Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
Locked
123
123
 
|
Heh, very nice! Yes, it used to be the case that the computational task was too great, which lead some to throw up their hands and just get high. But as Marcus pointed out earlier in the thread, we have new tech that might stand a chance. And why shouldn't neoliberals have the chance to evolve into new perspectives where they admit that some of these new techs can help us engage in intelligent stewardship of a catallaxy?
Here's an article that might help, though I can't really vouch for it: MacDonald, Trent J., Darcy WE Allen, and Jason Potts. "Blockchains and the boundaries of self-organized economies: Predictions for the future of banking." Banking Beyond Banks and Money. Springer International Publishing, 2016. 279-296. On January 23, 2017 9:24:01 PM PST, Vladimyr Burachynsky <[hidden email]> wrote: >It also appears that the solution time is so great that no amount of >mental/computational effort will ever yield results so therefore no >effort is recommended by the authorities. >Any such attempt will be judged as hostile. Any and all contradiction >will bring down harsh reprisals. >That seems to suggest that no self-declared Neoliberal is required to >make any effort of any kind except theatrical to earn her/his >entitlements. I hope I have interpreted this correctly. > >Careful scrutiny of such a position then leaves the key distinguishing >feature between Conservatives and Neoliberals; clearly unresolved. >Since it appears that neither faction is prepared to expend even >marginal effort. > >Really would parallel processing make even the least detectable >difference or was the term thrown in to just scare the crap out of >everyone... -- ⛧glen⛧ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
In reply to this post by Vladimyr Burachynsky
Vladimyr writes:
"Really would parallel processing make even the least detectable difference or was the term thrown in to just scare the crap out of everyone..." Local genotype search, as advocated especially by racists, supposes that fit solutions have already been found, and should receive only minor adjustment. The belief that valuable phenotypes mostly arise from valuable genotypes is a possible explanation why conservatives and pro-lifers are overlapping groups -- they both believe in conserved stable `good' things like their genotypes. Pro-choice folks, however, define life as living. To these folks, exploring phenotype space means investing in physical growth and experience. They have numbers on their side: The size of the genome is orders of magnitude smaller than the number of cells in the body. It is possible, though, that even these very complex machines, when forced into very similar environments, will evolve toward fixed points instead of many complementary degenerate solutions. Liberals or neoliberals think that the fitness landscape is complex and has a structure that cannot be anticipated. Conservatives think they know enough about the landscape, at least to the extent that they have found a niche that works and are not inclined to leave it. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
|
Speaking of Investing: I suspect that more than a few folks here have
significant financial assets. I'm wondering what people believe here about "socially responsible investing". About NOW seems like a good time to (re)evaluate any such strategies? I *did* enjoy hearing Chomsky answer this question at a NAFTA talk in ABQ 15 years ago with the simple statement "Socially Responsible Investing is a contradiction in terms". There was a loud titter among the roughly 50% students and a deafening silence among the other 50% Yuppie/Academic/Retireds. I think of our *consumer* dollars as votes, it seems like our *investment* dollars are at least as important? On 1/24/17 7:06 AM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > Vladimyr writes: > > "Really would parallel processing make even the least detectable difference or was the term thrown in to just scare the crap out of everyone..." > > Local genotype search, as advocated especially by racists, supposes that fit solutions have already been found, and should receive only minor adjustment. The belief that valuable phenotypes mostly arise from valuable genotypes is a possible explanation why conservatives and pro-lifers are overlapping groups -- they both believe in conserved stable `good' things like their genotypes. Pro-choice folks, however, define life as living. To these folks, exploring phenotype space means investing in physical growth and experience. They have numbers on their side: The size of the genome is orders of magnitude smaller than the number of cells in the body. It is possible, though, that even these very complex machines, when forced into very similar environments, will evolve toward fixed points instead of many complementary degenerate solutions. Liberals or neoliberals think that the fitness landscape is complex and has a structure that cannot be anticipated. Conservatives ! > think they know enough about the landscape, at least to the extent that they have found a niche that works and are not inclined to leave it. > > Marcus > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
