SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 10th, 2013, 6:59 pm

My recommendations as a naive hippie: orthogonalize economy and social affairs. Deregulate the first and regulate the second .. (repeatesd, I know).
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 1:12 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskMy personal social index is still the number of sleeping-cartons, say, under the Waterloo Bridge .. And this index is really volatile over longer periods ... Which-side-are-you-on matters, IMO.In the short-term, Liberal policies reduce this number and Conservative policies increase this number. In the long-term, Liberal policies increase this number and Conservative policies reduce this number. So, should we think short-term or long-term?Forcing companies to pay workers more than the worker is worth, forcing companies retain unneeded workers, and prohibiting companies from improving productivity ultimately lead to a much worse social index even if that serves the short-term interests of the workers.Interesting. This hypothesis is placed constantly .. but the tests in the laboratory of reality shows a completely different result. It's not that linear?The wine maker who makes wine for 1 a bottle can only drink his own wine.The wine maker who makes wine foe 4 a bottle cannot afford his pwn wine ...The wine maker who makes wine foe 15 a bottle can drink his own wine ...Who is "worth" what? Money is programmable, value is programmable ... But all we have in mind is programming the downturn to zero? No "value" no right no right no cunsumption no consumption ....?p.s. if computer designers had thought that way we still had fixed memory allocstions ...Hmmm... I would have thought is was much more linear as well as expressed in terms of profits, not prices:The wine maker who sells wine for 1 a bottle more than it costs to make starves to deathThe wine maker who sells wine for 4 a bottle more than it costs to make cannot afford his own wine ...The wine maker who sells wine for 15 a bottle more than it costs to make can drink his own wine ...The wine maker who sells wine for 70 a bottle more than it costs to make can drink champagne ...(NOTE: there's a second dimension to this -- quantity -- in that the wine maker who sells wine for 1 a bottle more than it costs but sells a million bottles a year can drink champagne, too.)In the short-term, the wine maker has some (but limited) control over decreasing the costs as well as some (but limited) control over increasing the selling price with cost and price being linked by quality factors. But it's really the customer who controls whether the wine sells or not. A wine maker can try to make their wine "worth" more (using additional knowledge, better materials, better process control, better viticulture, better marketing, better sales, etc.) but it will be the customer who decides if the wine is worth more or not.What's interesting is that in the long-term, the wine maker has much more control over costs and quantity as long as they are willing to make ongoing investments in innovation in the product or processes. And this is where it gets really interesting and affects much more than the wine maker's welfare.The wine maker who sells 1 billion bottles of wine for 0.1 a bottle more than the 0.5 a bottle in costs enables everybody to drink wine. But in that world of increasing productivity, any other wine makers who used to sell wine for 4, 15, or 70/bottle above costs may starve unless they, too, invest in innovations or somehow differentiate themselves from that billion-bottle wine maker. That's not that hard -- the cheap wine may not be the best wine -- but it does mean change.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 3:19 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskMy personal social index is still the number of sleeping-cartons, say, under the Waterloo Bridge .. And this index is really volatile over longer periods ... Which-side-are-you-on matters, IMO.In the short-term, Liberal policies reduce this number and Conservative policies increase this number. In the long-term, Liberal policies increase this number and Conservative policies reduce this number. So, should we think short-term or long-term?Forcing companies to pay workers more than the worker is worth, forcing companies retain unneeded workers, and prohibiting companies from improving productivity ultimately lead to a much worse social index even if that serves the short-term interests of the workers.Here we see the clash of cultures.That's very true. Different societies will have different conceptions of the rights and responsibilities of citizens, companies, and governments. And anyone who has travelled the world can see that there is no one right answer -- most societies do function better than ideologues would predict.Yet all societies also live within the constraints of the physics of the production process as modulated by innovations in productivity. It takes a certain amount of resources (labour, knowledge, materials, energy, land, etc.) to produce the additional resources (labour, knowledge, materials, energy, land, etc.) to sustain a society. This physics is not subject to cultural differences, value judgements, political wrangling, or social considerations. Instead, it's intrinsic to the physical, chemical, biological, and managerial processes involved in production. Societies can still make trade-offs -- some societies might pick a labour-intensive production process and other might pick an energy-intensive one -- but they're still forced to live within the certain bounds. For that reason, the balance of rights and responsibilities of citizens, companies, and governments can't be entirely arbitrary in the long term.My suspicion is Conservatives understand the physics of the production process better than Liberals do and that is why Paul (and I) would say that Conservatives live in the real world. But, that said, Liberals probably have a better understanding of the human impacts of the balance of rights and responsibilities and of trade-offs in the production process. As such neither side should hold too much power.
