The next brain-melting thing to consider is that, perhaps, everything moves at the speed of light - not through space, but through spacetime.
Kaluza Klein models basically have this property with everything moving through a higher dimensional space (5, 10, and 26 dimensions being popular) at the "speed of light", but which are constrained at the macroscopic level to four dimensions, which are what we observe. When they are, some of those things appear to move slower than the speed of light, because more of their paths are in the alternate dimensional directions.
In order for the free market to work well, the government must set the rules so that the most efficient way to profit is by making better/cheaper products.
Markets already do most of the work by enabling trade, which is voluntary for the parties to the trade contract. You still have externalities.
It moved money out of the hands of an irresponsible party. Keep in mind that unlike the mugger example I gave earlier, Knight Capital agreed to every disadvantageous trade.
Automated trading is not a natural parts of the market.
Given that the stock markets themselves are near entirely run by computers now, you would be wrong. It is natural to automate trading with an automated market. A lot of market maker strategies are pretty easy to implement with a computer algorithm.
While this is an excellent point, the original poster claimed it was a cost of "markets" in general not of particular implementations of markets (or rather supporting infrastructure since the bailouts aren't a direct feature of the markets to be honest, but would be factored into market decisions). Thus, I was rebutting a blanket statement about all markets.
And when one gets to fixing such problems or reducing such costs, I can't imagine that the idea of getting of markets altogether is going to fly at all. Markets are basically just communities or infrastructure of trade. I can't see a society being viable when you're destroying one of its prime features and advantages.
But changing an implementation of markets so that certain effects don't happen as much? That's not a huge leap.
Just because you do not know many entities following my "standard" doesn't mean there isn't many following it. So yes, like it or not, it is a standard.
Among other things, it means you have people in pace so that they can do things like that scientific stuff you seem to value. Even in the classic flag planting exercises of the Apollo program, they never spent more than a few minutes on that. For the later missions, they spent days doing actual science and exploration.
We have nothing better to do than read your sig. But your sig doesn't show when someone is replying to your post. Next time you're going through the logs, you might want to fix that.
You're still left making the ridiculous assertion that governments want to spend more money and run bigger deficits.
If you had actually kept up with the thread, you would have noticed that I don't make that assertion.
Governments actually don't want to spend money, and they don't want high taxes. But they want certain services more so are willing to spend a lot of money and run big deficits.
"Services" that happen to require a lot of flunkies, shiny buildings, pretty hardware, and a nice view. And as I note, some of those "services" seem rather imaginary in nature.
I'm entirely unconvinced that governments would spend that kind of money if they weren't convinced AGW was true.
That's ok. You can change your mind later when you get an attack of common sense. When you actually see governments act in this way as I have, you realize that they'd do a lot worse than spend vast sums of money on imaginary problems.
(you also have the inconvenient fact of all those private insurance companies who are convinced AGW is real and placing their bets accordingly)
I see talk without action. It's only a fact, if it's actually happening. I'll just point out the often missed fact that most such alleged AGW damage is actually very specific, US flood damage which is caused by subsidizing the insuring of property in flood-prone areas rather than some climatic issue.
They're not remotely the same size. Green industry is TINY. Finance will get money from wherever. News has a big incentive to downplay the scientific consensus to generate controversy. And fossil fuels are an industry worth trillions of dollars that's at existential risk if AGW predictions are accepted.
That would have been a true statement twenty years ago, it isn't any more. And fossil fuels won't be at existential risk until the developing world and OPEC comply. That probably won't happen until fossil fuels aren't particularly competitive with the other choices out there IMHO.
And no system is perfect. So the real question is whether there is anything that works better than a market based approach? I see the answer as more or less "no". Instead the quibbling is over what regulation the market should have rather than whether it should be a market in the first place.
But, among other things, it has all kinds of problems with time - implicitly assuming that people who aren't even born yet can all participate in the same market. Suppose I develop a cure for cancer? How do people from the future (who benefit from my cure) "pay" me for my cure? It's not like they can just load a bunch of goods and service into a time machine and send it all back.
It's not a problem since if there are unaddressed externalities between present trades and people from the future, then the theorem doesn't hold true. Conversely, if you have adequately removed the externalities between present and future, then the theorem does apply.
Another way to look at it, is supposed you have two isolated populations of sentient beings, say humans on Earth and Centaurians from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Even if they are completely ignorant of each other's planet, the collective pair of markets can still meet the conditions of Coase's theorem.
The absence of possible trade in various goods between these two markets is irrelevant. One doesn't require the existence of all possible trade in order for a market to satisfy the conditions of Coase's theorem.
