Re: Interstellar Trade
Dan Goodman
> > Take someone who's going to be in coldsleep for 200 years. How
> > should he/she invest for the future?
>
> In cryogenics stock. If he survives the cold sleep, the model/copany
> will have proven successful and make lots of money. If the model is
> flawed, his money will be lost but that won't matter to him because
> he's a deep-frozen corpse.
Thank you! That makes a lot of sense.
One cautionary note: The model might be successful, but the company
might have gone the way of computer companies whose offices had signs
saying "Help stamp out transistors."
--
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://clerkfuturist.wordpress.com
Mirror Journal http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
Mirror 2 http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood
Jack May
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:488d1dd8$0$90340$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> MacFr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>> > Take someone who's going to be in coldsleep for 200 years. How
>> > should he/she invest for the future?
>>
>> In cryogenics stock. If he survives the cold sleep, the model/copany
>> will have proven successful and make lots of money. If the model is
>> flawed, his money will be lost but that won't matter to him because
>> he's a deep-frozen corpse.
>
> Thank you! That makes a lot of sense.
>
> One cautionary note: The model might be successful, but the company
> might have gone the way of computer companies whose offices had signs
There is an article in the July 19, 2008 issue of New Scientist with the
title:
"Why economic theory is out of whack"
It talks about how the only thing that effects stock market prices is
probably the rumors that are passed around among traders. They definitely
found out that there is no relation between the financial news and stock
market movements.
Of course Wall Street Traders act just like sheep and follow what the other
sheep are doing to make their trades. There is no real knowledge in the
stock market, just random movements.
There is probably no way to make a prediction of what a good investment
would be for 200 years from now.
Dan Goodman
Which would probably mean depending on a financial advisor to shift
investments over the decades. But a competent person might have
incompetent grandchildren....
David Friedman
...
> There is an article in the July 19, 2008 issue of New Scientist with
> the title:
> "Why economic theory is out of whack"
>
> It talks about how the only thing that effects stock market prices is
> probably the rumors that are passed around among traders. They
> definitely found out that there is no relation between the financial
> news and stock market movements.
If that was really their conclusion, rather than your exaggerated
summary thereof, they are claiming a result they couldn't possibly have
the data to support, hence you should not take their conclusions very
seriously.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Jack May
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-6D2D2F.0...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> Jack May wrote:
>
> If that was really their conclusion, rather than your exaggerated
> summary thereof, they are claiming a result they couldn't possibly have
> the data to support, hence you should not take their conclusions very
> seriously.
They have data to support their statement as discussed in the article. This
is a true research effort, not some seat of the pants guess. They have a
simulation showing communications between brokers does determine market
changes.
They have not figured out yet how to measure this communications effect yet.
That would require some how of measuring communications between people and
what was communicated. Not an easy thing to do.
Jack May
> Jack May wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:488d1dd8$0$90340$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
>> > MacFr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> Which would probably mean depending on a financial advisor to shift
> investments over the decades. But a competent person might have
> incompetent grandchildren....
Yes, you need to reads the trends of what is being favored by Wall Street in
the random fluctuations of the market. Essentially you need to figure out
the direction the "sheep" are traveling and follow them :-)
That is what the people on Wall Street do by talking with each other a lot.
For those of us not on Wall Street, that is much harder so we are at a
distinct disadvantage. CNBC helps but I am not sure how much.
Jack May
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-6D2D2F.0...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>
> ...
>
>> There is an article in the July 19, 2008 issue of New Scientist with
>> the title:
>
>> "Why economic theory is out of whack"
>>
>> It talks about how the only thing that effects stock market prices is
>> probably the rumors that are passed around among traders. They
>> definitely found out that there is no relation between the financial
>> news and stock market movements.
>
>
> If that was really their conclusion, rather than your exaggerated
> summary thereof, they are claiming a result they couldn't possibly have
> the data to support, hence you should not take their conclusions very
> seriously.
The New Scientist article is at:
I don't know if you can see just part of the story or the full story without
logging on to New Scientist. I am a New Scientist subscriber so I logged on
for the full story. The URL is for the full story.
The research paper it is talking about is at:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0803/0803.1769v1.pdf
David Friedman
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
> news:ddfr-6D2D2F.0...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> > Jack May wrote:
>
> >
> > If that was really their conclusion, rather than your exaggerated
> > summary thereof, they are claiming a result they couldn't possibly have
> > the data to support, hence you should not take their conclusions very
> > seriously.
