From a slightly different slant, where I work the executives decided, maybe 5 years ago, that they would start hiring only from the 10 schools and only the top candidates from those schools. When we get a new CEO during one of the company “townhall” meetings that subject came up.
The new CEO noted a discussion in the board room related to that. The bottom line was that for the most part none of the top people had degrees from such schools. One might add that the company had grown to it’s dominant market position with a workforce that did not reflect such a profile either.
It would seem the approach was scrapped.
I think the underlying approaches are actually the same—the desire for a “simple” (at least in the sense of clearly defined process or heuristic) solution to a rather difficult problem. How does one recognize just how [one] will add great value to future activities that are by nature not really driven by any one individual’s abilities or direct contribution?
That someone happens at some point rather than another point is an interesting question to explore but is also one that probably seldom has good answers. Still, intellectual curiosity is a goal in self.
I wonder if a better starting point for the inquiry might not actually be why the invention was invented when it was—why the inventor made the effort in the first place. What problem was being solved. We can then look at various limiting factors to see if they would have made the effort futile if done at some earlier period of time.
That might help place some markets in history on when the invention became feasible.
But the question seems to have the two parts:
1) When the realities of the world support such an action/invention.
2) When does someone have that “oh, duh” moment when they thing “We could do this [easier] if X were present and I can figure out how to have X.”
We can reasonably get answers to the first part. I think for the second part we will find that more challenging.
A related question might also be about inventive thoughts and vision that were impossible at the time they were thought and theoretically designed and what role they had an shaping the future.
That reminds me lyrics in an old song (old as in 80 or 90s not 1500s ;-) “if you cannot change the world change yourself. if you cannot change yourself, change the world”
″ willing to abandon ancestor worship, ” this phrase in particular makes me wonder if the question here and the one about why China didn’t invent science don’t share much in the analytical domain space.
This statement made me wonder: ” Things are generally closer to optimal equilibria, and equilibria are more legible/predictable than non-quilibria.”
And I might be thinking incorrectly myself here as well as not fully following your though.
Why would the equilibria position be more predictable than off equilibria? One thought might be that we have this sense of balance so in an equilibrium we feel that it right (and using “feel” is probably a poor word choice but little time to find the right word). But that doesn’t mean we can then make any types of predictions.
The thought that came to me was more along the idea, if we generally understand where the equilbirum position should be then we have some idea of where we should go. (Think standard econ theory of prices as signals and arbitrage to equilibrate across markets).
However, if we are at the equilibrium position it might not be clear what happens if we do something we want to do but have never done before. Will that be consistent with equilibrium or disruptive. I think this does fit with the whole “guestimate” approach to predication and forecasting. Perhaps your view on more predictability then comes from having the equilibrium as the initial position you start from. But what if equilibrium is more like a place where information is actually lost?
I think one aspect is that financial assets are merely stores of wealth with potential for growth/returns as well as risks. The house has both of those as well as a direct use value in consuming the housing services. Additionally it offers something of a risk/uncertainty mitigating role. Once paid for the cost of consuming that housing services is pretty low so even if you see a bit hit to your income you still have a stable place to build from.
I think it’s really all the non-pecuniary aspects that get missed when analysis starts relying too strongly on the monetary equivalence point of view; by which I mean we start filtering those aspects out and just don’t see them.
A couple of thoughts.
One, the inversion seems to be in line with most credit cycle theories of economic activity I think. Basically, during an expansion debt increases and as the economy reaches it’s peak you may see more reliance on shorter term debt for a number of reasons. When the short term debt costs rise that type of financing drives costs up, and so the marginal activities out of the market. Market activities are interdependent within an economy so you start seeing the domino effect play out.
The other thought I had was are we talking real economic activities, recession, or financial market activities (bear market/crash)? I think that matters if one wants to explore “what actions” anyone might consider taking. And, the answer will likely depend on the person’s specific situation. Here it might be a bit like the distinction between recession and depressions—recession if your neighbor looses the job, depression is you loose the job. How secure is your employment and income outlook is probably a more important question than if we have a recession in 2020.
I found this https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntobey/2019/05/31/yes-the-inverted-yield-curve-foreshadows-something-but-not-a-recession/#6b593af32800 and it might have some insights for you. I think the point that every case of inverted curves is not the same—you need to understand the underlying drivers—is particularly important to consider. As always, the devil will be in the details but everyone seems to want the simple heuristic. (I would think some Bayesian would be having fun here and maybe someone has info on that type of insight). I recall seeing something about duration of the inversion as well mattering but I seriously doubt one could say X days/weeks or less no recession but over that....
I think one can look at the curve inversion as one data element, not really a primary cause (my first comment aside) and put that in context with a number of other aspect. One, we’ve had a very long expansion—but it’s not be really exciting so perhaps it can run longer. We are in a presidential election cycle; they tent to be possible for aggregate economic activity. The geopolitical landscape is disturbing at best but it’s not clear to me if that will be a positive or negative for any given domestic economy, USA or other. Inflation remains tame. Employment mostly okay (USA markets at least).
I think fears of recessions provide something of a wake up call to many. They worry and then look at what they have done in terms of savings and borrowing and it probably scares many. Rather than treating the situation as something of a new years resolution—so soon forgotten once the new years passes—consider making changes to behavior in the good times.
Would you place motivated errors, generally, in the same bucket as confirmation bias type thinking?
I did not read—so probably should not comment, but will anyway. In a very quick skimming nothing jumped out at me regarding the aspect of time horizons and particularly wealth transfer to the next generation.
Did I just miss that? If not would adding the idea of inter temporal transfers (inheritance) change any of the conclusions?
