considered as a micro-model as having achieved a macro ‘greatest benefit on mankind’.

Further and most importantly Myerson cannot give a real life application to prove that his game-theory works at a macro-level to qualify for ‘greatest benefit on mankind’.

_____

eBay:

The writer had an actual experience on eBay recently that does not support the claim by Myerson that the joint-winner’s theories have had a significant benefit.

(eBay reference:

http://cgi.ebay.ie/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200133175074&category=1297&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBUAA:IE:11> )

In brief: about 90 seconds before an auction item was about to expire the writer entered a bid 50 Euros above the highest, it bounced back a higher bid at an additional 50 Euros, for about 3 rounds automated responses came back at higher bids. By now time was about 10 seconds remaining, but just as a further bid had been keyed-in and about to be transmitted the time expired and the auction closed.

eBay is a popular global auction site; how is it that if the auction models that Myerson & Co. have developed maximise buyer, seller, auctioneer revenues/benefits how is it then that eBay short-terminated the auction? Alternatively stated why hasn’t Myerson’s models provided visible value to society to ensure these mechanisms function correctly? If the models do not function in reality then where is the ‘greatest benefit on mankind’?

Wherever one looks, be it eBay, or Liberty Life, Old Mutual or whatever financial institution, or corporates, or government body; wherever one looks there is NO EVIDENCE to support the claim that the models developed by the joint-winners have had significant, or any, positive impact.

(Correction: they have had enormous impact, but detrimentally so to consumers) Not by any stretch of the imagination have the release statements by the RSAS given any scientific basis for the claims concerning these models, nor any physical proofs of the claims, and Myerson has refused to communicate further.

oOo

Scientific Background – Mechanism Design Theory

(Compiled by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences)

Page 2

‘Likewise, mechanism design theory has enabled economists to find solutions to the monopoly pricing problem, showing, for example, how the price should depend on quality and quantity so as to maximize the seller’s expected revenue (Maskin and Riley, 1984b). Again, the theoretical solution squares well with observed practice.’

Page 2 repeatedly claims that game-theory has provided significant achievements including within regulation, corporate finance and taxation theory. BUT, no practical examples with game-play steps are given by Myerson, and the theories that are explained deal with micro applications which do not satisfy the ‘greatest benefit on mankind’ criterion.

_____

Page 3

‘revelation principle’ and ‘implementation theory’

Revelation principle: The arguments that are put forward concerning this revelation principle are entirely defective. It would be best to read the second para on page 3 directly.

In essence RSAS argue that whilst searching for the best possible mechanism that one can restrict the search to a limited subclass, called ‘direct’ mechanisms; but these ‘direct’ mechanisms do not describe real-world institutions. Yet optimisation of all the ‘direct’ mechanisms for a given problem yields the optimal mechanism which can be ‘translated back’ to a more realistic mechanism.

In short-speak; this is the economics equivalent of why a space-shuttle blows up in space; i.e. economies ‘blowing up’, because the models are defective.

The ‘translate back’ process alluded to is incorrect, it requires a ‘forward’ reiterative process of finding a solution to a problem through trial & error, BUT such a process requires a stable system that will produce a converging (i.e. not a diverging) outcome, and that requires the major players to be fully representative of the population/s.

The real-world economy systems are unstable, consequently it is impossible to claim that the ‘revelation’ principle can achieve practical, optimal results.

No practical examples with reasonably clear details of game-play are given, yet claims are made that this game-theory has achieved great advances in solving institutional design problems – what institutions??????

Repeated requests for clear examples have not brought any proven examples.

Again, it is important to remember that the Economics ‘Nobel’ Prize is for economic science NOT for abstract mathematical theories.

_____

Page 5

The most relevant question raised (but without the correct context) is ‘…we would like to know how large the unavoidable social welfare losses are ……?’

The reason that this is the most relevant question even though out of context of ‘greatest benefit on mankind’ is that the micro-theories developed by game-theorists are being developed whilst the world is in chaos (as a result of incorrectly designed economy structures & controls).

These micro-models are essentially fine-tuning models, but the point to recognise is that one cannot fine-tune unless the coarse –tuning has been done. Which it hasn’t. We can see this with the massively destructive unitary-model interest rate economy control-device, and with a host of fraudulent institutional business models.

