SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62432
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 4:31 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)In the Netherlands, Trade Unions are one of the "Social Partners". So everyone gets around the table and reaches consensus. There is something to be said for it. It is probably much better than the disruptive forces in your countries where 50% is for A and 50% is for B.That's very possible and illustrates another cultural gulf in terms of whether an organization is (adversarial management versus workers) or (cooperative management and workers). In the US, it's been adversarial and unions have negotiated unsustainable wages, benefits and pensions that have all but destroyed their companies. Just because management is forced to agree to pay more, doesn't mean customers will be wiling to pay more.The more dynamic the economy, the greater the rate of change in workforce composition, the greater the need for an ultra-flexible workforce, and the greater the need to eliminate the distinction between workers and management.The situation is very easy now; there are no dynamic economies at the moment. Perhaps I've used the wrong word and a different definition of the same word. I meant "dynamic" == "rapidly changing" == "volatile". By that definition, almost all economies are more dynamic today than they were N years ago for almost all N.QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnWihout unions, it becomes 'race to the bottom' to countries where workers have no rights. Chidrem are cheap labour; they don't need much food or pay.And with unions, it becomes a transient illusion of stability propped up by growing sovereign debt and then a free-fall.Depends on the country, whether it is consensus-based or antagonistic. I wonder how the Japanese do this, but they have a long-term vision in the genes.Exactly!The challenge for the Japanese is that "long-term vision" is suboptimal in a volatile environment. The optimal planning horizon is something like O(1/volatility).Not true.How so? If one's 100-year plan is obliterated because it's assumptions fall apart after a few years, is a 100-year planning process tenable? In a changing environment, the options, risks, opportunities, tools. and goals can all change quite quickly to make the long-term plan obsolete.OK, define 'optimal' and the related stakeholders (minus utility function stuff).BTW , no one does a 100-year planning; you are posing a question and answering the question at the same time
 
User avatar
traderjoe1976
Posts: 1544
Joined: May 19th, 2006, 9:50 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 4:47 pm

The current No. 1 hit on the UK singles chart is:"Ding Dong! The Witch is Dead" DING DONG! THE WITCH IS DEAD by The Wizard of Oz CastDing Dong! The Witch is dead. Which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! Ding Dong! The Wicked Witch is dead.Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, get out of bed.Wake up, the Wicked Witch is dead. She's gone where the goblins go,Below - below - below. Yo-ho, let's open up and sing and ring the bells out.Ding Dong' the merry-oh, sing it high, sing it low.Let them know The Wicked Witch is dead!As Mayor of the Munchkin City, In the County of the Land of Oz, I welcome you most regally. But we've got to verify it legally, to seeTo see?If sheIf she?Is morally, ethic'llySpiritually, physicallyPositively, absolutelyUndeniably and reliably DeadAs Coroner I must aver, I thoroughly examined her. And she's not only merely dead, she's really most sincerely dead.Then this is a day of Independence For all the Munchkins and their descendantsIf any.Yes, let the joyous news be spread The wicked Old Witch at last is dead!
Last edited by traderjoe1976 on April 11th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62432
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 4:49 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaQuoteAFAIK, FYI I read somewhere than Bin Laden was trained by the Americans...Cuch, that was the whole point of my comparison of Che to Ossama. Ossama was set up at direct command of Carter and Bzezinski -- to destabilize USSR by luring it into conflict in Afghanistan. There are memoirs of a CIA chief of that time who describes it in detail. Whole alliance of cash from Saudi, arms from Pakistan secret service, and Ossama organization is the work of CIA. Same way as Che was the work of KGB. CIA actually calculated correctly what was needed to provoke Soviets into the invasion of Afghanistan, they just didn't kill their mad dog in time. I thought i said it the first time. Che by the way didn't just fight american interest. He was Fidel's right hand in war with Cuban peasants when they moved those who owned small plots of land to concentration camps. As far as Russians and Che go, they didn't kill him, indeed. They stopped funding and backing him up -- Che was too expensive to bankroll. They just let go off their hands and the puppet immediately fell down. Sort of like Schwarzenegger letting go of small crook he is holding above the abyss by one leg in 'Commandos'.So, it was all one cunning plot? I don't believe it for a minuteToo many analogies.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 4:55 pm

