Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
Locked
123
123
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
 
|
It's a big problem; would require a big budget, as modeling projects go. There would be large data collection requirements, definition and representations of international boundary conditions/interfaces, stock markets, futures markets, commodities markets, currency markets, real estate markets, banks, government reserves, taxes, income, employment sectors, industry sectors, consumers.
Hmm. It might take 22 or 23 differential equations to capture it all, instead of just 20. Oh, and we might have to switch from MATLAB to Netlogo. </sarcasm> (The opening tag started several messages ago). ;-[ -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
Douglas Roberts wrote:
> It's a big problem; would require a big budget "This is a big package because it's a big problem," Bush said. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
Oh, thanks for pointing out my being in agreement with Bush.
I think I'll now go drink myself into oblivion. On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 10/03/2008 03:26 PM:
> Douglas Roberts wrote: >> It's a big problem; would require a big budget > "This is a big package because it's a big problem," Bush said. I can say that I wouldn't object to an economic stimulus package that funded 4.66.. million agent-based modelers for a year at a salary of $100k/yr. Or 466k modelers for a decade. ... that is, if they were members of a small business and not, say, SAIC. [grin] -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
A) B) C) and D) and a little bit of E) : Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
Robert Holmes wrote:
<NickCriteria A-D> I can't believe 90% of this list didn't grow up (wanting to) believing in Hari Seldon and Psychohistory, why else would we have gone into the very low percentage game of modeling and simulation of nonlinear systems? <NickCriteria E> Doug Roberts: "then we would not be in our current economic situation." I don't think any of us believe that our "esteemed leaders" don't fit into one (or both) of the two following categories:
I cannot believe that most are not in category 1 with a sad few in category 2, either put there by those in category 1 who needed someone to catch some of the arrows or just slipped in by way of the Skull and Bones or some other fraternity system. Greenspan *had* to know that he was presiding at a series of dedications of a house of cards (Willfully pretending ignorance). We have a lot of Dipsticks in a lot of important positions. I wish this November 2 were a chance for a *real* housecleaning, but first we need some real candidates. hOpeBama has my vote over fauxMaveriCCain but not because I think he's anything but the lesser of Dipsticks. For better or worse, I think Palin and Dubya are category 2 Dipsticks and McCain may be heading there from Category 1. Obama and Clinton (both of them) and Bush I are patently Category 1 Dipsticks. Cheney and Rummy and Leeza are clearly *flaming" Category 1 dipsticks. My only hope for hOpeBama is that he actually believes a lot of his rhetoric and that he will act on it, but that kinda makes him more of a Category 2 Dipstick than I think he is. Biden, Category 1. "Fuck me to tears" (said Doug Roberts). Let me add "with sand". </NickCriteria E> <cruft> ..snip...snippitty.... snip! </cruft> ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Douglas Roberts wrote:
> DHS is not exactly a paradigm for excellence, but on the other hand > how much worse could they be than the Federal Reserve at protecting > the economy? I think we already discussed this: Federal Reserve (to tears), DHS (with sand). ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Douglas Roberts wrote:
<NickCriteria AandE> Forget the mega-giga-hyper model building. Fund instead:
http://timemachine.google.com http://paralleluniverse.google.com http://nfiniteimprobability.google.com http://psychohistory.google.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: A) B) C) and D) and a little bit of E) : Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
On Sat, Oct 4, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't think any of us believe that our "esteemed leaders" don't fit into > one (or both) of the two following categories: > > Willfully ignorant > Sadly ignorant I think you're being too generous. I'm afraid that many fall into a category I'll call "Maliciously aware". Usually I prefer to assume ignorance rather than malice when ignorance provides sufficient explanation. However, I think we have to consider the real possibility that many decision-makers are perfectly aware of the cost of their actions to others, but are only concerned with the benefit to themselves (and those close to them). > Greenspan *had* to know that he was presiding at a series of dedications of > a house of cards (Willfully pretending ignorance). Here you seem to agree that true ignorance may not be the issue. We have a system where certain players can reap short-term gains without being held accountable for long-term losses. I'm sure there are individuals on this list with more game-theory or behavioral-incentive knowledge that could elucidate the mechanisms better than I. The most frustrating part is that I simply don't know what can be done about it and how I can help. I can choose to act in what I believe is a more moral way, guided by "enlightened self-interest", but that doesn't have much effect on the system as a whole. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ep ropella
