It was this one: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029382.400-the-maths-that-saw-the-us-shutdown-coming.html#.Uo6MecSVPB4
On 22 November 2013 11:39, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > I stopped my NS subscription last year. > Do you recall anything I can Google? > I'll try 'the mathematics of crashes' > Yes. That works: > > http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html#.Uo6HTNK-qFA > > But this may be better: > http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/12/black-scholes-equation-credit-crunch > or > http://fivebooks.com/interviews/james-owen-weatherall-on-physics-and-financial-markets > > > But none seem to support or be concerned with the gist of my post that in > your words > (I suspect that there may be some truth to your statement) > "the capitalist system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich". > They are just too greedy for their own good. > Richard > > > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:10 PM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> >> There was an article in New Scientist recently about a mathematician who >> claims to have a theory which says roughly what you are saying - do you >> know anything about that? It sounds a bit like "the railways would run on >> time if it wasn't for the passengers!" -- or in this case, "the capitalist >> system would work fine if it wasn't for the rich" :) >> >> >> On 22 November 2013 10:53, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Bruno, >>> >>> The rich have been trying to take over the US govt to reduce their tax >>> burden for over 100 years. >>> >>> >>> Every time they have succeeded the result has been an economic crash >>> usually followed by war. >>> >>> That happened in 1857 after a decade of prosperity and then the crash >>> was followed by the Civil War within a decade. >>> >>> >>> Crash and Clash was repeated in 1893->WWI, >>> >>> and again in the real estate crash of 1926 and the Wall Street crash of >>> 1929->WWII. >>> >>> >>> In each case the very rich accumulated so much wealth that they caused >>> investment/debt bubbles resulting a crash. After the real estate crash of >>> 1926, rich investors then switched to stocks and caused the 1929 crash. We >>> have already experienced a real estate crash in 2008. and today we see >>> the stock exchange reaching never before heights. >>> >>> So we again are ripe for a crash which and if the lessons of the 1920s >>> are repeated, >>> >>> the crash will be much more severe than the 2008 Great Recession. >>> >>> >>> The roaring 20s prosperity came about when the top tax rate was reduced >>> to 25% along with finance deregulation. Since WWII and up to Reagan, >>> the top tax rates were between 90% and 70%, and at those rates the rich >>> tended to turn profits back into their companies and the recessions were >>> rather mild. But after Reagan reduced the top rates to 28%, the incentive >>> to accumulate wealth was strong resulting in a series of investment >>> bubbles. Recall the internet bubble at the turn of the century. And >>> deregulation resulted in the invention of derivatives. >>> >>> >>> So I think, and many bankers do as they are hoarding cash, that we are >>> headed for a serious stock market crash, and apparently just because the >>> very rich are making so much money, especially in derivatives which >>> continue to exist despite being the cause of the real estate crash. It is >>> said that the value of the derivative debt is orders of magnitude bigger >>> than the value of the entire world. >>> >>> >>> That sounds like a form of comp (;<) >>> >>> >>> Richard >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 10:11 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 13:41, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 21 Nov 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> If nobody complains on his local decentralized power, the central >>>>>> power >>>>>> should have nothing to say, but if the locals complain about their >>>>>> local >>>>>> powers, the central power can be used as an arbiter. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I agree that this is a risk. I don't claim that there is any system >>>>> that could be implemented and would solve all the problems, that's the >>>>> danger with ideologies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> My belief is that "human evolution" -> "better forms of governance", >>>>> not the other way around. So democracy, with all its flaws, was made >>>>> possible by a new level of human development. Here I mean evolution >>>>> and development in the broad sense, not the biological sense. This is >>>>> made clear by the attempts to force democracy on less developed >>>>> societies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> OK. >>>> >>>> >>>> My point is that, as we evolve further, maybe the >>>>> decentralized system can exist without incurring so much on the risks >>>>> that you mention, and at the same time being much more resilient to >>>>> sociopathic manipulations. >>>>> >>>> >>>> About this I am not sure. With local powers you augment the risk of the >>>> "little bureaucratic sort of bosses". >>>> With some level of "spiritual maturity", I can conceive that you are >>>> right, but since sometimes I am not sure such spiritual maturity exists, >>>> nor even that it is on a near horizon. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> The deeper problem relies in the fact that most humans are >>>>>>>> unwilling to >>>>>>>> think by themselves, and they confuse "p -> q" and "q -> p" all the >>>>>>>> times. >>>>>>>> The (human, but not only) sciences are still driven by the appeal to >>>>>>>> authority. We have never been "modern". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm happy to read this. I thought this confusion was a central >>>>>>> problem >>>>>>> in society for a long time, without being an expert in logic. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is that "p <-> q" is far better than nothing, in the >>>>>> short run, >>>>>> so our brains are hardwired to "reason" by association, instead, of >>>>>> logical >>>>>> validity. Logic is by essence counter-intuitive (which explains the >>>>>> logician's sense of humor). >>>>>> The short term/long term conflict is unavoidable. Humans face it all >>>>>> the >>>>>> time, like when hesitating to stop smoking, or to stop producing CO2, >>>>>> etc. >>>>>> It is even more complex today due to globalization. With the 20th >>>>>> century, >>>>>> earth has become a finite space, and this has to be taken into >>>>>> account, and >>>>>> it is not a simple task, as we have to change habits that we have >>>>>> since a >>>>>> very long time. In the long run, we will have to escape the planet and >>>>>> continue to run forward. But meanwhile, we have to accommodate with >>>>>> the >>>>>> finite resourcing, with or without global warming. That's a reason >>>>>> more to >>>>>> fight against corporatism, special private interests, international >>>>>> white >>>>>> collar criminality, etc. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Right, but the hope of some people who propose a radically free market >>>>> is that it would work more like the immune system, and that it would >>>>> allocate resources in a more efficient way than central control. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am for a free market. The market should be independent of the >>>> (central) power, except for the modalities of the contracts, the selling >>>> technic, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The >>>>> long term view is not foreign to markets. This is precisely what >>>>> investments are. Warren Buffet became extremely rich by taking a long >>>>> view on investments, not by doing high-frequency trading. But again, I >>>>> say this with the human evolution caveat in mind. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Local powers can easily design laws against foreigners, and develop >>>> selfish local profits method. In the UD this could enlarge the gap between >>>> black and white, or between middle class and lower classes. >>>> I would favor a stable central power, which would enforce few but basic >>>> important laws and rules, on which everyone agrees. Then the local powers >>>> can implement special politics and experiences. >>>> Somehow I do believe that the Americans were close to this, but they >>>> failed to prevent prohibition, and that remains a bit of a mystery for me. >>>> I am open to the idea that there has been a real well prepared conspiracy, >>>> not by "illuminati" but by by a collusion of special interests (paper, oil, >>>> pharma, military, jails, and the black market, etc.). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> I'm also strongly in favour of experiments. For example, and this >>>>> would certainly annoy most libertarians, I am very excited by the >>>>> Swiss plan to provide a base level of income to all citizens. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have always defended that idea. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I like >>>>> it because it's so simple and non-intrusive. You just give everyone >>>>> the same base income, no matter how poor or rich they are. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. That is what the communist never grasped. It makes no sense to >>>> distribute the money from the rich to the poor, this makes the richer less >>>> rich, and very quickly the poor even much less rich. As long as people >>>> don't use lies and dishonest methods, people should be able to enrich >>>> themselves as much as they want. But we must find a way to prevent the bad >>>> use of money to enrich oneself. And this asks for very special laws against >>>> the fake speculation. The problem is that with enough money, you can >>>> multiplied your richness easily by dishonest means, and this perverts the >>>> system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hopefully >>>>> it will remove unnecessary and even counter-productive jobs, free more >>>>> people from meaningless lives and attack the entire "job mentality". >>>>> One can hope... >>>>> >>>> >>>> I agree. I believe that it will be more easy to avoid >>>> counter-productive jobs if there is a minimal salary. It would stabilize >>>> the little markets, and would annoy only those who are addicted to "more >>>> money at all price". >>>> For the "job mentality", I'm afraid we will need a coming back to >>>> seriousness in the human sciences, but this will take time, and some >>>> catastrophes. The "job mentality" is not unrelated to the current >>>> institutionalized religions, and the current conception of reality. >>>> >>>> Bruno >>>> >>>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to [email protected]. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