>
> They have data to support their statement as discussed in the article. This
> is a true research effort, not some seat of the pants guess.
Yes. But their conclusion isn't as reported, or even very close.
David Friedman
"Jack May" <jack...@comcast.net> wrote:
Thanks.
Your summary may have been accurate wrt the article, which I haven't
read, but if so the article misrepresented the paper.
To begin with, they are talking only about "large jumps" in stock price,
not about all changes in stock prices. Further, they find some relation
between published financial news and such jumps, just not very much. And
they write:
"So not only most jumps are not induced by news: most news do not induce
any real jump at all! This decoupling means that most news are either
expected (through rumors and leakage) or deemed insignificant by the
market:"
If what's happening is that the news gets out before it appears in
published form, then the news is indeed affecting stock price movements,
it's just doing it through channels faster than the Dow Jones news feed.
That's entirely consistent with conventional economic theory.
James A. Donald
> > If that was really their conclusion, rather than
> > your exaggerated summary thereof, they are claiming
> > a result they couldn't possibly have the data to
> > support, hence you should not take their conclusions
> > very seriously.
Jack May
> They have data to support their statement as discussed
> in the article.
They made a religious affirmation which sounded
superficially as if they were saying that there is no
relation between the financial news and stock market
movements, but in fact was merely an affirmation that
the stock market is inherently sinful, and financial
news morally repugnant.
They did not conclude, nor provide evidence, that there
was no relation between the financial news and stock
market movements, but that there was no relation between
financial news and what the response of the stock
markets would be if the stock market was as morally wise
and enlightened as the writers for New Scientist are,
and the readers should be.
Since much of this virtue consisted of disdain for mere
material considerations, it is unsurprising that stock
market speculators fell short of these paragons of
virtue.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Dan Goodman
>
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:488d5122$0$60070$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> > Jack May wrote:
> >
> > >
> >>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > > news:488d1dd8$0$90340$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> >>> MacFr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> >
> > Which would probably mean depending on a financial advisor to shift
> > investments over the decades. But a competent person might have
> > incompetent grandchildren....
>
> Yes, you need to reads the trends of what is being favored by Wall
> Street in the random fluctuations of the market. Essentially you
> need to figure out the direction the "sheep" are traveling and follow
> them :-)
>
> That is what the people on Wall Street do by talking with each other
> a lot. For those of us not on Wall Street, that is much harder so we
> are at a distinct disadvantage. CNBC helps but I am not sure how
> much.
But you also need to figure out the _next_ direction the sheep will
move in.
Dan Goodman
Which leads me to think about stock price movements in a society where
most people are telepaths, and can know what the experts are thinking
_right now_ -- if they can get close enough to those experts.
James A. Donald
> any real jump at all! This decoupling means that most news are either
> expected (through rumors and leakage) or deemed insignificant by the
> market:"
This was less anticapitalist than I recollected. My account of the
article was inaccurate. Perhaps I just glanced at the article, my eyes
glazed over, and I presupposed it was the usual tripe.
Graham Woodland
> Jack May wrote:
>
>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:488d5122$0$60070$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
>>> Jack May wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:488d1dd8$0$90340$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
>>>>> MacFr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>>> Which would probably mean depending on a financial advisor to shift
>>> investments over the decades. But a competent person might have
>>> incompetent grandchildren....
>> Yes, you need to reads the trends of what is being favored by Wall
>> Street in the random fluctuations of the market. Essentially you
>> need to figure out the direction the "sheep" are traveling and follow
>> them :-)
>>
>> That is what the people on Wall Street do by talking with each other
>> a lot. For those of us not on Wall Street, that is much harder so we
>> are at a distinct disadvantage. CNBC helps but I am not sure how
>> much.
>
> But you also need to figure out the _next_ direction the sheep will
> move in.
>
And that is more important. One of the very worst places to be
is last leaper onto the bandwagon before it runs off the road:
_vide_ the stock bubble of your choice.
There may be quite a bit of information to be had cheap by
following Warren Baaffet or some more obscure bellwether, but
very little to be gained by following other sheep who know only
that they are following other sheep, who know only... until
suddenly, on the plains far below, an unpleasant and woolly rain
begins to fall.
--
Cheers,
Gray
---
To unmung address, lop off the 'be invalid' command.