I'd love to hear people chime in on this. I've tried to find ways to invest the tiny amount of my retirement contributions in places/things that I care about. I've failed miserably. I finally gave up and put some money into this: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/COEAX?ltr=1 I'm slowly losing my money. But I figure I'm at least, in part, paying myself (if my city takes on debt) or loaning/contributing money/fluidity to my local cities. If I'm misguided on that, I'd appreciate some education. The next time I move, I plan on doing the same thing in that region. On 01/26/2017 12:42 PM, Steven A Smith wrote: > Speaking of Investing: I suspect that more than a few folks here have significant financial assets. I'm wondering what people believe here about "socially responsible investing". About NOW seems like a good time to (re)evaluate any such strategies? > > I *did* enjoy hearing Chomsky answer this question at a NAFTA talk in ABQ 15 years ago with the simple statement "Socially Responsible Investing is a contradiction in terms". There was a loud titter among the roughly 50% students and a deafening silence among the other 50% Yuppie/Academic/Retireds. > > I think of our *consumer* dollars as votes, it seems like our *investment* dollars are at least as important? -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
"I *did* enjoy hearing Chomsky answer this question at a NAFTA talk in ABQ 15 years ago with the simple statement "Socially Responsible
Investing is a contradiction in terms". There was a loud titter among the roughly 50% students and a deafening silence among the other 50% Yuppie/Academic/Retireds." What exactly is the claim? That property is theft? That all investments ought to be public investments? Or is it a weaker claim that, say, people or organizations should not be able to float along living off `earnings' from interest? I think it is good if candidates just come right out with that as part of their platform. Likewise, salary caps for doctors, lawyers, and so on. It would take decades for it to gain much support, I think -- people have too much investment in American Dream type fantasies -- but it is worth proposing. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
|
In reply to this post by gepr
TIAA has several mutual funds that may be of interest. https://www.tiaa.org/public/investment-performance Look for the phrase "Social Choice" in the title of the fund. Frank Frank Wimberly Phone (505) 670-9918 On Jan 26, 2017 1:58 PM, "glen ☣" <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Maybe something like this: https://promarket.org/are-we-all-rent-seeking-investors/ "One question may even loom larger: given that more and more Americans’ pensions and long-term savings today are invested in the stock market in defined contribution schemes, have we created a pension model that is based on growing sharer of investments in rent-seeking activities? Put another way, are we facing an economic model in which tens of millions of Americans’ pensions are relying on the ability of companies to extract rents from consumers and taxpayers?" Investments where the investors are purposefully willing to lose their money seems healthy to me. You're trying to help someone do something productive. But investments intended to always give a return, with little risk, seem like rent seeking to me. If you want your money to do something good, then you're not really "investing" in the way most people use the term. You're better off with real investment ... pay for someone's college, learn to code, buy tools for your neighborhood, etc. Of course, there is the idea that if you "invest" your money wisely, then you reduce the amount of drag you put on the system when you're too old to be productive, or suffer a deblitating disease, or birth a kid who can't keep a job, etc. So, when the returns are returned has to factor in somewhere. I have no idea if this is why Chomsky might have said what he said, though. On 01/26/2017 12:59 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote: > What exactly is the claim? That property is theft? That all investments ought to be public investments? Or is it a weaker claim that, say, people or organizations should not be able to float along living off `earnings' from interest? I think it is good if candidates just come right out with that as part of their platform. Likewise, salary caps for doctors, lawyers, and so on. It would take decades for it to gain much support, I think -- people have too much investment in American Dream type fantasies -- but it is worth proposing. -- ☣ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen
|
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
> "I *did* enjoy hearing Chomsky answer this question at a NAFTA talk in ABQ 15 years ago with the simple statement "Socially Responsible > Investing is a contradiction in terms". There was a loud titter among > the roughly 50% students and a deafening silence among the other 50% Yuppie/Academic/Retireds." > > What exactly is the claim? I've been contemplating that question myself. Here's my closest thing to answers: > That property is theft? I wouldn't have said so at that time, but in some extreme, I believe this to be true. Or is always true by some increments. At some point, private property becomes hoarding. Those whose rhetoric is against the 1%'s or promote graduated income tax, etc. are saying that *at some point*, accumulation of private property is wrong/disallowed by the collective. As a private property owner (of many kinds) I have the habit of imagining that *my* level isn't