Q: Why hasn’t game-theory identified the grossly non-optimal unitary-model interest rate economy control-device?

A: For the same reason that it hadn’t picked up the deficiencies with eBay’s auction model, and that is because these game-theories do not work in practice. Hence they do not qualify for consideration of the Economics Prize.

____

Page 7

‘… a classic problem concerns the optimal provision of public goods. When individuals have private information about their own willingness to pay for the public good, they may be tempted to pretend to be relatively uninterested, so as to reduce their own share of the provision cost. This problem is canonical and arises in virtually all societies: how should a group of farmers, say, share the cost of a common irrigation or drainage system; how should the countries in the world share the cost of reducing global warming; how should grown-up siblings share the burden of caring for their elderly parents?’

On the surface this sounds reasonable but what is overlooked is that these issues are addressing costs problems that affect those with wealth and ignoring the greater causal problems that cause 80% of the world’s population to be excluded from wealth activities.

This ‘scientific background’ reinforces that the joint-winners work addresses exclusivism, exclusively – this contravenes Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will,

_____

Page 9 – 12

This gives an example of ‘bilateral trade’ = a fancy term for two parties engaging in a trade.

It basically gives a mathematical modelling of two-party trading - in short this is a micro-model and does not satisfy Nobel’s Terms of Will in addressing macro requirements (greatest benefit of mankind), nor of science as the models are purely mathematical game-theory and have not been tested, nor engineered.

_____

Page 13

Implementation Theory

As previously mentioned, implementation is what one does to give effect to the theoretical model; implementation theory is a contradiction in terms.

RSAS claim that these game-theory models have had great benefit for many real-world auctions, and quote the UK electricity market auction.

What is overlooked when applying micro-models into large institutions is that the macro-environment has an indirect effect because the players are limited to those with ultra-high finance. These are the major corporates who are controlled, mainly, by the major international finance institutions.

These finance institutions are directly distorting global finances because they are fraudulently churning & siphoning investment funds belonging to the population in aggregate and fraudulently shifting ownership of significant amounts of these funds to themselves. In addition they also have control of the population’s residual funds. What this all adds up to is that the population’s funds are fraudulently used to engage in market activities that are detrimental to themselves & their societies.

One only needs to consider the mobile markets in UK & South Africa to see that the respective governments & corporates distorted these markets grossly.

_____

Page 14

Applications

This section simply restates the vague points covered in the earlier sections of this so-called ‘Scientific Background’ and does not give any application examples. Scientific it definitely is NOT!

Mathematical it clearly is; whether the mathematics are sound within the host of simplifications is not debated herein because the writer is concerned with the realities of the world NOT the theories of abstract mathematics.

Under Nobel’s Terms of Will the micro game-theory models do not qualify for the Prize award.

As set out in the papers submitted to the Nobel Foundation in 2006 the writer’s work far, far exceeds the work of the joint—winners in terms of value & inclusivity & benefit across the spectrum of social/economy/business/finance/legal environments, and does qualify under the Terms of Will.

__________________________________

Roger Myerson’s paper – Force & Restraint in Strategic Defence:

This will be addressed in the next paper.

But what is immediately observable & of great concern is that Myerson argues in his ‘Force & Restraint’ paper that the USA should be judged externally. The point is who is to do the judging? Because whoever it is will be faced with similar & greater pressures than Myerson

Also why the need for the external judging? It can only be because Myerson deems the powers of the USA NOT to be capable.

What then of his refusal/inability to provide proper application examples of his work ?

__________________________________

CONCLUSION:

On the facts set out herein, and concerning ONLY the releases put out by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences it is clear that the works by the joint-winners of the 2007 ‘Nobel’ prize in Economic Science does NOT comply with the Alfred Nobel’s Terms of Will.

The works of the writer, and submitted to the Nobel Foundation in 2006, and ongoing submissions, far exceed the works of the 2007 joint-winners, and fully complies with Nobel’s terms of Will.

It is thus stated that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences grossly erred in not awarding the Nobel Prize to the writer.