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman wrote:
> > Jack May wrote:
> >
> >>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > > news:488d5122$0$60070$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> > > > Jack May wrote:
> > > >
> >>>>"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:488d1dd8$0$90340$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> > > > > > MacFr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > > Which would probably mean depending on a financial advisor to
> > > > shift investments over the decades. But a competent person
> > > > might have incompetent grandchildren....
> > > Yes, you need to reads the trends of what is being favored by Wall
> > > Street in the random fluctuations of the market. Essentially you
> > > need to figure out the direction the "sheep" are traveling and
> > > follow them :-)
> > >
> > > That is what the people on Wall Street do by talking with each
> > > other a lot. For those of us not on Wall Street, that is much
> > > harder so we are at a distinct disadvantage. CNBC helps but I am
> > > not sure how much.
> >
> > But you also need to figure out the next direction the sheep will
> > move in.
> >
>
> And that is more important. One of the very worst places to be is
> last leaper onto the bandwagon before it runs off the road: vide the
> stock bubble of your choice.
Or the real estate bubble.
> There may be quite a bit of information to be had cheap by following
> Warren Baaffet or some more obscure bellwether, but very little to be
> gained by following other sheep who know only that they are following
> other sheep, who know only... until suddenly, on the plains far
> below, an unpleasant and woolly rain begins to fall.
One simple indicator: Experts saying "This is not a bubble. This
market will never fall, because...."
constan...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <fYGdnU6V39R-PBLVnZ2dnUVZ_qPin...@comcast.com>,
> "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "David Friedman" <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote in message
> >news:ddfr-6D2D2F.0...@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
> > > Jack May wrote:
>
> > > ...
>
> > >> There is an article in the July 19, 2008 issue of New Scientist with
> > >> the title:
>
> > >> "Why economic theory is out of whack"
>
> > >> It talks about how the only thing that effects stock market prices is
> > >> probably the rumors that are passed around among traders. They
> > >> definitely found out that there is no relation between the financial
> > >> news and stock market movements.
>
> > > If that was really their conclusion, rather than your exaggerated
> > > summary thereof, they are claiming a result they couldn't possibly have
> > > the data to support, hence you should not take their conclusions very
> > > seriously.
>
> > The New Scientist article is at:
>
> > eory-is-out-of-whack.html
>
> > I don't know if you can see just part of the story or the full story without
> > logging on to New Scientist. I am a New Scientist subscriber so I logged on
> > for the full story. The URL is for the full story.
>
> > The research paper it is talking about is at:
>
> >http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0803/0803.1769v1.pdf
>
> Thanks.
>
> Your summary may have been accurate wrt the article, which I haven't
> read, but if so the article misrepresented the paper.
>
> To begin with, they are talking only about "large jumps" in stock price,
> not about all changes in stock prices. Further, they find some relation
> between published financial news and such jumps, just not very much. And
> they write:
>
> "So not only most jumps are not induced by news: most news do not induce
> any real jump at all! This decoupling means that most news are either
> expected (through rumors and leakage) or deemed insignificant by the
> market:"
>
> If what's happening is that the news gets out before it appears in
> published form, then the news is indeed affecting stock price movements,
> it's just doing it through channels faster than the Dow Jones news feed.
> That's entirely consistent with conventional economic theory.
Price adjustments occurring before the news is made public sounds a
bit like insider trading. In any case the opposite of "sheep" with "no
real knowledge".
David Friedman
<cd6ea217-83bb-4f50...@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
constan...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If what's happening is that the news gets out before it appears in
> > published form, then the news is indeed affecting stock price movements,
> > it's just doing it through channels faster than the Dow Jones news feed.
> > That's entirely consistent with conventional economic theory.
>
> Price adjustments occurring before the news is made public sounds a
> bit like insider trading. In any case the opposite of "sheep" with "no
> real knowledge".
It could be insider trading in the legal sense, but it doesn't have to
be. It isn't illegal trade on information that has not yet been
published, as long as you didn't get it by being an insider in the legal
sense of the term--in particular, an employee of the company the news is
about.
Suppose I'm a researcher, and I make a discovery that will obviously
give my firm a big advantage over its competitors. It's clearly illegal
for me to buy stock in my firm at that point, before the news is made
public.
Is it illegal for me to short the stock of a competitor?
David Friedman
"Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> > If what's happening is that the news gets out before it appears in
> > published form, then the news is indeed affecting stock price
> > movements, it's just doing it through channels faster than the Dow
> > Jones news feed. That's entirely consistent with conventional
> > economic theory.
