Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Real Man who wrote (84001)	7/22/2007 6:12:29 AM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

On the grand scale - is central planning preferred? Many here do not seem to like central planning relating to economies - they want each individual economic agent to make decisions as it affects them personally in the immediate time frame through the open marketplace (ala gold) A fiat money system with bankers and dark matter wall street brokers removes some or all of the power of the individual economic agents and centralizes it. Now I enjoy my city that was centrally planned - and many other systems that were centrally planned. (but as the katrina disaster shows - sometimes central planning is too slow and unresponsive) Relating to the stock market - who is better at bringing long term prosperity - hundreds of thousands of short term focused individual agents or a few big think tanks at the top looking at multi decade outcomes? (I just watched a dvd that the long term prosperity the IMF has wanted to bring to jamaica was a flop) My poli sci professors said benevelont dictatorship was the preferred form of gubbment. Take wall street for example - I have been arguing with elroy that if it wasn't for taxes and wealth redistribution (and planning over the long term - like decades) - wall street doesn't have the foresight to train researchers on a 30 year time frame (from birth to PHD) - it takes a centrally planned gubbment to do that no? Wall street is worried about next quarters earnings - not 20 years from now. I have read articles on china where their families make decisions that affect 3 generations and are multi decade long planning but here in current USA decisions are made more and more on short term and damn the long term consequences. Some traders here say YAH - china is smart for doing this and USA is short term focused IDIOTS - but in the next breath they curse bankers and wall street types that want to remove short term decisions from the traders hand and try to emulate china's system. So I have read this book, I ROBOT about the stock markets and economies being centrally planned by intelligent computers and taking the power away from individual economic agents. The arguement I can see against this is that if you give all that power to a benvelont dictator and he turns evil - you got a problem - like SKYNET in the terminator movies - but if SKYNET is benevolent - you can have a wonderful future. Some things just don't seem possible unless you have long term central planning though to me. This talk of dark liquidity relates directly to this meme it seems to me - do we give lots of short term traders the torch to carry our progress into the future or do we give more power to long term planners? The founding fathers said absolute power corrupts right? If we could just shore up the corruption central planning can work - I blame the american people for being complacent and watching DEAL OR NO DEAL instead of turning on cspan and voting out people who let loans get made with no controls. I know too many friends who do no disaster planning or practice for disaster - they wait til disaster strikes and then react (often too late) So in the war of ideas - we have bankers and gubbment types that want more long term long range goals and control, and traders on the other end that want more short term goals and control - which is better for our collective future - perhaps some mix of the 2. One of my PHD friends that programs some of these trading algorithms explained it to me this way - recently there was a contest over the internet where something like 50,000 people were able to collectively suggest moves in a computer chess game against a high IQ AI chess program. If I remember correctly the 50,000 humans lost - the reason being is that IQ does not go up as you add more people of average intelligence. It is like a programming book I was given by one of my CS professors about the "mythical man month" - adding more programmers did not make a project get done faster - things just don't scale that way. Applied to stock trading - adding 400 million more traders will not necessarily make the market more efficient. So if you want to win the chess game - you just need one REALLY HIGH IQ being at the top - not 500 million average IQ beings at the bottom - but boy you better hope that one IQ being at the top never gets mad at those 500 million at the bottom or starts to RAPE them like wall street seems to be doing - HAHA! If our gubbment and wall street was more open, I would not have the problems I do have now with giving the gubbment and wall street more power. Perhaps the american people will turn off DEAL OR NO DEAL when they can't afford the made in china products at walmart anymore and start voting in some people that will make some needed changes. Then that good gubbment can be given more power and then probably turn evil from too much power and then the cycle repeats.