Glen,
Yes, how people build bad models. Getting back to Taleb's point with the 'black swan', that he should have stated more clearly, that it's always dangerous to do complex analysis with fat tailed distributions. You might be still more clear about it by making a list of behaviors that become complex and fat tailed to watch out for. That includes things like growth and collisions and changing distributions generally that progressinely diverge from their original behavior, and all suggest that the system being modeled isn't the same anymore. Covering that up with an easy tweek of the noise factors in a model then doesn't address the problem. ;-) Phil Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: "glen e. p. ropella" <[hidden email]> Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:24:53 To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group<[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Bernanke's Financial Modeling Technology Thus spake Robert Holmes circa 10/03/2008 12:15 PM: > Look at this way then - if he'd had access to a zillion parameter > mega-simulation, do you think we'd all be safe and cozy and *wouldn't* be in > the middle of a financial crisis? [You guys need to trim the cruft off the bottom of your e-mails.] I think we would be in a better position. If nothing else, the existence and use of zillion parameter mega-simulations _force_ us to concede that models are often wrong and useless. Granted, there are still morons who think that there _can_ be accurate or True models. But if more people in powerful positions knew, tacitly, how bad most models are, they would be much more suspicious of their and others' policy decisions (which are all based on models of one sort or another). At least these guys had the sense to reify their models in some way, rather than merely shooting from the hip and listening to their gut. You gotta give them that much credit. We may not avert crises; but, we might soften them considerably. NPC: a, b, and d are satisfied. (c) might be a stretch. [grin] -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
In reply to this post by Dale Schumacher
Dale -
"Willful Ignorance", in my vernacular is a dual of "Malicious Awareness". Just as most good physical comedians and rodeo clowns have to be "really, really good, to be that bad", Willful Ignorance is grounded in Malicious Awareness.I think you're being too generous. I'm afraid that many fall into a category I'll call "Maliciously aware". Again, I use Willful Ignorance in the same sense (mod subtleties) as you use Maliciously Aware. The difference is that it is the *affectation of ignorance* that makes it work. Yes, and it is not surprising that we would "evolve" personality types to fill this niche. I think we've had such in our midst at least as long as we've not been nomadic. My personal belief is that survival units of "wandering tribe" are at least selected for "enlightened self interest" at the band level. At the scale we currently operate, I think it is at least (very) very hard for us to recognize enlightened self interest, much less be motivated to act on it.We have a system where certain players can reap short-term gains without being held accountable for long-term losses. I'm sure there are individuals on this list with more game-theory or behavioral-incentive knowledge that could elucidate the mechanisms better than I. I (and many here I am sure) share this frustration. I certainly don't have any answers but I do have a few caveats: I believe that much of the power of the worst offenders in our ruling class (political, economic, religious) comes directly from an abuse of this very frustration in the rest of us. I believe that we have two basic operating modes, Willfull Ignorance and Enlightened Awareness. We ourselves, can be willfully ignorant. We willfully seek out "leaders" who will promise us what we want to hear, what feeds our greed and salves our fears, even when we know better.The most frustrating part is that I simply don't know what can be done about it and how I can help. I can choose to act in what I believe is a more moral way, guided by "enlightened self-interest", but that doesn't have much effect on the system as a whole. Willful Ignorance, IMHO, is driven by the two great motivators of "Greed" and "Fear". We constantly allow ourselves to be stampeded from one unsustainable/untenable position to another because it suits the interest of those who can extract profit from the massive movements (bull markets, bear markets, war, etc.) This is why our "two party system" doesn't really work. They can play "good cop/bad cop" with us over and over again and we never notice. All the while, if something turns out badly they claim "how could we have known?" but if it turns out well, they scream "See! I told you so!" And until it all falls