The corollary to the aforegoing is that, the writer, in having drawn attention to the defects of past prize-winners work is that it, in itself, qualifies as the most important discovery/improvement, AND the ‘greatest benefit on mankind’.

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic world’s.)

Emails to:

1. Nobel Foundation

2. His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden & Nobel Foundation

3. 2007 Nobel (Economics) Prize Winners:- Leonid Hurwicz, Eric S. Maskin and Roger B. Myerson

oOo

Email to:

1. Nobel Foundation

To Nobel Foundation

And to: Roger Myerson, Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, , www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Dear Sirs/Madams

I refer to the attached document and request that in light of the evidence provided that the works by the joint-winners of the 2007 Sveriges Bank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel do NOT comply with the Terms of Will as set out by Alfred Nobel.

Consequently my objections to the award being given to the joint-winners are herby lodged.

I further request that an Appeal Process be established with the purpose of considering the award afresh.

Yours Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

www.cdadd.com.

Email to:

2. His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden & Nobel Foundation

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:

Nobel Prize

Date:

Thu, 01 Nov 2007 11:55:15 +0000

From:

Chris Addington

To:

King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden (Eva Papik) <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

To:
His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

Nobel Foundation - Directors & Trustees

CC: www.cdadd.com

From: Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Your Majesty, Directors & Trustees

Good Morning

Please see attachment - 'Economists' inexact models exactly defective 6(Nobel Prize Hijacked)'

Yours Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

oOo

Email to:

2007 Nobel (Economics) Prize Winners:- Leonid Hurwicz, Eric S. Maskin and Roger B. Myerson

-------- Original Message --------

Re: Reiterate: Re: Reply to Roger Myerson Re: Reiterate request for application example]

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:16:25 +0000

From: Chris Addington

To: Roger Myerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden (Eva Papik)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., "Bank of Sweden (Stefan Ingves - Kerstin Alm)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, "Bank of Sweden (Stefan Ingves)" <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

I respectfully reiterate my request (below) for constructive engagement.

The bases of the Nobel Prize is clearly stipulated in Alfred Nobel's will and it is my firm belief & proven,

unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that your work does NOT meet the criteria set, in toto,
or in comparison to other(s) work. Similarly for the other 2007 joint-winners.

Although the funding for the prize is from Sveriges Bank the decision & criteria for same rests with the RSAS on the same basis as the other ' ...prizes .... to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind’.

..... one part to the person who shall have made the most important [economics] discovery or improvement ....')

From a professional perspective it is not the prize that should be of importance but the substance of your work, the Prize confirm professional excellence, and the willingness to engage constructively when doubt is raised about it. I have raised more than doubt, firm proof.

Sincerely
Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Chris Addington wrote:

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Further to my previous mail:

Despite further searching I have still been unable to find a practical application/implementation instance of your work or of Messrs Maskin &Hurwicz in which clear, even brief, details & game step plays are given.

You have stated that your focus is on the world's problems which deserve our best efforts - I am sincere in wanting to engage constructively to develop sound systems & controls for economies, but the truth is that the untested, non-engineered, models that you have developed, although mathematically appear to have brilliance, are not able to function soundly (because engineering is absent).

I reiterate my sincere request that you engage constructively so as to apply best efforts.

Will you engage constructively?

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Thankyou for your reply

To reiterate: there is no intent of denigrating you, your efforts, or your work, merely pointing out serious deficiencies – which is a professional (& moral) requirement & duty.

It is argued that ‘the problems of the world deserve our best efforts’ but replies are abrupt, focused on persons and not the problems.

There is full agreement that there is not much constructive value in my previous comments re Paul Klemperer’s book – but that is because I could find no detail in his book to support your referring me to it regarding game theory implementation, hence it is impossible to give constructive comment relative to the points raised (i.e. Klemperer’s work is focused on micro issues, whereas my focus is on the macro issues. Were I focussed on micro then more study would have been given to Klemperer – but that would defeat the objective of addressing the real & greater (macro) problems of the world).

As an engineer one has to filter out the minor issues from the major otherwise one gets lost – which is the problem with economy systems & controls – they are incorrectly designed & incorrectly controlled, because engineering has been entirely absent.