hoarding and *my* ownership doesn't undermine the quality of anyone else's life, *even* if I judge that to be the case in others. That doesn't make it true... just my habit and apprehension! > That all investments ought to be public investments? If there is no private hoards of wealth, then there is no other mode of investment than "public". This of course, begs other issues such as WHO is the collective? What is it's scope? A family, a clan, a tribe, a region, a culture, a nation, a "world"? > Or is it a weaker claim that, say, people or organizations should not be able to float along living off `earnings' from interest? I have heard a lot of rhetoric to this effect of late. "Unearned Income". I'm not a deep scholar of Socialism or Communism, but I think all of this has been explored and documented. I have developed gedankenexperiments for my own edification and I *do* think there is a fundamental concept of private investment. If, for example, I invest my time in building a really good lever, then when I *use* that lever, I can do twice or ten times the work of anyone else... I now *own* an investment that gives me leverage, literally and figuratively. In principle I can loan it out for others to use, or use my arcane knowledge to make more and trade them to others for things *they* have acquired through skill or luck or might? For some, this game falls down with people like Trump and his new Cabinet of multi-millionaires, for others, it falls down much earlier. My mythology about the Australian Indigenous (formerly know as Aboriginal) peoples is that they have always chosen to "own" only what they could carry in their hands, or in their "dilly bag". But most of us don't want to live in the primitive conditions they chose, accepted, or found themselves in. Most of us want one or two (or more) cars we can drive across the continent at the drop of a hat, a house big enough for 4 or 5 refugee families, a pile of consumer electronics and other items that are as much fetish objects as they are actually the "tools" we claim them to be! I think the more interesting question is the question of "the commons". In our new economy based significantly on non-physical assets, on intellectual property, how do we manage a "commons" to the benefit of all, not just the *already wealthy and powerful*?. Most of my own "intellectual property" is nothing more than secret sauce, tricks of the trade that I have one or another angle on (or not), but if I *did* own some trademarks, patents, copyrights of value, I would be a bit conflicted. *I* sure hate it when other's IP claims limit my own ability to do interesting work. I have even spent time in the devils camp helping clients defend their IP. Fortunately it felt a little like Robin Hood since they were defending against the likes of Google and Disney. But if I asked the collective (clan, tribe) to enforce my *ownership* of the design of the lever I invented (discovered) to prevent anyone else in the group to use my design without compensating me to my satisfaction, I somehow think that is not good for anyone (except vaguely me?). > I think it is good if candidates just come right out with that as part of their platform. Likewise, salary caps for doctors, lawyers, and so on. It would take decades for it to gain much support, I think -- people have too much investment in American Dream type fantasies -- but it is worth proposing. Along with neoConservatives and neoLiberals, are you suggesting it is time to coin neoSocialists or neoCommunists? My extreme view is that *anarchy* is the natural state but that with enough careful thought and practice an idealized *community* is possible. The latter would be an effective full up communistic society (and would need "government" as much as *anarchy* needs government, it would be self-organizing based on principles not unlike the golden rule or the ten commandments) but then that IS very utopian and inside every utopia is a dystopia (recursively) hiding a utopia... etc. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
|
I started an answer about what Chomsky meant, I think he means that if you choose to align your interests with the property owners, there is no way you can redeem yourself, you are on the side of government protecting the property holders' rights against everyone else, that first, and whatever positive benefits of government only after the property holders are taken care of. Nobody is going to ask you if you think it is socially responsible to send in the national guard with orders to shoot to kill, they're just going to do it. -- rec -- On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Steven A Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
Re: Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent
|
|
In reply to this post by Steve Smith
My intuition is that folks Thiel are perfectly happy to iterate our economic system (or whatever is left of it after Trump) to its natural conclusion, which is essentially extinction of democracy and a calamitous collapse of the population. Afterward, there will few rich people standing around to, what.. cut each other's throats for a few cups of blood? What will the predators do without prey? Keeping an open mind -- at some cosmic level -- it could be necessary from time to time to `right size' the population or to do some specific culling. But does it really seem promising to leave that to the free market?
