The problem with intervention
-
Andy Brummer wrote:
Have you been taking your medication?
Typical atheist.
Red Stateler wrote:
Typical atheist.
Oh, sorry, does this mean you found Jesus? And why didn't he see you coming? I think that would be the response for a typical atheist.
-
Al Beback wrote:
For whom? The oil companies don't give a crap. In fact, they're ecstatic to have yet another excuse to keep raking in record profits. And since you've invested in them, that's great for you too. As long as you are making lots of money, who give a crap about the effects of high gas prices on the economy?
So then record profits are a bad thing? You should realize that about 30% of the "record profits" experienced by Exxon are artificial compared to previous years because the value of the dollar has declined by that much and because almost all oil is imported from abroad. Adjusted for inflation (and neglecting the plummeting dollar), it's also at a historic average. But if you think that buying oil stocks is a sufficient hedge against rising prices, then why don't you do that?
Red Stateler wrote:
So then record profits are a bad thing?
When it impacts the economy and leaves millions of working-class folks feeling like they're getting butt-raped while filling up, absolutely.
Red Stateler wrote:
You should realize that about 30% of the "record profits" experienced by Exxon are artificial compared to previous years because the value of the dollar has declined by that much and because almost all oil is imported from abroad. Adjusted for inflation (and neglecting the plummeting dollar), it's also at a historic average.
Yep, and when compared to a trillion dollars, it's actually insignificant. :rolleyes: Records profits are record profits, no matter how much you try to disguise them.
Red Stateler wrote:
But if you think that buying oil stocks is a sufficient hedge against rising prices, then why don't you do that?
1. Because stock certificates are not redeemable for discounts at the pump. 2. Because I don't have the money I would need to purchase enough stock to break even at some distant future after I sell it at a decent net profit.
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
-
Not a 1930s event as such but two things. The Bretton Woods process that went on after WWII which was predicated on a large academic effort to rationalise the mathematics of economics falsified it's results because without chaos theory and without serious computing power they just couldn't do the math for reasonably realistic economic models. For example they cut all the negative feedback out of the models to simplify them and left only positive feedback and then went on denying the exisitence of negative feedback for 30 years.:omg: The other thing they did was assume a 'natural equilibrium' model because that was the only way to get rid of the chaos enducing non-linearities which still made the math practically impossible. A good place to start looking at the history of this is M.Mitchell Waldrop's "Complexity". Not only was the math wrong but the political part of the process placed people outside and above the system by giving them unprecedented international legal immunities. no doubt a good socialist idea to make things better but of course the bankers and politicians took this power and abused it for there own ends. The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism". If you can falsify any of it or any of the above or below then please do by the way. I'd be glad to know things are not as bad as they seem although I strongly suspect they're actually much worse.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The Bretton Woods process
How was Bretton Woods "a process"? Do you even know what the Bretton Woods agreement was about? I'll tell you this much - it had nothing to do with chaos theory or the "mathematics of economics" (whatever that is).
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
because without chaos theory and without serious computing power they just couldn't do the math for reasonably realistic economic models.
I'm a quant analyst - chaos theory is rarely used in building financial models.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
For example they cut all the negative feedback out of the models to simplify them and left only positive feedback and then went on denying the exisitence of negative feedback for 30 years.
Uh, no - this is totally inaccurate and doesn't even make sense. Where are you getting your information from? :~ Who denied negative feedback? Which authors and in what models? Which model uses positive feedback as a mechanism? Do you mean martingales and Markov processes? Do you even know what you're talking about? Because if you ask me, you don't.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
'natural equilibrium' model because that was the only way to get rid of the chaos enducing non-linearities which still made the math practically impossible. A good place to start looking at the history of this is M.Mitchell Waldrop's "Complexity".
You mean general equilibrium. And chaos doesn't "enduce non-linearities". Furthermore, Waldrop's book has nothing to do with financial market modeling. It's a general treatise on complexity and it's very dated, at that - it's 15 years old.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
If you can falsify any of it or any of the above or below then please do by the way. I'd be glad to know things are not as bad as they seem although I strongly suspect they're actually much worse.
I think you need to understand just what it is you want to discuss, because as it stands none of what you wrote makes any sense.
-
I hate to break this to you, but chaos theory cannot model markets. But it is true that the free market is non-linear. It is not true that it is consequently unstable as demonstrated by the long-term stability of the markets. In other words, your "theory" does not hold water when compared to reality as an unstable market would result in a failed market. And that's obviously not the case. Now I do agree that there have been various attempts to model free market economies with varying degrees of success. However, that's completely irrelevant to my question as to how the market is "fundamentally artifical and manipulated". You've failed to even attempt that.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The other problem which goes back more than 70 years is the Federal Reserve which I've written a little about in another post here abouts. They had a chair at the table at Bretton Woods and were no doubt at least partially responsible for the institutional loop holes that have allowded them to reach the point today of pretty much owning the US Federal government while being a completely unaccountable private club with a secret membership. If you want to know more I'd recommend watching Aaron Russo's "America From Freedom to Fascism".
Holy Cow! My tin foil hat must be REALLY broken!
This guy has absolutely no clue what he's talking about. He's a fish out of water here...
-
The pertinent phrase was "accompanying regulatory law." Things like regulation of stock trading and mandatory reporting requirements to reduce speculation. That's beside the point though, because yes, they aren't direct manipulation of the market (although setting the base interest rate could qualify as direct manipulation). But let's turn the tables for a second and presume that a little direct manipulation of the market isn't necessarily a bad thing, in the case of developing alternative fuels. The hit has to be taken somewhere, because oil is a limited resource. It's a price we'd pay eventually (in the form of economic and social chaos) in the extremely unlikely case that we wait until all the oil is gone before we develop new fuel sources. Anything less extreme than that is merely a discussion of the degree and speed at which society pays that bill. WHO pays that bill isn't particularly relevant. If we wait for industry to develop the fuels, we all pay ever-rising gas prices as scarcity becomes an issue, along with the associated environmental damage. I don't rather like the idea of a bureaucracy in control of the development either, but in the face of an industry that has a vested interest in preventing such development, I don't see much choice. There have been many attempts to expand the use of alternative fuels for quite some time, but none of them are taking off, and it's reasonable to suggest they won't until gas prices are MUCH higher than they are now. I don't know, frankly we've painted ourselves into a corner where we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. We've caused a situation where steps more dramatic than those we'd wish to take are necessary.
Patrick Sears wrote:
The pertinent phrase was "accompanying regulatory law." Things like regulation of stock trading and mandatory reporting requirements to reduce speculation.
First of all, it's not even clear that excess speculation is a bad thing. Speculation helps to transfer risk - without it the markets wouldn't operate. One of the things I've been working on for some time is how to determine what is the "right" level of market speculation and when it is "excessive".
Patrick Sears wrote:
But let's turn the tables for a second and presume that a little direct manipulation of the market isn't necessarily a bad thing, in
But it is. Just look at the Hunt brothers' episode in the silver market.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
chaos theory cannot model markets
No, quite, it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets, but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist. The very fact of the apparent
Red Stateler wrote:
long-term stability of the markets
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable. The market is fundamentally artifical and manipulated for a start by having a secretive unaccountable private club as the sole authority that issues $dollars$. Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies. Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets
Who showed this? I want a name.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist.
Which time/year was this? For the record, Jacques Hadamard published the first paper on chaos theory in 1898...
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable.
Who says the market is a chaotic system? What criteria and evidence are you using to back this assumption? Are you suggesting that the market is an Anosov diffeomorphism or do you mean that it's chaotic behaviour is restricted to a certain subset of the phase space? If so, where's the evidence for the strange attractor? Let's assume there is a strange attractor, then I have another question for you - which three dimensions are you suggesting for the phase space? We need 3 because from Poincaré-Bendixson theorem we know that strange attractors only come about in a continuous system if it has three or more dimensions. So which 3 dimensions of the market are we talking about here?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies.
Okay, this is fucking hilarious. Guess what? I work for a major Swiss bank and I also work for a division of the Swiss central bank. Your BS has been called. No, really, this is just crazy talk...what the hell, man? Does this kind of stuff get you chicks at parties or something? -- modified at 7:38 Thursday 21st June, 2007
-
Your argument is based entirely on secret conspiratorial clubs. Being sane, I therefore dismiss it.