Certain issues in Klemperer’s book were glaring on a prelim-scan and these were simply listed.

The destructive issues of the prevailing unitary-model Interest Rate economy control-device, and proposed multi-component model, are set out at my website, why not engage on this real & significant macro issue? – it is affecting the whole world, destructively – it is one of, if not the biggest, economy causal-problem - and ‘the problems of the world deserve our best efforts’.

If, in light of my comments, reflective thought were given to the paper ‘Force & Restraint in Strategic Deterrence’ then it might become clear that the analysis within that paper is within a diminished/reduced domain - it thus distorts the outcomes of any game (as argued in the paper). http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/restrain.pdf

This statement does not mean there is intent to denigrate the work, or work that supported it, it is simply that the restricted domain is a fact. (It was possibly swayed, partly, by the impetus of the 9/11 Commission Report which was essentially addressing ‘force’.)

The domain needs to be fully & properly identified because ‘the problems of the world deserve our best efforts’

(I am busy developing a paper to explain this succinctly)

There should be serious co-operation toward developing sound engineered solutions to the world’s problems, including the US’s. Will you engage?

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

From: Roger Myerson

I have worked long and hard all my life to achieve the highest standards of rigor and relevance to the best of my ability, because I think that the problems of the world deserve our best efforts. Everything that I have published has been subjected to intense criticism by editorial reviewers. But valuable editorial criticism should based on careful reading, looking for points of error but also looking points of value that need more emphasis and development. I have read your criticism and I have found nothing of constructive value in it.

I am glad to learn that you have saved $650 Billion in your work. That is a great accomplishment and I congratulate you on it. But your great accomplishment does not mean that nobody else has done anything worthwhile. You have made it very clear that you think that my work and Hurwicz's and Maskin's are without merit, and so perhaps you would prefer to go back to the old days when economists never admitted that anybody had different information and never recognized incentive constraints as a fundamental part of the economic problem. I do not understand why that intellectual advance is so repugnant to you. But it is clear that nothing I could say will ever change your view. You have the right to hold your own critical value judgments. But I have vastly too much work to put any further effort into this fruitless communication. Please do not send me any further messages.

-RM

oOo

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Re: Paul Klemperer, Auctions, Theory & Practice.

Trinity College Dublin library kindly allowed me access this morning (manythanx to Deputy Librarian Jessie Kurtz) – my personal time constraints only allowed some 35 minutes to scan the book but comment preliminarily as follows.

Scanning the back Index revealed no reference to ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ (score 1 point).

However in dealing with antirust this 2004 publication did not touch on Microsoft’s massive monopoly (score -10 points)

PK repeated his ‘escape clause’ a number of times – vis: not ‘one size fits all’ (score -10 points). Whether one has a beetle engine or a 12 cylinder truck engine – the principles are the same as are the objectives of achieving optimum performance.

In Ch 7 PK seems to equate ‘success’ with $ ‘value’ of outcome, and not against predetermined performance criteria (score -10 points)

PK quotes Glaxo/Wellcome deal & UK’s mobile phone deal. The UK deal was around £22B (say $40B). But scanning the deals does not give much insight as it simply quotes ‘data’ without, it appears, details of game play steps.

Whilst I accept that auction theory has relevance, the reference of PK’s book you quoted do not support that your theories have been implemented successfully or at all. Admittedly I have only had a chance to scan it and will look further into it, but it is already clear that the thrust of auction theory is that it is a micro-issue (sub-national), not macro (national & global).

Even if we assume that you had done 5 deals of UK mobile value at a total of $200B then it would still fall far far short of my work’s value.

Contrast: with my work on a multi-component Interest Rate economy control-device.

Of the 6B5 in the world assume 10% active in western world with a per capita debt level of $10K giving a total debt of $6T5 (6.5 Trillion)

With just 1% of interest rate shift foregone, through adopting a rational multi-component model, then $650 BILLION would NOT be sucked out of the economy.

That equates to around 16.25 UK mobile deals. Just on a 1% shift foregone - through rational engineering application.

The value from achieving greater economy stability, less volatility, reduced inflation, etc. are figures that can be argued about endlessly, but nonetheless significantly.