As I see it, the real problem is with the "perfect information" assumption, though the existence of liquid, well functioning markets significant contributes towards that condition IMHO.
Governments spending taxpayer money weakens the incentive effect but doesn't make it vanish.
And if you kill a lot of passenger pigeons, you just greatly weaken their numbers, you don't actually drive them to extinction. The problem with these sorts of assertions is that you can do enough of the activity in question to make something vanish even when it was very numerous at one time.
The EU politicians have every reason to spend as little on AGW as possible.
I already explained why that wasn't true. There's a lot of room for empire building once you have an eternal crisis like catastrophic AGW or the US's War on Drugs.
No one profits from AGW, not seriously anyways.
The finance industry does. For example, the carbon credit markets in Europe or the loan guarantees and financing for renewable energy and public transportation projects throughout the developed world.
If that capital didn't go to renewable energy and public transportation it would go to other investment opportunities. There might be a claim that finance could get slightly bigger by regulating the carbon credit markets but that's not a particularly strong incentive, particularly when compared to the massive incentives of the automotive and fossil fuel industries.
I see words, but I don't see a relevant argument. The incentives I mention are just as big as they are for those fossil fuel-dependent industries, even if you choose not to recognize them as such.
Are you saying that a gang of "market makers" aka high priests aka railroad barons aka oligarchs, should run the economy because only they know the esoteric and unseen illusions in the system which they themselves engineered?
Sounds like it shouldn't be you, that's for sure. Anyone who thinks that trading stock, even when done really fast, is "run the economy" shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
Because it was an automated trade system. And what are humans going to do that would be relevant here? Approval doesn't mean that they would have a clue whether the trade was valid or not.
Personally, I believe there's absolutely no reason to care here, if there are people trading in microseconds or holding stock for periods shorter than a heart beat. It's not your business.
It was not designed for gambling, which is what it has become.
Speculation and market making are natural parts of the market even when they aren't intended. And it's not gambling if there is as usually is the case a reasonable expectation for profit.
This level of trading does not do the market any good, and puts individual investors at a severe disadvantage against firms like this.
It can be stopped. And it should be stopped. And the only reason it is not being stopped is because too many rich and powerful people make too much money on it.
I have a solution to this. How about we tell you to go fuck yourself. You then go fuck yourself. And since no poorly thought out change to the system occurs, no breaking of the system occurs. And the non-problem is solved through the power of inaction.
This level of trading does do the market good with liquidity, fast response to changes in knowledge, testing of computer trading models, and development of new R&D gear. Just because you don't recognize these benefits, doesn't mean they don't exist.
As to "individual investors", they're already at a severe disadvantage relative to wealthy investors due to their far smaller ownership of capital with those economies of scale, and should be. The stock market isn't democratic. It's not meant to be fair to the small guy. So it isn't. End of story.
And of course, we have yet another anonymous poster completely ignorant of the purpose and benefits of a stock market worrying about rich and powerful people making "too much money" on it. Can't you be bothered to learn about something first before you pass judgment on it?
The market is not self regulating, unless it is self regulating towards oligopolies, oligopsonies, cartels, and general shittiness.
The market wasn't the problem in the Greenspan case. It was easy lending by the federal reserve combined with really high leverage. The first is the fault of the Fed, the very group led by Greenspan. The second is the fault of federal regulators who let us note are part of the largest monopoly in the world and not subject to market forces.
So despite his attempts to mince words, the results of his Ayn Randian ideology ended up being exactly what one would historically expect from not having meaningful regulation.
I suppose that might be true, but why would one expect markets to instantly compensate for changes in government regulation?
There's also the problem of what would have worked better. Recall that the whole reason the Feds were in this mess in the first place was because the US government was trying to grow its way out of the 2000-2001 dotcom collapse and the aftermath of 9/11. If the US government hadn't been manipulating the market in the first place with really low interest rates and extremely large leverage rules, then the "market" wouldn't have ended up in crisis in 2008.
Slashdot Mirror
The next brain-melting thing to consider is that, perhaps, everything moves at the speed of light - not through space, but through spacetime.
Kaluza Klein models basically have this property with everything moving through a higher dimensional space (5, 10, and 26 dimensions being popular) at the "speed of light", but which are constrained at the macroscopic level to four dimensions, which are what we observe. When they are, some of those things appear to move slower than the speed of light, because more of their paths are in the alternate dimensional directions.
In order for the free market to work well, the government must set the rules so that the most efficient way to profit is by making better/cheaper products.