Red Stateler wrote:
Your argument is based entirely on secret conspiratorial clubs. Being sane, I therefore dismiss it
Yeah, I mean, I'm going to get his address and priority ship him a tin-foil hat. I mean JESUS... :rolleyes:
-
Strange attractors only seem to occur when the scalars involved are small. I'm no math guru but I gather that's what Faignbaums constant is all about? I don't think markets where you can get double digit growth and six figure inflation would be orbitting a strange attractor or even several. I could well be wrong but we'll never find out because as I said it's all a moot point anyway when the table isn't flat in the first place. Red can dismiss me as a Tin Foil Hat wearer ( I can't stand hats ) but that doesn't negate any of the evidence. The first prerequisite of a free market is freedom and when so many of those involved never had it and the rest of us are loosing it then there really is no such thing.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
place.
WHAT EVIDENCE? You've provided none at all!
-
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Even more ironic as I used to live under the test flight route of the real silent helicopter project which runs out of Hatfield Aerodrome, Hertfordshire and I know they don't work reliably so you might want to send at least two. :laugh:
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I direct Hatfield Aerodrome. And the other areodrome - the one that you don't know about yet.
-
I'm not advocating financial anarchy (ask Zeppelin for that). I'm pointing out the fact that the free market system is both complex beyond modelling and is self-balancing. Whenever the government (which has the authority of force) attempts to intervene and alter that balance, it affects other unforseen aspects of the economy. Humanity simply cannot adaquately govern economies, which is why communism and socialism inevitably results in a far greater degree of misery for many more people. That does not, however, preclude policies designed to create a stable environment (which is certainly required) for free markets. That includes currency, national security, etc..
Red Stateler wrote:
I'm not advocating financial anarchy (ask Zeppelin for that). I'm pointing out the fact that the free market system is both complex beyond modelling and is self-balancing. Whenever the government (which has the authority of force) attempts to intervene and alter that balance, it affects other unforseen aspects of the economy. Humanity simply cannot adaquately govern economies, which is why communism and socialism inevitably results in a far greater degree of misery for many more people. That does not, however, preclude policies designed to create a stable environment (which is certainly required) for free markets. That includes currency, national security, etc..
Mmmm, agreed.
-
Red Stateler wrote:
chaos theory cannot model markets
No, quite, it show that beyond a certain level of complexity you can't model markets, but at the time the economists didn't know that because chaos theory didn't exist. The very fact of the apparent
Red Stateler wrote:
long-term stability of the markets
should be your first clue that they're not 'true' markets because chaotic systems are not inherantly stable. The market is fundamentally artifical and manipulated for a start by having a secretive unaccountable private club as the sole authority that issues $dollars$. Then having another even more secret and private club in Switzerland which exists basically so that Central Banks can borrow non existent money from one another to hide debts and manipulate the value of currencies. Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.:)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.
Actually, I was the architect of this plan. It was code-named "Operation Mega-Maid" (I liked the movie spaceballs and it was very satisfying to give my victory cry of "She's gone from suck to blow" when the Argentine economy "blew up"). Anyways, being in a "position to know things" (look up "Gnomes of Zurich" - the group that I lead) within the Swiss central bank (the one with the mysterious money that doesn't exist - On a related note you shouldn't know about that so we'll be sending some "persuasional agents" your way in the next couple of days by the way.) I took some of that fictional money and sold it short. To hedge that position I took out a butterfly spread in Argentine dollar options and set myself up nice and pretty to suck the maximum amount of money out of the Argentine and assorted third-world economies. After I did that and while those people all starved I proceeded to surround myself with Ferrari's, beautiful women, expensive watches, clothes, a pool filled with hammerhead sharks, precisely 3 and 1/2 chihuahua's, one parrot, an Egyptian chef, a Masai gardener, 4 mansions, a pair of sandals and a three-legged not-so-extinct giant sloth. To bask in my supreme power I also had my nefarious agents install a control panel so that I can flick the traffic lights of the world's major intersections at random. That accident in Rome three weeks ago? Not an accident. With all that money I also built a giant magnetron that I can use to inf
-
Red Stateler wrote:
So then record profits are a bad thing?
When it impacts the economy and leaves millions of working-class folks feeling like they're getting butt-raped while filling up, absolutely.