Contrast to my work just on pension funds alone. Donald Gordon’s masterminded model defrauds pensioners of an average of 30% of capital. Again assume 10% invested pensioners globally at also say $10K per capita, giving $6T5. 30% loss of capital gives 1T95 (which through fictitious accounting has also wrongly inflated Money Supply by the same amount) – this gives 48.75 UK mobile deals.

Both these examples are grossly understated in value.

If one adds the issues around other fraudulent investment schemes, value of my work on Economic Momentum, Poverty, etc., etc. then it becomes clear that my work, in toto, achieves far greater value financially and in terms of ‘strengthen(ing) their influence in society’, and of making the most significant advancement.

Are you seriously interested in co-operating toward developing sound engineered solutions to the world’s problems, including the US’s?

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

oOo

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Thankyou for your reply.

I fully appreciate your dedication to your work and your resistance to merely making a lot of money. It is pretty much my focus – however, I did not imagine that I would be confronted with Gestapo thuggery from South African government/police or with total economic isolation from the corporate & academic worlds, to the extent of being forced into exile and having to abandon home & everything with literally a few suitcases – but that is the reality. And all because my engineering inputs indirectly exposed massive frauds by major corporates, which still continue.

I have yet to scan Paul Klemperer’s work.

However, your interpretation, as I perceive your comments, of my intent is incorrect – I am not criticising, nor trying to denigrate, you or others, but to bring correct understandings to incorrect theories. Certainly one needs theorists, but it is wrong for them to act in isolation from the real world. And more so when alarm bells are sounded, as I am doing. The reality is that defective economics models are wreaking havoc globally.

How is it that if my work disproves your work, and progresses R&D&Implentation considerably, that your University funds you but does not fund myself; or with any other university? Clearly when valid work is presented that proves to be the most advanced then, on a fair play basis, that work should be rewarded.

But this is not the case. Even my own University (UCT) refuse to support to allow further R&D&I – and South Africa is the most critical of countries with the widest disparity ratios, which is confirmed by the decline in stability.

Besides my inputs what theoretical work is being done to understand the contradiction between SA’s overinflated market its decline in stability?

At least you have had the courage to interact with me, Edmund Phelps, Robert Mundell, Joseph Stiglitz, Jeffrey Sachs refuse, as do a whole host of universities globally that are kept informed of my work.

As an engineer it is expected that during implementation stage that project design flaws will come to light – engineers do not grumble about this they simply accept it as part of the job and solve the problems. And engineers generally welcome inputs that pre-empt design flaws, it makes life easier for them with fewer implementation faults to debug.

Why are theorists afraid of open challenges to their work?

It is as important to pursue the incorrect theories to confirm their incorrectness as it is to pursue the correct ones, which only become clearly correct once all the incorrect ones are eliminated from the options. BUT, it is entirely wrong to continue pursuing the incorrect ones once they have been correctly identified as being incorrect; just as it is incorrect for inexact scientists (economists) not to engage meaningfully with appropriately qualified & experienced engineers.

Are there any implementation examples of your work? If not then please just say so. If so then please give details.

Are you interested in addressing the deficiencies with yours & others works so that meaningful models can be developed & implemented?

Please understand that whilst you have willingly taken a reduction in income to further education that some 5 Billion people unwillingly have no income, and that, of the remaining 1.5 Billion, they are mostly severely stressed financially, also unwillingly in the main – all because of defective SEBFL models that currently rule the world (destructively).

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

oOo

From: Roger Myerson

I see that you feel that a person's contributions to theory are not worth anything unless that same person has himself or herself specifically applied them in some commercial or political project. I disagree. Students work very hard in school to develop conceptual structures that enhance their ability to analyze applied problems, and a theorist who helps students to learn more with less effort has also made an important contribution, or so I would say. I agree with you that the real applied work on auctions of Paul Klemperer and others has been very important, indeed on the level of being worthy of a Nobel prize. If I developed some theories that were useful to them in their applied work, I think that could be a reason for both of us to be considered worthy. But you start from an assumption that theorists do nothing unless they themselves do the applications. I could have earned a lot money (more money than 1/3 of a Nobel prize) doing applied consulting on auction design and bidding, but it would have taken time away from what I considered to be important theoretical work. I made my choice, and I understand that you want to criticize me for it, but I thought that the enhanced understanding that I could offer students with better theoretical analysis was of greater social value. I did not ask for a Nobel prize, but I am grateful for the committee's awarding it to me as an expression of the value that they see in my work. But let me tell you that the greatest reward from my work is that it has found its way into textbooks that students buy to learn the tools of economic analysis better than they could learn from the textbooks of 30 years ago.
-Roger Myerson

oOo

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Thankyou for your reply and pointer to Paul Klemperer, "Auctions: Theory and Practice" Princeton U Press 2004, chapters 3-8

