Wow, sorry about the stupid autocorrects above.
As have been pointed out on e.g marginalrevolution.com, one reason HFT is so popular is because the minimum stock price increment is one cent. HFT might conceivably lose much of its allure if this lower bound is changed to, say, .01 cent.
I’m not convinced trading must be intelligent to provide beneficial information to the market. I’m also not convinced all HFT systems have identical systematic errors. Can you give some examples?
What is the problem with high-speed trading in your opinion? I see a lot of people wanting a Financial Transactoons Tax, but I have yet to see étaples of what it would accomplish or prevent?
Yes, please!
In Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch claims the double-split experiment is evidence of photons interfering with photons in other worlds.
That would amount to convincing me that the experience which is currently happening, is not currently happening; or that an experience which previously happened, did not actually happen.
Why? What’s wrong with an experience happening in another way than you imagine? This more than anything cries “crackpot” to me; the uncompromising attitude that your opponents’ view must lead to absurdities. Like Christians arguing that without souls, atheists should go on killing sprees all the time.
Your model assumes a constant effect in each iteration. Is this justified?
I would envisage a constant chance of recovery and an asymptotically declining estimate of recovery. It seems more realistic, but maybe it’s just me?
Interesting post throughout, but don’t you overplay your hand a bit here?
There’s nothing that looks remotely like a goal in its programming, [...]
An IF-THEN piece of code comparing a measured RGB value to a threshold value for firing the laser would look at least remotely like a goal to my mind.
Well, moderate as in they don’t have rule of law etc. What I meant to say was that even this level of capitalism has worked wonders in dragging hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Contrary to decades of Western foreign aid.
Every system ever devised consists of smart people telling the dumb ones what to do. Even in feudal society with hereditary rule, the thicker-than-brick kings were manipulated by smart barons and courtiers :-P
I’d venture capitalism less so than other systems. At least dumb people to some extent get what they want in capitalism. But of course, this is one aspect of nature that’s very difficult to remedy and I worry that the cure is worse than the ailment
Caveat lector: I’m reading Atlas Shrugged right now.
Generalization from fictional evidence
I meant it as an explanation of my current dismal perspective, not as evidence of anything. Sorry if it didn’t come across right.
Sorry for jumping to conclusions.
I took “harness the capitalist system and the dumb people’s desires in such a way that they can achieve their own desires” as a paternalistic statement.
Megan McArdle is often interesting on current economics http://www.theatlantic.com/megan-mcardle
I’m sorry me message didn’t come across clearly. I can see it’s not phrased well.
I’m immensely skeptical of the notion that clever people are needed to tell dumb people what to do to achieve what they want; to “harness the capitalist system”. Mostly because so-called smart people have multiple other flaws that mainly stem from their not participating in or acknowledging the marketplace.
Many (public/social) intellectuals have such poor understanding of basic issues of economics, psychology and evolution that their prescribed cures worsen the ailment.
Which is why I mentioned Europe, a moribound continent which doesn’t seem to understand that it has to produce stuff to consume stuff and which appears to value appearances and ‘ethical policies’ over facing economic reality.
Save for problems regarding the tragedy of the commons, I see little hope for centralized harnessing by clever people. I see socialism as the economic variant of creationism: the notion that good, complex things cannot arise without central planning.
Caveat lector: I’m reading Atlas Shrugged right now.
I’m tempted to write up a post setting out the rules in Richard Gabriel’s book now that the Discussion forum can serve as a lower-pressure environment where people could post pieces specifically for the purpose of getting useful feedback on their writing.
Please do so.
It is up to the smart, ambitious and motivated to direct and harness the capitalist system and the dumb people’s desires in such a way that they can achieve their own desires. Including those that happen to be altruistic.
You ignore that smart etc. people have to be able to distinguish between fuzzies and reality. Without a marketplace to weed out poor performers, this is wishful thinking.
I live in Europe...
China should be the best example of what even moderate levels of capitalism can do.
The Communist bloc aren’t know for their environmentally-friendly outcomes or even policies.
I don’t know.
Perhaps “freedom of speech” (or whatever variable to call it) is so tightly bundled with other variables—most of all affluence—that it’s impossible to asses properly.
OTOH, if this bundling is evident across nations, cultures and time, it probably means that it truly is an important part of a net desirable society?
I commend you for your amendment. Good for you, sir!
My second issue is, if you don’t have any sort of nefarious intentions, what is motivating you to use the word [“queer”], instead of another one? Are you in a rap battle for the fate of the universe and you absolutely must complete the rhyme “drank a beer, jigger of rum//man that queer nigger was dumb”?
I rarely use such words, because it’s difficult to get it right. But my libertarian side does not like people telling me what I can or can’t say.
When I do use such words, it’s most often to mock a racist/sexist/homophobic POV.
Okay, I see your point.
I still believe there’s a problem in using the word “hostility” since it’s negatively connotated. Further, I think there’s a big difference between doing something because of the offence it causes per se and doing it because you think the offence is harmful and want to reduce it. But it is a minor issue which probably won’t bring us further by discussing much further.
Maybe from the POV of the Muslims but not of the perpetrators.
Their (my) intent is not to do harm but to do good. For the Muslims by hopefully desensitizing them, enabling them to live in a modern, globalized, enlightened world. For the world by reducing the amount of political violence.
It’s very difficult to see that for people mocking the Holocaust. How can they think they’re improving the world?
Ditto