>
> Which leads me to think about stock price movements in a society where
> most people are telepaths, and can know what the experts are thinking
> _right now_ -- if they can get close enough to those experts.
And if they are sufficiently expert themselves at identifying real
experts.
Consider all the people online who honestly believe themselves to be
experts in one area or another.
Straha
So the mass media becomes the blogosphere but with more money?
Dan Goodman
> In article <488fcff8$0$90343$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com>,
> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote:
>
> > > If what's happening is that the news gets out before it appears
> > > in published form, then the news is indeed affecting stock price
> > > movements, it's just doing it through channels faster than the Dow
> > > Jones news feed. That's entirely consistent with conventional
> > > economic theory.
> >
> > Which leads me to think about stock price movements in a society
> > where most people are telepaths, and can know what the experts are
> > thinking _right now_ -- if they can get close enough to those
> > experts.
>
> And if they are sufficiently expert themselves at identifying real
> experts.
>
> Consider all the people online who honestly believe themselves to be
> experts in one area or another.
Also consider all the people who have good credentials as experts --
and whose expertise can be questioned. You've probably encountered the
theory that MBA degrees are worse than useless.
I gather there are political operatives who haven't quite adjusted to
the existence of cable tv channels. And there are cases where someone
who's been successful in one state is hired to run a campaign in
another state -- and is insufficiently aware of local differences.
James A. Donald
> Price adjustments occurring before the news is made
> public sounds a bit like insider trading. In any case
> the opposite of "sheep" with "no real knowledge".
In the case of the mortgage crisis, I, who am far from
being an insider, became aware in 2005 November 15 that
lenders were panicking, that they had discovered that a
very large proportion of loans were dud or fraudulent,
and I concluded therefore that mortgages were about to
become much more difficult to get, and that housing
prices would then fall.
So presumably a very large proportion of people who
mattered were aware of this crisis for several months
before it was reported in the mainstream press.
So if I knew, surely some reporters knew, so why was it
not reported? It was not reported because it was
anecdote and deduction, straws in the wind, inference
and implication from things unsaid and deeds undone,
lies not quite stated but still with the sound of a lie.
You know all that spam saying "no money, no job, no
assets? No problem! Buy the house of your dreams!"
It had become apparent to me that they were not kidding.
These loans were being made. In fact during the period
may to november, most loans were like this. Then a
housing appraiser complained to me of being caught
between the demands of his clients for a high appraisal,
and the suspicions of lenders - that lenders had quite
suddenly started getting tough, from which I concluded
that the lenders had recently discovered what I had
known for quite some time.
That is not something you can publish in a newspaper as
a fact, even though I was entirely sure that it was a
fact. What cannot go on forever must stop, and now it
was stopping.
Richard D. Latham
"Its different _here_" is pretty reliable too.
--
#include <disclaimer.std> /* I don't speak for IBM ... */
/* Heck, I don't even speak for myself */
/* Don't believe me ? Ask my wife :-) */
Richard D. Latham lat...@us.ibm.com
J. Clarke
There's more to it than that if you're looking at 200 years. What
companies that were listed on the London exchange in 1808 are still in
business and doing well?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Dan Goodman
> Dan Goodman wrote:
> > Jack May wrote:
> >
> > >
> >> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> >> news:488d5122$0$60070$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> >>> Jack May wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> >>>> "Dan Goodman" <dsg...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:488d1dd8$0$90340$8046...@auth.newsreader.iphouse.com...
> >>>>> MacFr...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > > >
> >>> Which would probably mean depending on a financial advisor to
> >>> shift
> >>> investments over the decades. But a competent person might have
> >>> incompetent grandchildren....
> > >
> >> Yes, you need to reads the trends of what is being favored by Wall
> >> Street in the random fluctuations of the market. Essentially you
> >> need to figure out the direction the "sheep" are traveling and
> >> follow
> >> them :-)
> > >
> >> That is what the people on Wall Street do by talking with each
> >> other
> >> a lot. For those of us not on Wall Street, that is much harder so
> >> we
> >> are at a distinct disadvantage. CNBC helps but I am not sure how
> >> much.
> >
> > But you also need to figure out the next direction the sheep will
> > move in.
>
> There's more to it than that if you're looking at 200 years. What
> companies that were listed on the London exchange in 1808 are still
> in business and doing well?
I suspect that at least a few are. But yes -- forecasting which ones
would be would've been difficult.