Markets already do most of the work by enabling trade, which is voluntary for the parties to the trade contract. You still have externalities.
It removed money from the hands of an irresponsible party. And unlike my mugger example, Knight Capital agreed to these trades.
It moved money out of the hands of an irresponsible party. Keep in mind that unlike the mugger example I gave earlier, Knight Capital agreed to every disadvantageous trade.
Automated trading is not a natural parts of the market.
Given that the stock markets themselves are near entirely run by computers now, you would be wrong. It is natural to automate trading with an automated market. A lot of market maker strategies are pretty easy to implement with a computer algorithm.
While this is an excellent point, the original poster claimed it was a cost of "markets" in general not of particular implementations of markets (or rather supporting infrastructure since the bailouts aren't a direct feature of the markets to be honest, but would be factored into market decisions). Thus, I was rebutting a blanket statement about all markets.
And when one gets to fixing such problems or reducing such costs, I can't imagine that the idea of getting of markets altogether is going to fly at all. Markets are basically just communities or infrastructure of trade. I can't see a society being viable when you're destroying one of its prime features and advantages.
But changing an implementation of markets so that certain effects don't happen as much? That's not a huge leap.
Just because you do not know many entities following my "standard" doesn't mean there isn't many following it. So yes, like it or not, it is a standard.
Whatever. Go back to reading your David Hume.
I'm not sure why you're complaining. He provided a citation. That makes it scientific!
To use 1000 we need an English word for "reaches or exceeds".
Clearly unpossible.
You got the meanings of truth and realty mixed up according to my standard but then again, I understand what you're saying...
It's not much of a "standard", if you're the only one following it.
Realty is more often than you wished an illusion while there is only one truth.
By commonly held definition, if it is illusion, it is not reality. But having said that, people do confuse their perceptions and beliefs with reality.
what's so great about planting flags?
Among other things, it means you have people in pace so that they can do things like that scientific stuff you seem to value. Even in the classic flag planting exercises of the Apollo program, they never spent more than a few minutes on that. For the later missions, they spent days doing actual science and exploration.
We have nothing better to do than read your sig. But your sig doesn't show when someone is replying to your post. Next time you're going through the logs, you might want to fix that.
You're still left making the ridiculous assertion that governments want to spend more money and run bigger deficits.
If you had actually kept up with the thread, you would have noticed that I don't make that assertion.
Governments actually don't want to spend money, and they don't want high taxes. But they want certain services more so are willing to spend a lot of money and run big deficits.
"Services" that happen to require a lot of flunkies, shiny buildings, pretty hardware, and a nice view. And as I note, some of those "services" seem rather imaginary in nature.
I'm entirely unconvinced that governments would spend that kind of money if they weren't convinced AGW was true.
That's ok. You can change your mind later when you get an attack of common sense. When you actually see governments act in this way as I have, you realize that they'd do a lot worse than spend vast sums of money on imaginary problems.
(you also have the inconvenient fact of all those private insurance companies who are convinced AGW is real and placing their bets accordingly)
I see talk without action. It's only a fact, if it's actually happening. I'll just point out the often missed fact that most such alleged AGW damage is actually very specific, US flood damage which is caused by subsidizing the insuring of property in flood-prone areas rather than some climatic issue.
They're not remotely the same size. Green industry is TINY. Finance will get money from wherever. News has a big incentive to downplay the scientific consensus to generate controversy. And fossil fuels are an industry worth trillions of dollars that's at existential risk if AGW predictions are accepted.
That would have been a true statement twenty years ago, it isn't any more. And fossil fuels won't be at existential risk until the developing world and OPEC comply. That probably won't happen until fossil fuels aren't particularly competitive with the other choices out there IMHO.
Bailouts aren't a market feature.
And no system is perfect. So the real question is whether there is anything that works better than a market based approach? I see the answer as more or less "no". Instead the quibbling is over what regulation the market should have rather than whether it should be a market in the first place.
But, among other things, it has all kinds of problems with time - implicitly assuming that people who aren't even born yet can all participate in the same market. Suppose I develop a cure for cancer? How do people from the future (who benefit from my cure) "pay" me for my cure? It's not like they can just load a bunch of goods and service into a time machine and send it all back.
It's not a problem since if there are unaddressed externalities between present trades and people from the future, then the theorem doesn't hold true. Conversely, if you have adequately removed the externalities between present and future, then the theorem does apply.
Another way to look at it, is supposed you have two isolated populations of sentient beings, say humans on Earth and Centaurians from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Even if they are completely ignorant of each other's planet, the collective pair of markets can still meet the conditions of Coase's theorem.