[Edit to add] While not about a house, I recently sold a trailer and truck. Given the response I was clearly under market price but as I was really interested starting to “clean up” my possessions I am not crying about the possible opportunity loss there. But was I did give some thought to was: What was a rough estimate of the rental rate on the two for the time I owned them. A very quick and crude calculation in my head came to under $400 a month easily.
That is a little deceptive in that these were not really used daily or even weekly—lots of down time. So (assuming I could even find a place to rent what I had) I might have come about better renting rather than buying. But that is only because I was not using them daily. If the house worked out the same I think I come out miles ahead buying the house in most situation. (Anecdotal to be sure and possible not a good comparison setting)
Not sure how, of even if, this relates but seemed somewhat connected to what you’re looking at. https://www.quantamagazine.org/were-stuck-inside-the-universe-lee-smolin-has-an-idea-for-how-to-study-it-anyway-20190627/
For some reason your parenthetical made me think of some of what Smolin was saying about how we view the universe and how we should try to model it.
″ But I don’t have anything better to use for my actual goal, which is a measurable task that taxes creativity and *nothing else* ”
Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but why would one want to tax creativity? Seems to me that for the most part, creativity will have a lot of public good characteristics—though I suppose one might suggest creative destruction is a better view...
Not completely surprised but would wonder how much of that is accounted by merger and it that should be considered the same as failure/bankruptcy cases.
I suspect the technology that would make mergers less costly has increased since the 50s. If so there were perhaps mergers that were not taking place but would have.
Sounds like the margins of life are ruled by the Peter Principle.
I suspect that is true but wonder if that works the best or not. This may apply in a lot of cases—and may be wrong but I don’t think so. The culture where I work is very much about reinforcing the positives and ignoring the flaws (within limits). The rule might be stated as reward the desired behaviors and ignore the bad behaviors (again within some limits as accountability is also expected—just seems to be more about trying to get everyone to be accountable themselves rather than walking around with the stick).
That seems like it might apply in a number of settings. The company is a successful, global corporation and is seen as a top performer and preferred place of employment in the market (will not disclose though) so it seems like it is not a terrible approach.
I think this might apply to raising children as well. Children will see the attention of their parents. If the parent tends to focus on the errors and mistakes then the child is likely to act up to get more mommy or daddy time—even when it’s not pleasant. That then leads to forming similar relationships later in life.
Not sure how well that might apply to larger settings like legal punishments. I think there might be something there—forget the saying but basically prison creates hardened criminals out of normal people many times. Still in that setting the few are really seeing the approval of any authority figures so might not apply as well—even ignoring the fact that most cases will be outside the limits of the use the honey not vinegar rule.
Of course this is something of a could/should versus is setting I think—you are simply suggesting the empirical state not suggesting what might be an improvement. Still, the dynamics seem rather more complicated then would be needed to make the the assumption you seem to start with.
I did just have a thought—may or may not be interesting here—regarding the intra-group and inter-group relationships suggested. If we accept that the intra-group relationships under stress might be more cooperative (for survival incentives), then characterizing the post- apocalyptic setting as “defect” or a Hobbesean state of nature seems to suggest that most of the interactions will be inter-group rather than intra-group. That seems questionable to me but I might be thinking wrong on that.
I’m wondering why you think corruption is the natural outcome. The reason I am asking was having seen one of the Nat Geo (or similar) shows about a pride of lion in a less than optimal location for lions. What was observed was that this pride of lions actually cooperated more (in sharing food rather than all fighting over it per some status/badness ranking) than was observe in prides in more suitable territories.
It might have been in this forum, not sure, where someone pointed to some literature about the possibly counter intuitive outcome that hardship of groups actually promoted the cooperative behaviors—suggesting corruption might be more likely in the pre-apocalyptic setting.
Contrary to what we see in movies, is it possible that the post-apocalyptic setting might actually produce a more merit driven social setting that one of corruption and nepotism?
″ Third, this whole strategy inherently involves trailblazing. You have to do something which nobody has done before—that’s kinda the point. ”
But more than that, you need to blaze a new trail that still fits in with the needs of the world around you. A new trail to the cliff no one wants to be on doesn’t get you much but a rather long fall I think ;-)
But in general I like the observation you’ve made.
I’ll somewhat echo what CynicalOptimist wrote. I think the message is is one any first semester logic student should have been taught or know: a valid argument is not necessarily true. The validity of an argument’s conclusion is all about form of the argument. The truth of the conclusion is an external fact existing completely independent from the argument’s structure.
As mentioned the ABCT has some good points in explaining why things might happen. But I also think the coordination problem over time in terms of economic activity will inherently get things wrong, so downturns will occur.
There have also been some evidence that political event, like various elections, can influence.
I don’t think any lend themselves to true function precision (echoing the time problem moses mentions).
I would ask if you’re inquiring based on financial market fluctuations are if you’re asking about real business cycles (recession/depression and expansion/contraction) events. I think characterizing real economic cycles as driven by a random process would be problematic—even if one might suggest that the sale of any given can of soup might be modeled that way.
Like Dagon, I would like to see some argument for the smaller, lower volatility (risk) approach is preferred—particularly as you seem to imply this is what everyone should be doing.
I don’t see the argument that everyone can get rich slowly. I get that the suggested approach is great for some return while preserving existing capital/wealth. But that is really only useful to those that are already rich. 2% on $100,000,000 is not a bad income stream to live off ;-) That 2% on your $1000 you scraped together from spare change is not going to provide for your retirement.
I think clarifying just who the audience for the advise is would be really helpful.
A quick google seach: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-advisors/032216/7-top-nonus-roboadvisors.asp
Might be helpful. Or at least another starting point.