Last edited by Traden4Alpha on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Fermion
Posts: 4486
Joined: November 14th, 2002, 8:50 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 5:05 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaulIf you are on the left wing it helps enormously if you are a hypocrite or naive. PThat's an amazingly naive thing to say. Apart from the absurdity of the one-dimensional left/right paradigm, politicians of all shades are hypocrites. It's a necessary qualification for the job. It's difficult to think of anyone involved in politics from the last several decades who wasn't a hypocrite. About the only person who comes to mind is Che Guevara. Some people might say he was naive, but I don't think so. I think he knew full well what he was letting himself in for if things didn't work out the way he hoped. (He declared his disgust for the Stalinist regimes that Cuba depended on, abandoned a cushy job as a cabinet minister and declared his intention to liberate the whole of Latin America from US imperialism, knowing full well the grandiose enormity of the task.) Perhaps the most negative thing you could say about him was that he took honesty and integrity to the extreme limits of self sacrifice. Far from naivety, it was an almost religious pilgrimage that he embarked on. He was raised Catholic (of Irish-Argentine descent) and is worshipped like a saint by the common masses throughout Catholic Latin America.Compare him to Margaret Thatcher who is also worshipped like a saint amongst the most anti-social elements of society. She had one trick, the same trick beloved of tyrants throughout history, to hide dishonesty and cruelty behind a facade of steadfast determination and leadership in the face of an imagined enemy -- in her case the "sponger". Felix Rodriguez, the CIA agent who organized the hunt for Che in Bolivia and ordered his execution after he was captured wrote this tribute:QuoteWhen I asked him if he had any message for his family, he said, "Tell Fidel that he will soon see a triumphant revolution in America." He said it in a way that, to me, seemed to mock the Cuban dictator for abandoning him* here in the Bolivian jungle. Then Che added, "And tell my wife to get remarried and try to be happy."Then we embraced, and it was a tremendously emotional moment for me. I no longer hated him. His moment of truth had come, and he was conducting himself like a man. He was facing his death with courage and grace.*Here, Rodriguez is indulging in his own fantasy. It was the Soviet Union that ordered the communists in Bolivia to disown and betray Che.
Last edited by Fermion on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 7:02 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskMy personal social index is still the number of sleeping-cartons, say, under the Waterloo Bridge .. And this index is really volatile over longer periods ... Which-side-are-you-on matters, IMO.In the short-term, Liberal policies reduce this number and Conservative policies increase this number. In the long-term, Liberal policies increase this number and Conservative policies reduce this number. So, should we think short-term or long-term?Forcing companies to pay workers more than the worker is worth, forcing companies retain unneeded workers, and prohibiting companies from improving productivity ultimately lead to a much worse social index even if that serves the short-term interests of the workers.Interesting. This hypothesis is placed constantly .. but the tests in the laboratory of reality shows a completely different result. It's not that linear?The wine maker who makes wine for 1 a bottle can only drink his own wine.The wine maker who makes wine flu 4 a bottle cannot afford his own wine ...The wine maker who makes wine for 15 a bottle can drink his own wine ...Who is "worth" what? Money is programmable, value is programmable ... But all we have in mind is programming the downturn to zero? No "value" no right no right no cunsumption no consumption ....?p.s. if computer designers had thought that way we still had fixed memory allocstions ...Hmmm... I would have thought is was much more linear as well as expressed in terms of profits, not prices:The wine maker who sells wine for 1 a bottle more than it costs to make starves to deathThe wine maker who sells wine for 4 a bottle more than it costs to make cannot afford his own wine ...The wine maker who sells wine for 15 a bottle more than it costs to make can drink his own wine ...The wine maker who sells wine for 70 a bottle more than it costs to make can drink champagne ...(NOTE: there's a second dimension to this -- quantity -- in that the wine maker who sells wine for 1 a bottle more than it costs but sells a million bottles a year can drink champagne, too.)In the short-term, the wine maker has some (but limited) control over decreasing the costs as well as some (but limited) control over increasing the selling price with cost and price being linked by quality factors. But it's really the customer who controls whether the wine sells or not. A wine maker can try to make their wine "worth" more (using additional knowledge, better materials, better process control, better viticulture, better marketing, better sales, etc.) but it will be the customer who decides if the wine is worth more or not.What's interesting is that in the long-term, the wine maker has much more control over costs and quantity as long as they are willing to make ongoing investments in innovation in the product or processes. And this is where it gets really interesting and affects much more than the wine maker's welfare.The wine maker who sells 1 billion bottles of wine for 0.1 a bottle more than the 0.5 a bottle in costs enables everybody to drink wine. But in that world of increasing productivity, any other wine makers who used to sell wine for 4, 15, or 70/bottle above costs may starve unless they, too, invest in innovations or somehow differentiate themselves from that billion-bottle wine maker. That's not that hard -- the cheap wine may not be the best wine -- but it does mean change.Sorry, my fault, I forgot ... with a comparable volume, as you have it in wine regions like Mosel, Wachau, Rhone, Penedes, Toscany, .. or even Medoc. Not Australia, ...First, if you don't have a "premier cru" vineyard you are banned into the lower price band ...Second, the most important quality criterion is bottle / hectare - from 1500 to 15.000 ... but there are other quality costs that jumpThe fact is that under the market control a 1 a bottle vintner and a 4 a bottle vintner transforms his work into the same margins, provide they produce, say, 100k bottles.And this is a corset that is difficult to blow up - you can give up or lie ...On the long run ... I agree that each country (like each wine region) should decide what industry sectors (wine types) they can maintain relating to their position on the price/cost map. It may need to give up textile and shoe production, mass steel, ... and what have you. But take Germany: they insist in those sectors and drop wages, instead of a slow and socially balanced retreat ... So, on the long run they will have destroyed their own economic structure and the wealth of their "workers".