This sprawled in all typical directions of the off topic menu -- love for communism, Che, and John Lennon; some CIA and KGB, a touch of Fermion and me exchanging pleasantries; speedos, nude beaches, and crooked union bosses melting like butter in trackstar's experienced hands -- all that topped with old rock music and some photos. Going back to Thatcher, I watched recently some clips of Thatcher on youtube -- there are many clips of her in British House of Commons, which i enjoy watching in general. In any case, it's pretty interesting how she was spot on about euro and wouldn't even budge towards this bureaucratic monstrosity. Like Paul said, she said 20 years ago what people are getting slowly now and had balls to act on her conviction. It seemed she didn't give a hoot of either Labor politicians or majority of the wimps in her own party, she wasn't polling every microsecond on what to say about gay marriage or any other nonsense of the day. It's true that almost all politicians are damned hypocrites -- but that was not her. There is one clip in which some liberal worm says, "yeah, undoubtedly everyone is better off now than when Mrs Thatcher came, but the gap, the gap!!! The gap between poor and rich increased! That's horrible!". To which Thatcher replies on the spot -- "you just agreed that everyone is better off and you dislike it. You really would rather poor were poorer only if rich could be less rich". I though it was very precisely put. RIP
Last edited by zerdna on April 11th, 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 12th, 2013, 5:33 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: PaulFor the young ones here who never witnessed the 1970s, early 1980s UK, and for the senile who've forgotten, I'd like to paint a picture. Look at this man. He is Bob Crow, the modern equivalent of Arthur Scargill, the man who destroyed the mining industry and the livelihoods of many families: Imagine if he had the country by the cojones. Also imagine power cuts, reading by candlelight, rubbish in the streets because of strikes, the dead unburied because of strikes. Now add in a prawn cocktail, boil-in-the-bag cod in parsley sauce, an avocado bathtub...and voila, you have the 1970s! PIndeed! Trade unions are just greed dressed up in solidarity clothing.(That said, the organizations that suffer from unionized labour probably deserve their fate.)In the Netherlands, Trade Unions are one of the "Social Partners". So everyone gets around the table and reaches consensus. There is something to be said for it. It is probably much better than the disruptive forces in your countries where 50% is for A and 50% is for B.That's very possible and illustrates another cultural gulf in terms of whether an organization is (adversarial management versus workers) or (cooperative management and workers). In the US, it's been adversarial and unions have negotiated unsustainable wages, benefits and pensions that have all but destroyed their companies. Just because management is forced to agree to pay more, doesn't mean customers will be wiling to pay more.The more dynamic the economy, the greater the rate of change in workforce composition, the greater the need for an ultra-flexible workforce, and the greater the need to eliminate the distinction between workers and management.The situation is very easy now; there are no dynamic economies at the moment. Perhaps I've used the wrong word and a different definition of the same word. I meant "dynamic" == "rapidly changing" == "volatile". By that definition, almost all economies are more dynamic today than they were N years ago for almost all N.QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnWihout unions, it becomes 'race to the bottom' to countries where workers have no rights. Chidrem are cheap labour; they don't need much food or pay.And with unions, it becomes a transient illusion of stability propped up by growing sovereign debt and then a free-fall.Depends on the country, whether it is consensus-based or antagonistic. I wonder how the Japanese do this, but they have a long-term vision in the genes.Exactly!The challenge for the Japanese is that "long-term vision" is suboptimal in a volatile environment. The optimal planning horizon is something like O(1/volatility).Not true.How so? If one's 100-year plan is obliterated because it's assumptions fall apart after a few years, is a 100-year planning process tenable? In a changing environment, the options, risks, opportunities, tools. and goals can all change quite quickly to make the long-term plan obsolete.OK, define 'optimal' and the related stakeholders (minus utility function stuff).The interesting part is can the stakeholders even know what they want in a volatile environment where they don't know what the future will be like? (And if the stakeholder change due to immigration, birth, or death, then it's even harder to plan too far in advance.)QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnBTW , no one does a 100-year planning; you are posing a question and answering the question at the same time Well some do. And I seem to recall all manner of long-term Japanese plans to dominate computing.The point of the example wasn't to say that 100-year plans, per se, are popular in some locale but to illustrate that N-year plans in a world that changes every M-years (M<N) are worse than M-year plans because the excessively long-term plan will waste resources on obsolete goals, obsolete tools, and miss emergent risks and opportunities. If M is declining, then N should decline, too.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 5:36 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaThere is one clip in which some liberal worm says, "yeah, undoubtedly everyone is better off now than when Mrs Thatcher came, but the gap, the gap!!! The gap between poor and rich increased! That's horrible!". To which Thatcher replies on the spot -- "you just agreed that everyone is better off and you dislike it. You really would rather poor were poorer only if rich could be less rich". I though it was very precisely put. RIPLOL! Exactly! The Liberals are the party of envy.
 
User avatar
traderjoe1976
Posts: 1544
Joined: May 19th, 2006, 9:50 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 5:37 pm

BBC Radio 1 has confirmed that it won't play Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead on Sunday's Official Chart Show, but it will play a clip as part of a news report within the show. It will give an "historical and factual account" of why it has entered the Official Singles Chart.BBC Radio 1 have confirmed that they will not play Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead in full on Sunday's Official Chart Show.
Last edited by traderjoe1976 on April 11th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 6:20 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: Traden4AlphaQuoteOriginally posted by: zerdnaThere is one clip in which some liberal worm says, "yeah, undoubtedly everyone is better off now than when Mrs Thatcher came, but the gap, the gap!!! The gap between poor and rich increased! That's horrible!". To which Thatcher replies on the spot -- "you just agreed that everyone is better off and you dislike it. You really would rather poor were poorer only if rich could be less rich". I though it was very precisely put. RIPLOL! Exactly! The Liberals are the party of envy.Indeed -- and the politics of envy is precisely one of the key marketing techniques targeting LIVs. Every. Single. Election.
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 10789
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 6:44 pm

Play the blasted song in full. Nigel Farage gets it right.P
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 10789
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 6:51 pm

In honour of strong women everywhere, those who make men quake in their girly cuban heels:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/PHQLQ1Rc_Js



P
Last edited by Paul on April 11th, 2013, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
zerdna
Posts: 3856
Joined: July 14th, 2002, 3:00 am

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 7:07 pm

It's pretty symbolic that hatred to Thatcher is expressed in a children song from wizard of Oz. This hate is like hate of parents by teenagers. Whole part of British society is stuck in puberty. They sort of in need of help from their parents, and hate to admit it, and they naturally hate their parents for that. They also cannot let go of believing in the wizard of Oz although the curtain was lifted many times in front of their lying eyes. It's not that the witch is dead. It's that Great in Great Britain is.
 
User avatar
Paul
Posts: 10789
Joined: July 20th, 2001, 3:28 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 7:18 pm

Hahaha...only the Wizard can do this! The Wizard of Oz is not dead!P
 
User avatar
Polter
Posts: 2526
Joined: April 29th, 2008, 4:55 pm

RIP Margaret Thatcher

April 12th, 2013, 7:29 pm

Oh, it's not a problem, just takes a while to load:
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