With respect, Paul Klemperer was not awarded a Nobel Prize (according to www.nobelprize.org) – nor is his work your work.

The implementation example that I would like details of are for your game theories that warrants your & your colleagues being awarded the Nobel Prize for ‘strengthen(ing) their influence in society’, and to warrant the Nobel Prize in having achieved the most significant advancement.

In truth I cannot find any implementation/application examples, successful or otherwise, for your game theories.

I have shown that John Nash’s mathematical models have been defectively applied.

I would appreciate details of your game theories having been implemented – are there any?

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

oOo

From Roger Myerson

Go read Paul Klemperer, "Auctions: Theory and Practice" Princeton U Press 2004, chapters 3-8.

-RM

oOo

To Roger Myerson

And to: Eric S. Maskin (Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ, USA) and Roger B. Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Thankyou for your reply and further theory examples.

It appears that I may not explaining myself correctly or there is misunderstanding of terminology.

I had scanned the two previous papers but they were simply theoretical argument not detail of a particular application.

Please be assured that I have been researching the SEBFL environments since I graduated at the end of 1980, and I have continually found that economic/business/finance models applied in the real world are grossly defective.

My work focuses on pioneering engineering into the SEBFL environments – if a machine breaks down repeatedly engineers will examine to determine the cause and engineer solutions.

I am finding that defective economic models, incorrect application of mathematical models, are largely, mainly, the cause for economies continually breaking down.

I am able to make the statements I do as a consequence of my Professional Engineering inputs into these environments which stem from not purely reading & studying, but from physical examinations.

One can design a machine/component on paper based upon science – this is a theoretical model. Then one can build the machine/component and test it, this is a practical test application. Then one can put it into service this is a practical application, actual implementation into the real world.

It is the implementation example that I am looking for, not further theory.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences & Nobel Foundation make the award for the Nobel Prize based upon the objective ‘to promote the sciences and strengthen their influence in society’.

And the Nobel Prize is awarded to that person who makes the most significant advancement.

It is the implementation/application that proves the theory, and successful implementation strengthens the influence of that theory into society; that is what I am looking for.

Please let me have one implementation example, practical application example (i.e. not further theory) of your game theory models into the financial/economic environment.

Your comments regarding my disproving the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ would also be appreciated as this defective theory model forms the foundation to game theory.

Whilst I appreciate that the mathematics within your models might be brilliant the Nobel Economics Prize is not for mathematics it is for economic science (which includes engineering) and for strengthening economic science in society.

Have any of your theories actually been applied in the real world? What engineering inputs? From/by whom?

If earlier theories have not been tested & proven through implementation/practical application then on what basis are later theories developed?

Please understand that I am not being disrespectful – but the truth is that over 80% of the world’s population are living in abject poverty/starvation; and the reason for this stems largely, mainly, from defective economics models, or incorrect application/implementation of theoretical mathematical models by economists.

I also respectfully request details of implementation examples from Messrs Hurwicz & Maskin

Thankyou

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Re: Reply to Roger Myerson Re: Reiterate request for application example

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:00:53 -0600

From: Roger Myerson This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To: Chris Addington

Yes, I am a theorist, but I gave you two applications

http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/spidr.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/~rmyerson/research/restrain.pdf
I gather from your reply that you have not read either of them.

The first is mechanism design, the latter is game theory more generally.

There are others, auction theory (books by Paul Klemperer, Paul Milgrom, or Vijay Krishna), corporate finance (see 2006 book by Jean Tirole).

Read them before you criticize something that you have not studied.
-RM

Reply to Roger Myerson Re: Reiterate request for application example

Thu, 08 Nov 2007 08:24:43 +0000Chris Addington

Roger Myerson <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;King Carl XVI Gustaf Sweden (Eva Papik) <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To Roger Myerson

CC: HM King Carl XVI Gustaf, Nobel Foundation, www.cdadd.com

From Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Thankyou for your two replies referring me to further theory research of yours.

Perhaps I have not been sufficiently clear in my request - it would be unreasonable of me to expect you to summarise your life’s work.

I am respectfully requesting just one PRACTICAL APPLICATION of game theory, and brief details of the game moves/steps.

The Press Release & Scientific Background on www.nobelprize.org claims that your theories have immense value in real life applications. The 'summary' of theory must reside in its successful application - the problem that I arm having, as a Professional Engineer pioneering engineering into the social/economy/business/finance/legal (SEBFFL) environments is that I am unable to find a stable system or sub-system.

This leads me to conclude that engineering is absent from these environments. Whether scientific theories are relevant or not cannot be determined if the theories are not correctly engineered into a system.

One only needs recall the space shuttle blowing up after launch to realise that a defective component can cause immense catastrophe. No matter how much one might theorise that the component is OK; the ultimate test is its application.

When I look around I see economies crashing all over the place, regularly – the conclusion I reach is that engineering is entirely absent, and my work proves this to be so.

The foundation of game theory rests on the 'prisoner's dilemma', I have shown that this model is entirely defective (see Economist's inexact models exactly defective 2 (John Nash) at my website www.cdadd.com, under Archives). People are wrongly convicted and imprisoned because of this, and some wrongly executed.

Whilst Nash's theories are brilliant from a mathematical perspective they have been wrongly applied by economists. Further these economists (inexact scientists) have NOT engaged with suitably qualified & experienced engineers (systems & controls coupled with SEBFL experience & understanding) for its implementation.

With this in mind it is entirely incorrect to assume that your theories, although they may be brilliant mathematically, are sound in practice.

My objections against the 2007 Nobel Economics awards to yourself, Maskin & Hurwicz include that your collective & individual theories:

have been developed with the exclusion of engineering, which approach is not scientific

do not have practical applications, significant or at all,

do not bring significant value if indeed there are successful practical applications

as a consequence of the aforegoing; your award violates the principle of the Nobel Prize - vis: (to the effect) of awarding to that person/s who has made the most significant development in their field.

My work on developing a multi-component Interest Rate control-device is far, far, more significant, and would result in far greater global value & stability. Similarly: for my work in pensions/investments industry in realising the defectiveness & fraudulent nature of the investment models by financial institutions. These institutions claim, as do Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, that game theory models have been a contributor to these (fraudulent) models.

The reason that I am entirely isolated to the extent of being forced into exile from South Africa is that financial powers are using their power-base to isolate myself. This ranges from Barclays Bank, AA, Anglo-American, Microsoft, HP, Governments (UK Blair, Brown; SA Mbeki; Ireland Ahern; etc.) High Court Judges, Constitutional Court Justices, etc., etc., AND academic institutions – despite my disproving Nash’s theories and Mundell’s and Friedman’s I am entirely isolated by universities including Chicago.

Edmund Phelps & Robert Mundell refuse to engage transparently & honestly on the gross deficiencies of their untested, non-engineered, theories.

How is it that supposedly independent academic institutions are not recognising my ground-breaking work & providing support?

The answer rests in the fact that academic institutions, including Chicago, are under the influence of financial powers to keep the truth hidden, and to isolate/silence those are researching & developing truth.

Were academic institutions not influenced then my work would be correctly recognised for its truth & value, and it would be seen to far exceed any value of past prize winners individually. And, I contend, collectively.

In short my proven statement is that untested, unscientific, non-engineered, game theory & other economic models have been freely taken up by the corporate world so as to cover-up & give a credibility front to a fundamentally corrupt & fraudulent industry. The fact is that financial institutions, and in particular Donald Gordon, have provided funds to purposefully distort research to give false credibility to fraudulent business models that are wreaking havoc throughout the world.

If what I am saying is not true then there must be plenty of application examples to counter this.

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

Recent Papers