Last edited by exneratunrisk on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
exneratunrisk
Posts: 3559
Joined: April 20th, 2004, 12:25 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 7:43 am

T4A, this might be an evidence that "right and wrong" can be so close? Untangling Trade and TechnologyRight because technology jobs compensate, wrong because on the long run it will be at a spread that I call Himalaya-or-Gobi jobs - become a Nobel prize candidate or dig in the dust?
Last edited by exneratunrisk on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 11:52 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: exneratunriskMy personal social index is still the number of sleeping-cartons, say, under the Waterloo Bridge .. And this index is really volatile over longer periods ... Which-side-are-you-on matters, IMO.In the short-term, Liberal policies reduce this number and Conservative policies increase this number. In the long-term, Liberal policies increase this number and Conservative policies reduce this number. So, should we think short-term or long-term?Forcing companies to pay workers more than the worker is worth, forcing companies retain unneeded workers, and prohibiting companies from improving productivity ultimately lead to a much worse social index even if that serves the short-term interests of the workers.Interesting. This hypothesis is placed constantly .. but the tests in the laboratory of reality shows a completely different result. It's not that linear?The wine maker who makes wine for 1 a bottle can only drink his own wine.The wine maker who makes wine flu 4 a bottle cannot afford his own wine ...The wine maker who makes wine for 15 a bottle can drink his own wine ...Who is "worth" what? Money is programmable, value is programmable ... But all we have in mind is programming the downturn to zero? No "value" no right no right no cunsumption no consumption ....?p.s. if computer designers had thought that way we still had fixed memory allocstions ...Hmmm... I would have thought is was much more linear as well as expressed in terms of profits, not prices:The wine maker who sells wine for 1 a bottle more than it costs to make starves to deathThe wine maker who sells wine for 4 a bottle more than it costs to make cannot afford his own wine ...The wine maker who sells wine for 15 a bottle more than it costs to make can drink his own wine ...The wine maker who sells wine for 70 a bottle more than it costs to make can drink champagne ...(NOTE: there's a second dimension to this -- quantity -- in that the wine maker who sells wine for 1 a bottle more than it costs but sells a million bottles a year can drink champagne, too.)In the short-term, the wine maker has some (but limited) control over decreasing the costs as well as some (but limited) control over increasing the selling price with cost and price being linked by quality factors. But it's really the customer who controls whether the wine sells or not. A wine maker can try to make their wine "worth" more (using additional knowledge, better materials, better process control, better viticulture, better marketing, better sales, etc.) but it will be the customer who decides if the wine is worth more or not.What's interesting is that in the long-term, the wine maker has much more control over costs and quantity as long as they are willing to make ongoing investments in innovation in the product or processes. And this is where it gets really interesting and affects much more than the wine maker's welfare.The wine maker who sells 1 billion bottles of wine for 0.1 a bottle more than the 0.5 a bottle in costs enables everybody to drink wine. But in that world of increasing productivity, any other wine makers who used to sell wine for 4, 15, or 70/bottle above costs may starve unless they, too, invest in innovations or somehow differentiate themselves from that billion-bottle wine maker. That's not that hard -- the cheap wine may not be the best wine -- but it does mean change.Sorry, my fault, I forgot ... with a comparable volume, as you have it in wine regions like Mosel, Wachau, Rhone, Penedes, Toscany, .. or even Medoc. Not Australia, ...First, if you don't have a "premier cru" vineyard you are banned into the lower price band ...Second, the most important quality criterion is bottle / hectare - from 1500 to 15.000 ... but there are other quality costs that jumpThe fact is that under the market control a 1 a bottle vintner and a 4 a bottle vintner transforms his work into the same margins, provide they produce, say, 100k bottles.And this is a corset that is difficult to blow up - you can give up or lie ...On the long run ... I agree that each country (like each wine region) should decide what industry sectors (wine types) they can maintain relating to their position on the price/cost map. It may need to give up textile and shoe production, mass steel, ... and what have you. But take Germany: they insist in those sectors and drop wages, instead of a slow and socially balanced retreat ... So, on the long run they will have destroyed their own economic structure and the wealth of their "workers".The "premier cru" system is interesting but I wonder if it will survive the growing role of information technology and the rising threat of climate change. The need for official appellations made sense when information was scarce and wine consumers had to rely on certified geographic indicators as proxies for quality. But assessing and reporting wine quality is perfectly suited to crowdsourcing and lets consumers discover which wines come from great wine makers outside of the official regions and which wines come from low-quality wine makers inside the official regions. At some point, the regional appellation becomes less useful. Second, if/when the climate changes, then those official "premier cru" wine growing regions will start delivering inferior wines. The geographic appellation will mean less and less as a proxy for quality and a determinant in wine prices.The core challenge for workers, companies, and countries is that the longest term trend in almost all industries is for declining labour costs per unit of output. As such, companies and workers face an unavoidable choice: make more units per worker or pay workers less. That may look like a brutal race to the bottom, but that's not the only option. Workers and companies that find and adopt ways of working smarter can enjoy more favourable returns on labour. In fact, to the extent that some workers or some companies lead the trend in increasing worker productivity, they can actually increase wages and even increase jobs because they capture greater market share.(P.S. To me, there's also a nasty hypocrisy to Liberals who try to protect local workers from global competition because they are using a social well-being index that implicitly assumes that humans in other countries don't matter.)
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 60193
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 12:00 pm

Quote(P.S. To me, there's also a nasty hypocrisy to Liberals who try to protect local workers from global competition because they are using a social well-being index that implicitly assumes that humans in other countries don't matter.) They probably care more than most. Would a conservative be the one to instigate a 'Fair trade' for coffee farmers?As Fermion mentioned, all yous guays are trapped on the one-dimensional L/R line IMO.
Last edited by Cuchulainn on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Gamal
Posts: 2362
Joined: February 26th, 2004, 8:41 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 12:07 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Paul@rmax I just want to be rich, not rich and powerful. PYou've just destroyed the incentive of most of us, Paul. If you're not rich which of us will ever be?
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 12:11 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuote(P.S. To me, there's also a nasty hypocrisy to Liberals who try to protect local workers from global competition because they are using a social well-being index that implicitly assumes that humans in other countries don't matter.) They probably care more than most. Would a conservative be the one to instigate a 'Fair trade' for coffee farmers?As Fermion mentioned, all yous guays are trapped on the one-dimensional L/R line IMO. I'm on your side on this one! Sadly, in the US, the two party system all but institutionalizes the one-dimensional L/R line with the result being that I find the candidates from both parties equally horrible (but for different reasons).What's weird is that both the left and right (in the US) are protectionist in their own way: some on the left want to prohibit the movement of goods made by foreign workers into the country and some on the right want to prohibit the movement of foreign workers into the country.
 
User avatar
ExSan
Posts: 4548
Joined: April 12th, 2003, 10:40 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 12:26 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: GamalQuoteOriginally posted by: Paul@rmax I just want to be rich, not rich and powerful. PYou've just destroyed the incentive of most of us, Paul. If you're not rich which of us will ever be?I agree, rich is good enough, I don't care fame. Fiscal paradise included.
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 26780
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 12:30 pm

Naturally you want to be in good health and ideally there are a few people in your life who would care about you, even if you were not rich.Otherwise, the wealth by itself is a hollow victory. Big empty space.
Last edited by trackstar on April 10th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 2:45 pm

johnny rotten on margaret thatcher
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 9559
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 3:05 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Gamal QuoteOriginally posted by: Paul@rmax I just want to be rich, not rich and powerful. PYou've just destroyed the incentive of most of us, Paul. If you're not rich which of us will ever be?Ok, I just want to remain rich!The behavioural economics chaps say that people believe that they just need 50% more wealth and then they will be content. However rich you are you need 50% more to be rich enough...and of course after you get it you need another 50%...P
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 60193
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 11th, 2013, 3:07 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperjohnny rotten on margaret thatcherAnd he has an Irish passport
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On