Red Stateler wrote:
You should realize that about 30% of the "record profits" experienced by Exxon are artificial compared to previous years because the value of the dollar has declined by that much and because almost all oil is imported from abroad. Adjusted for inflation (and neglecting the plummeting dollar), it's also at a historic average.
Yep, and when compared to a trillion dollars, it's actually insignificant. :rolleyes: Records profits are record profits, no matter how much you try to disguise them.
Red Stateler wrote:
But if you think that buying oil stocks is a sufficient hedge against rising prices, then why don't you do that?
1. Because stock certificates are not redeemable for discounts at the pump. 2. Because I don't have the money I would need to purchase enough stock to break even at some distant future after I sell it at a decent net profit.
Whenever an appliance, gadget, or other kind of technology you own breaks or stops performing, pray to Science for it to be saved (fixed). If it doesn't change, don't worry... just keep praying. Science works in mysterious ways! - Someone on the Internet
Al Beback wrote:
When it impacts the economy and leaves millions of working-class folks feeling like they're getting butt-raped while filling up, absolutely.
Oh please - do you know how cheap American gas is compared to the rest of the world?
Al Beback wrote:
Yep, and when compared to a trillion dollars, it's actually insignificant. Records profits are record profits, no matter how much you try to disguise them.
Three guesses as to who sets the price of a barrel of oil. Oh yeah here's a hint: it's not the oil companies or OPEC. Besides, you could drive a smaller car, drive less, take public transport, ride a bike, walk... Nobody is forcing you to buy gas...
Al Beback wrote:
1. Because stock certificates are not redeemable for discounts at the pump. 2. Because I don't have the money I would need to purchase enough stock to break even at some distant future after I sell it at a decent net profit.
He means if you took a position in the financial markets and made a profit off of the stocks, you could sell the stock and use that profit to pay for your gas. The whole point of the hedge is to counter the rising oil price.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Another example: For decades the World Bank conspired with others to periodically crash the value of one African currency after another, sucking the life out of the poorest people in the world until they finally realised there was nothing left to suck. Just a few years ago Argentina got thumped by the same system for daring to 'drag down' the value of the dollar conveniently sweeping $400 Billion dollars off the worlds debt burden at the same time. This was not something that just happened. It was preplanned, pre announced, wagered on by those in the know, and then carried out. Causing real hardship for ten of thousands of clueless ordinary people who no doubt wondered why 'the market' wasn't working for them. When you own money itself you don't need to worry about chaos theory or economic models, the real economy can be ignored and when it comes back to bite you somebody else can be made to pay in real wealth for your paper debt. As I said if that's the 'Free' market I want none of it.
Actually, I was the architect of this plan. It was code-named "Operation Mega-Maid" (I liked the movie spaceballs and it was very satisfying to give my victory cry of "She's gone from suck to blow" when the Argentine economy "blew up"). Anyways, being in a "position to know things" (look up "Gnomes of Zurich" - the group that I lead) within the Swiss central bank (the one with the mysterious money that doesn't exist - On a related note you shouldn't know about that so we'll be sending some "persuasional agents" your way in the next couple of days by the way.) I took some of that fictional money and sold it short. To hedge that position I took out a butterfly spread in Argentine dollar options and set myself up nice and pretty to suck the maximum amount of money out of the Argentine and assorted third-world economies. After I did that and while those people all starved I proceeded to surround myself with Ferrari's, beautiful women, expensive watches, clothes, a pool filled with hammerhead sharks, precisely 3 and 1/2 chihuahua's, one parrot, an Egyptian chef, a Masai gardener, 4 mansions, a pair of sandals and a three-legged not-so-extinct giant sloth. To bask in my supreme power I also had my nefarious agents install a control panel so that I can flick the traffic lights of the world's major intersections at random. That accident in Rome three weeks ago? Not an accident. With all that money I also built a giant magnetron that I can use to inf
:laugh::laugh::laugh: Very good, and thanks for admitting to all that. Keep it up and we might even recruit you to the central committee ;)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
All I'm saying is start looking behind the curtain and don't believe everything Ronald Reagan told you, he didn't.
Don't you get it. I AM behind the curtain. One more word from you, and I'll dispatch the black helicopters.