The absence of possible trade in various goods between these two markets is irrelevant. One doesn't require the existence of all possible trade in order for a market to satisfy the conditions of Coase's theorem.
As I see it, the real problem is with the "perfect information" assumption, though the existence of liquid, well functioning markets significant contributes towards that condition IMHO.
Governments spending taxpayer money weakens the incentive effect but doesn't make it vanish.
And if you kill a lot of passenger pigeons, you just greatly weaken their numbers, you don't actually drive them to extinction. The problem with these sorts of assertions is that you can do enough of the activity in question to make something vanish even when it was very numerous at one time.
The EU politicians have every reason to spend as little on AGW as possible.
I already explained why that wasn't true. There's a lot of room for empire building once you have an eternal crisis like catastrophic AGW or the US's War on Drugs.
No one profits from AGW, not seriously anyways.
The finance industry does. For example, the carbon credit markets in Europe or the loan guarantees and financing for renewable energy and public transportation projects throughout the developed world.
If that capital didn't go to renewable energy and public transportation it would go to other investment opportunities. There might be a claim that finance could get slightly bigger by regulating the carbon credit markets but that's not a particularly strong incentive, particularly when compared to the massive incentives of the automotive and fossil fuel industries.
I see words, but I don't see a relevant argument. The incentives I mention are just as big as they are for those fossil fuel-dependent industries, even if you choose not to recognize them as such.
Are you saying that a gang of "market makers" aka high priests aka railroad barons aka oligarchs, should run the economy because only they know the esoteric and unseen illusions in the system which they themselves engineered?
Sounds like it shouldn't be you, that's for sure. Anyone who thinks that trading stock, even when done really fast, is "run the economy" shouldn't be anywhere near a position of power.
Because it was an automated trade system. And what are humans going to do that would be relevant here? Approval doesn't mean that they would have a clue whether the trade was valid or not.
So in your book, seven orders of magnitude increase in frequency is not relatively high frequency.
Aside from this not being a case of begging the question, why shouldn't they mention it? Bugs and faults in other languages never occur in Python?
It was not designed for gambling, which is what it has become.
Speculation and market making are natural parts of the market even when they aren't intended. And it's not gambling if there is as usually is the case a reasonable expectation for profit.
This level of trading does not do the market any good, and puts individual investors at a severe disadvantage against firms like this.
It can be stopped. And it should be stopped. And the only reason it is not being stopped is because too many rich and powerful people make too much money on it.
I have a solution to this. How about we tell you to go fuck yourself. You then go fuck yourself. And since no poorly thought out change to the system occurs, no breaking of the system occurs. And the non-problem is solved through the power of inaction.
This level of trading does do the market good with liquidity, fast response to changes in knowledge, testing of computer trading models, and development of new R&D gear. Just because you don't recognize these benefits, doesn't mean they don't exist.
As to "individual investors", they're already at a severe disadvantage relative to wealthy investors due to their far smaller ownership of capital with those economies of scale, and should be. The stock market isn't democratic. It's not meant to be fair to the small guy. So it isn't. End of story.
And of course, we have yet another anonymous poster completely ignorant of the purpose and benefits of a stock market worrying about rich and powerful people making "too much money" on it. Can't you be bothered to learn about something first before you pass judgment on it?
It's like a Catholic catechism. No matter what data is presented, win loss or draw, it's evidence of how efficient the free market is. Well done.
Except the data supports the assertion made.
The market is not self regulating, unless it is self regulating towards oligopolies, oligopsonies, cartels, and general shittiness.
The market wasn't the problem in the Greenspan case. It was easy lending by the federal reserve combined with really high leverage. The first is the fault of the Fed, the very group led by Greenspan. The second is the fault of federal regulators who let us note are part of the largest monopoly in the world and not subject to market forces.
So despite his attempts to mince words, the results of his Ayn Randian ideology ended up being exactly what one would historically expect from not having meaningful regulation.
I suppose that might be true, but why would one expect markets to instantly compensate for changes in government regulation?
There's also the problem of what would have worked better. Recall that the whole reason the Feds were in this mess in the first place was because the US government was trying to grow its way out of the 2000-2001 dotcom collapse and the aftermath of 9/11. If the US government hadn't been manipulating the market in the first place with really low interest rates and extremely large leverage rules, then the "market" wouldn't have ended up in crisis in 2008.
The mugger redistributes money as well. If value isn't created as part of the "redistribution" it's a waste.