However alien some of the alternatives you outline are, they are no more disruptive than letting things go on their current trajectory. There just have to be classes of losers as Glen illustrates -- it is built-in a structural way not just to benefit the 1% but through our pensions and other retirement investments. It seems to be unsustainable. It is not a `meaningful competition of ideas' just to own shares in an index fund. Most people don't even know what equities they own. And all those people doing blue collar jobs that can and will be automated aren't really making the world more interesting either. Really, they're just marking time. An argument in defense of the deep state is that humans are so flawed, so selfish, that there is no choice for civil servants to protect the `stem cells'. If they take some off the top, well, that's the cost of getting it done. As Obama pointed out, without defenders the Constitution is just a piece of paper. It's not clear inequality is all bad, but it certainly isn't all good either. As I get older, it seems more and more rational and necessary to withhold tools I can provide, and doing so is certainly a learned behavior. Things are set up to cause those that are inclined to cooperate to suffer. I know I'm not the only one. Marcus -----Original Message----- From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Steven A Smith Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 3:39 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nautilus: Investing Is More Luck Than Talent > "I *did* enjoy hearing Chomsky answer this question at a NAFTA talk in ABQ 15 years ago with the simple statement "Socially Responsible > Investing is a contradiction in terms". There was a loud titter among > the roughly 50% students and a deafening silence among the other 50% Yuppie/Academic/Retireds." > > What exactly is the claim? I've been contemplating that question myself. Here's my closest thing to answers: > That property is theft? I wouldn't have said so at that time, but in some extreme, I believe this to be true. Or is always true by some increments. At some point, private property becomes hoarding. Those whose rhetoric is against the 1%'s or promote graduated income tax, etc. are saying that *at some point*, accumulation of private property is wrong/disallowed by the collective. As a private property owner (of many kinds) I have the habit of imagining that *my* level isn't hoarding and *my* ownership doesn't undermine the quality of anyone else's life, *even* if I judge that to be the case in others. That doesn't make it true... just my habit and apprehension! > That all investments ought to be public investments? If there is no private hoards of wealth, then there is no other mode of investment than "public". This of course, begs other issues such as WHO is the collective? What is it's scope? A family, a clan, a tribe, a region, a culture, a nation, a "world"? > Or is it a weaker claim that, say, people or organizations should not be able to float along living off `earnings' from interest? I have heard a lot of rhetoric to this effect of late. "Unearned Income". I'm not a deep scholar of Socialism or Communism, but I think all of this has been explored and documented. I have developed gedankenexperiments for my own edification and I *do* think there is a fundamental concept of private investment. If, for example, I invest my time in building a really good lever, then when I *use* that lever, I can do twice or ten times the work of anyone else... I now *own* an investment that gives me leverage, literally and figuratively. In principle I can loan it out for others to use, or use my arcane knowledge to make more and trade them to others for things *they* have acquired through skill or luck or might? For some, this game falls down with people like Trump and his new Cabinet of multi-millionaires, for others, it falls down much earlier. My mythology about the Australian Indigenous (formerly know as Aboriginal) peoples is that they have always chosen to "own" only what they could carry in their hands, or in their "dilly bag". But most of us don't want to live in the primitive conditions they chose, accepted, or found themselves in. Most of us want one or two (or more) cars we can drive across the continent at the drop of a hat, a house big enough for 4 or 5 refugee families, a pile of consumer electronics and other items that are as much fetish objects as they are actually the "tools" we claim them to be! I think the more interesting question is the question of "the commons". In our new economy based significantly on non-physical assets, on intellectual property, how do we manage a "commons" to the benefit of all, not just the *already wealthy and powerful*?. Most of my own "intellectual property" is nothing more than secret sauce, tricks of the trade that I have one or another angle on (or not), but if I *did* own some trademarks, patents, copyrights of value, I would be a bit conflicted. *I* sure hate it when other's IP claims limit my own ability to do interesting work. I have even spent time in the devils camp helping clients defend their IP. Fortunately it felt a little like Robin Hood since they were defending against the likes of Google and Disney. But if I asked the collective (clan, tribe) to enforce my *ownership* of the design of the lever I invented (discovered) to prevent anyone else in the group to use my design without compensating me to my satisfaction, I somehow think that is not good for anyone (except vaguely me?). > I think it is good if candidates just come right out with that as part of their platform. Likewise, salary caps for doctors, lawyers, and so on. It would take decades for it to gain much support, I think -- people have too much investment in American Dream type fantasies -- but it is worth proposing. Along with neoConservatives and neoLiberals, are you suggesting it is time to coin neoSocialists or neoCommunists? My extreme view is that *anarchy* is the natural state but that with enough careful thought and practice an idealized *community* is possible. The latter would be an effective full up communistic society (and would need "government" as much as *anarchy* needs government, it would be self-organizing based on principles not unlike the golden rule or the ten commandments) but then that IS very utopian and inside every utopia is a dystopia (recursively) hiding a utopia... etc. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |