[yummyfajitas]

I already include the former in my model, albeit in a very limited form. See the jk_rowling term - you probably want to alter that until it describes your beliefs rather than mine. Then if I find it plausible, I will update my model to include it and see if it significantly affects my results.

I don't know what your second bullet point is talking about - unlike a mathematical model, your words are unclear.

[ronaldx]

> unlike a mathematical model, your words are unclear.

Given that, I would argue that my words are a better model for reality than mathematics :)

> you probably want to alter that until it describes your beliefs rather than mine.

Exactly. You are just stating your beliefs. The fact that you have stated them in a faux-mathematical way doesn't make them any more sensible or coherent.

[yummyfajitas]

You are just stating your beliefs.

Did you figure that out from the part of the blog post where I explicitly said "the involvement of numbers does not make an argument empirically correct..."?

The math simply makes my assumptions obvious and my reasoning clear. That's all it is meant to do. And again, if you believe my assumptions are not sensible, replace them with your own and rerun the model.

After you do that, I won't be confused about what you believe.

[ronaldx]

>And again, if you believe my assumptions are not sensible, replace them with your own and rerun the model.

And again, I won't be doing that because I think representing the situation as a naive, untestable model adds zero value to any debate about Basic Income. I don't believe that what I said was especially hard to understand for someone who had an interest, and you could have asked me to clarify any point you wanted.

If this model is supposed to represent the total of your beliefs about Basic Income, then it's not clear to me that you have considered the issue at all.

The part where you say "I’m more interested in Monte Carlo than in politics" makes this explicitly clear.