down on our heads, we lap it up like cream from a saucer. I was at a lecture by Noam Chomsky several years ago. He was speaking on some topic related to NAFTA and the packed house hung on his every word. It was held at UNM and the audience was about 30% students and 70% yuppies. During the question and answer session, some poor schmuck stood up and asked. "Can you recommend any 'Socially Responsible' Investments?" Chomsky paused for maybe 5 seconds which was an eternity as the audience all leaned forward in their seats, held their breath, cocked their ears. When he finally spoke, a loud gasp went up. "Socially Responsible Investment is a contradiction in terms". I took his point to mean that wielding and hoarding resources in an abstract form (stocks, bonds, commodity futures, currencies, etc) is always fundamentally irresponsible. The point of an investment is to increase in value relative to the market... to "get ahead", and it is quite possible that this type of "getting ahead" is always "irresponsible". Within the capitalistic framework, capital *still* has to be applied with "enlightened self interest". Handing over your "wealth" to someone else to "maximize it's value" is fundamentally wrong. We might take our pet pig to the butcher because the butcher is better at making bacon, chops, ham, sausage from her, OR we might do it because we really don't want to know what it takes to turn a living, breathing, nuzzling friend into "dinner". Similarly, we don't want to operate third world sweat-shops, mines and plantations, but we do want the commodities they produce at the prices we pay (or lower if possible). Then we want our money managers to invest in the companies who oversee that because they are highly *profitable*. Worst yet, we can do all of the above, while whining and crying about global economic policy and foreign policy. In short, Willful Ignorance. The closest thing I have to an answer (for myself) is to realize that anyone in power is by definition a salesman... they will say and do what it takes to get us to buy their product (themselves, their policies) but we should not mistake this for them truly knowing what is best for us, and offering it to us out of the goodness of their heart. The myth of the "public servant" is an empty one, as much as we want to believe in it. The second part of this answer is to acknowledge that we, ourselves, might be our own worst enemy (ala Pogo). We live in such abstractions and so disconnected from the source of our sustenance, that we *cannot* know the consequences of our simplest actions. I may be exhibiting willful ignorance myself by wanting to believe in emergence in human behaviour, but your point that your own "enlightened self-interest" doesn't have much effect on the system as a whole, answers it's own implied question. Perhaps that is exactly the amount of effect it can (and should) have. If it has more than it's share of effect, then something else is happening and we are on the road to being part of the problem. I should know better than to write this early on a Sunday when I'm supposed to be getting ready for my daughter's wedding. Hmmm... could be a correlation. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Steve Smith wrote:
> Yes, and it is not surprising that we would "evolve" personality types > to fill this niche. [..] > The closest thing I have to an answer (for myself) is to realize that > anyone in power is by definition a salesman... they will say and do > what it takes to get us to buy their product (themselves, their > policies) but we should not mistake this for them truly knowing what > is best for us, and offering it to us out of the goodness of their > heart. The myth of the "public servant" is an empty one, as much as we > want to believe in it. If it is evolution at work, then perhaps the good cops and the bad cops are in some sense the good guys, and it is everyone else that is making the market (so to speak), inefficient. All this talk about ignorance means so much nothing at the end of the day if it doesn't change who is in power. The world is complex and mysterious and we will be forever mostly ignorant of it. Trying to distinguish the ignorant from the informed is in this way a dead end. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Marcus wrote:
<clip> <NickCriteria A-C> > If it is evolution at work, then perhaps the good cops and the bad > cops are in some sense the good guys, and it is everyone else that is > making the market (so to speak), inefficient. We certainly have our part in it. We deserve the "leaders" we have. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. > All this talk about ignorance means so much nothing at the end of > the day if it doesn't change who is in power. The point of my talk of ignorance (willful and otherwise) is that to the extent we are complicit in our own problems, we *do* have the ability to retrieve some of our power from those we have given it to out of our own *willful ignorance*. These yokels who sell us down the river every time do so with at least some of our eager participation. We *want* easy answers that allow us to remain blissfully ignorant about the consequences of our actions. There will always be folks willing and able to tell us the stories we want to hear, offer us perpetual motion machines, sell us snake oil, etc. We can pretend that if such people didn't exist, we would not be in this pickle, but such people will always exist, at least as long as we give them our power... hand it to them on a plate... ask for another sweet bedtime story about how "everything is going to be OK if you just vote for them (or the policies that support their behaviour)." > The world is complex and mysterious and we will be forever mostly > ignorant of it. Very good point. We (especially on this list) are prone to imagining that ignorance is not inevitable. I'm not asking to replace willful ignorance with willful arrogance. I am only pointing out (perhaps poorly) that while we are pointing our fingers at those captaining the ship going over the falls, we should notice that *we* are the ones rowing. If or when we recover, you might think we would design our ships (and methods of captaining/crewing them) differently... so the rowers themselves won't have to pretend to be so surprised when they shoot off the edge of the world at top speed. > Trying to distinguish the ignorant from the informed is in this way > a dead end. </NickCriteria A-C> <NickCriteria E> It *is* arrogant (and in it's own way ignorant) to presume that we can replace all ignorance with informedness (there IS no Hari Seldon, nor perfect Psychohistory). My point would only be that there is some low-hanging fruit in our own (willful) ignorance which we are now having our noses rubbed in. We are being made acutely aware (for the Nth time) that their is no free lunch... that much of what we think of as "progress" and "productivity" is nearly always short-term (years, decades) profit taking supported by hidden, exported and deferred costs. Our economy floats atop extractive industry (including most, if not all "modern" agriculture), depending on an ever-growing frontier (digging/drilling deeper, etc.) and an infinite sink (not) for our waste (heavy metals, particulates, unburned hydrocarbons, even C02 and heat). Most of the major problems facing us are not *news*. We have known about these issues for years, decades, even centuries in some cases. What *might be* news is that we, by applying *willful ignorance* managed to ignore or defer the worst of the symptoms while continuing to *take advantage* for ourselves. Patting ourselves on the back for our "wise investments" while protesting (or maybe just griping) against those who are making that money for us (and skimming the cream for themselves) through "unsustainable" practices. We notice the skimming and the unsustainable, but we don't notice that we were at least passively complicit. One of the things we can do now, as the current set of "scales fall from our eyes", is to *not* imagine that we were innocent in our current predicament and *not* imagine that just as soon as we get rid of all "the bastards in power" that all will be right in the world and we can go back to "getting ahead" in blissful (willfull or sad) ignorance, not accepting that we can easily (through greed and fear) build a fresh house of cards, this time with a *different* set of failure modes. </NickCriteria E> Now I really *am* late for my daughter's wedding rehearsal! I've been willfully ignoring the clock while engaging in my rant here... carry on! - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Steve Smith wrote:
> The point of my talk of ignorance (willful and otherwise) is that to > the extent we are complicit in our own problems, we *do* have the > ability to retrieve some of our power from those we have given it to > out of our own *willful ignorance*. Good rant. :-) I''ll only add that power is not claimed by not being snowed by the misrepresentations of those having power. It's also necessary to organize resources to influence those in power. Folks like Sarah Palin recognize that information is a weapon (e.g. see her recent incredible remarks about Bill Ayers), but don't otherwise need to be limited by whether information is true in context. Similarly corporate lobbyists are effective at influencing government, but that too is about action first and truth second. Marcus -- "It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." -- Mark Twain ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
It was a good rant, wasn't it...
Since Steve saw fit to bring up "willful ignorance", and Marcus, Sarah Palin: what do you want to bet that McCain's creationist-the-world-is-6,000-years-old gun-toting-I-can-see-Russia-from-my-window sidekick garners approximately 50% of the vote next month? As Matt Taibbi said in his 'The Lies of Sarah Palin' interview with Rolling Stone Magazine earlier this week: Here's the thing about Americans. You can send their kids off by the
thousands to get their balls blown off in foreign lands for no reason
at all, saddle them with billions in debt year after congressional year
while they spend their winters cheerfully watching game shows and
football, pull the rug out from under their mortgages, and leave them
living off their credit cards and their Wal-Mart salaries while you
move their jobs to China and Bangalore.
And none of it matters, so long as you remember a few months before Election Day to offer them a two-bit caricature culled from some cutting-room-floor episode of Roseanne as part of your presidential ticket. And if she's a good enough likeness of a loudmouthed Middle American archetype, as Sarah Palin is, John Q. Public will drop his giant sized bag of Doritos in gratitude, wipe the sizzlin' picante dust from his lips and rush to the booth to vote for her. You want to talk about willful ignorance? Take a good look around you. -- Doug Roberts, RTI International [hidden email] [hidden email] 505-455-7333 - Office 505-670-8195 - Cell On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Marcus G. Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/05/2008 11:07 AM:
> You want to talk about willful ignorance? Take a good look around you. Exactly. The trick is: What can we do about it? I have this problem with many of my friends. They're all quite bright (in my opinion). But there's an emergent pattern. We'll get in an argument face-to-face about some issue... let's say whether or not a shaft, belt, or chain final drive on a motorcycle is more or less efficient than the other two types. The argument will bifurcate the group with some coming down on one side and others coming down on the others (and there's usually at least one guy who's pissed that we're even arguing about something so stupid ;-). We'll eventually "agree to disagree". Now, me being the jerk that I am, I'll go home and do a little research that usually includes asking local yokels their opinions as well as sticking my dilettante nose in a few books and querying search engines. I eventually, prematurely, converge on a conclusion as to whether or not my opinion during the face-to-face was right or wrong. I then (maybe weeks later) bring the body of evidence back to my friends. Without fail, they get annoyed... even if my new body of evidence shows that the position I took in the original argument was wrong. My question is: Why doesn't everyone do this sort of thing? Why is it that people get in arguments, disagree with one another, and then don't follow up on it? Why do people just get all heated up about stuff and then later don't give enough of a crap to spend some serious alone-time working on it? How can we encourage the people around us to think critically... continually critically? ... even if/when doing so makes them look like a jerk? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
glen e. p. ropella wrote:
> Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/05/2008 11:07 AM: > >> You want to talk about willful ignorance? Take a good look around you. >> > > Exactly. The trick is: What can we do about it? > Hmm, Chelsea Clinton went to work for a hedge fund instead of going in to politics. Drastic measures? Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Thus spake Marcus G. Daniels circa 10/05/2008 12:07 PM:
> glen e. p. ropella wrote: >> Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/05/2008 11:07 AM: >> >>> You want to talk about willful ignorance? Take a good look around you. >>> >> >> Exactly. The trick is: What can we do about it? >> > Hmm, Chelsea Clinton went to work for a hedge fund instead of going in > to politics. Drastic measures? Sorry for being dense; but how does that relate to taking action (or knowing what actions could be taken) to mitigate against willful ignorance? -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Excuse me? Mitigate willful ignorance? You must be new around here.
;-} I'm afraid, as Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." I suspect couple of hundred million years is what it's going to take to begin to "mitigate willful ignorance" on this particular ball of dirt. On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:13 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Thus spake Douglas Roberts circa 10/05/2008 12:19 PM:
> I'm afraid, as Pogo once said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Excactly! So the first step is for each individual to accept their responsibility think/speak critically at every opportunity. The next step is to package such critical thinking inside an infectious wrapper so that it spreads across all humanity. "Enlightened self interest" (ESI) is the current packaging for infectious criticality; but we're learning that, in its current form, ESI is inadequate. It doesn't capture the "externalities" of any given contract because any single human is too myopic to sense (much less understand and compensate) for those externalities. Perhaps what we need is for the population to cluster into small communal non-profit gangs, where each gang is self-interested but each individual in the gang is altruistic toward the gang? Oh wait, that's tribalism, isn't it? [grin] Hmmm. I guess what we need is a scale-free network of gangs, some of which are non-profit, some of which are for-profit, some of which are self-interested, some of which are altruistic, where some individuals are members of multiple gangs and some of which are entirely devoted to a single gang .... Oh wait, that's what we have NOW! Hmmm. Perhaps we should all quit bitching and enjoy whatever luxuries we're lucky enough to have right now because tomorrow we may not have them? [sigh] Sundays aren't my best days for generating empty rhetoric. Sorry. I'm off for a pint at the pub. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-219-3846, http://tempusdictum.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
Re: Willfull Ignorance - Satisfies NickCriteria E
|
|
Hope you took a laptop with you, Glen. This would make great pub fare:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/04/tina-fey-as-sarah-palin-i_n_131964.html On Sun, Oct 5, 2008 at 1:39 PM, glen e. p. ropella <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |