Poor Pit. Not to pull my R's upon my return from Japan, it does seem odd though, for billionaires(and corporations) for free speech not wanting their names known for fear of bullying. The pity is in the pendulum of victim hoods. Not to mention[*] the other slap shot at robustness.
[*]10-14-10 My sarcasm might be too subtle here, in that the Poor link(above) on Taleb's Robustness may be a slightly slanted perspective of economics from the business perspective. The Business Insider might be no more than a blog or astro bagger in terms of its criticism or incomprehesion of Taleb's theories. Taleb online The New Yorker under my usual meanderings. I would also suggest whether Bernanke has read Taleb or not, he should explain that there has not been a replacement for Keynesian economics, and that the government has a role to play or the balance will continue to teeter for the moneyed rather than the purposeful. On the other hand this may just be an incompresible way of saying that unless Taleb is understood and improved upon, we can suffice with continued tinkering as long as it is with purpose and for the people. Unfortunately this may be a bigger task than understanding Taleb. What I allude or have links here to, are the international and comprehensive nature of economics evolution. And simply put, the economy must not fall off the wall, but work on the wall must be comprehensive if not wholistic. If I may reiterate my tetrahedron of physics, psychology, philosophy and politics ofor purpose. The pinnacle of the project is the purpose of the structure and the process that works whatever is intended** to work.
** And I have not intentionally left "we" out of this, but it puts politics, religion and economics as part of the process not the purpose, or the be all and end all, intended or not.
[At the risk of further incomprehensiveness, I suggest that the administration is doing what it can short of a complete replacement of Keynesian economics, otherwise know as my Egg/Wall metaphor, while Taleb's approach may be just the thing as a goal. There are natural laws, and they must be worked with or they will be against us all. See tetrahedron not theology.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query taleb. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query taleb. Sort by date Show all posts
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Interview with
Noam Chomsky: 'er Speigel[Correction]
My first or maybe second impression is that Noam Chomsky is the anti-thesis of Pat Buchanan. At least in respect to the idea that maybe only I had that when Pat Buchanan says something** that both sides of the political spectrum agree with he might have something. In Chomsky's case it might be where both sides have a bone to pick with Chomsky he may be just right. At least in the respect that he lacks from the two quarters not in fractions but perspective. He is either a tool of the forces that be or their nemesis, but he is not Goldilocks*, any more than Taleb.
*self-correcting or twisting a metaphor, I did not mean to bring in the tea party or mama bears
** at present I don't want to dredge up what one might be as I could be wrong
[American Prospect unrelated?]
As of posting, I have not fully read the Chomsky piece on The New World Order(see correction), but did finish the American Prospect piece, Old Image, New Portrait in paper form, and found the other links for later or earlier(in respect to Keynes and Taleb not bull-lies).]
[Unintended Bully link. Please note that Wednesday's Bully post preceded Thursday's Last Word here, but the Chomsky piece above was much earlier.(when corrected a little less so, maybe accounted for by jet lag)]
[Not really an update but a link 10-27-10]
My first or maybe second impression is that Noam Chomsky is the anti-thesis of Pat Buchanan. At least in respect to the idea that maybe only I had that when Pat Buchanan says something** that both sides of the political spectrum agree with he might have something. In Chomsky's case it might be where both sides have a bone to pick with Chomsky he may be just right. At least in the respect that he lacks from the two quarters not in fractions but perspective. He is either a tool of the forces that be or their nemesis, but he is not Goldilocks*, any more than Taleb.
*self-correcting or twisting a metaphor, I did not mean to bring in the tea party or mama bears
** at present I don't want to dredge up what one might be as I could be wrong
[American Prospect unrelated?]
As of posting, I have not fully read the Chomsky piece on The New World Order(see correction), but did finish the American Prospect piece, Old Image, New Portrait in paper form, and found the other links for later or earlier(in respect to Keynes and Taleb not bull-lies).]
[Unintended Bully link. Please note that Wednesday's Bully post preceded Thursday's Last Word here, but the Chomsky piece above was much earlier.(when corrected a little less so, maybe accounted for by jet lag)]
[Not really an update but a link 10-27-10]
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Slash Segue
Michael Sandel: The lost art of democratic debate
And Criss-Classification
It is not about right or left but who* is the behind.
*please excuse the just(juxt)aposition of humor
---
For Sagans Sake: I will ungoogle the B. or link con tent:
(i.e. list of links above)
TED: Sandel as noted
Sandel/Soros
BookTV: Hedges on Class
New Yorker: Taleb
Jim Wallis(Sojourners) Sandel
BBC:Sit com? (no pun but Latin roots**)
Taleb Context
*
Asimov context
Mike Wallace: Ayn Rand
Embed(un) Pop Culture
Pre-Decartes or Aristotellian***?
**actual roots are(not) the spin on "darkest before the storm"
*** not to mention the B&A tangents not relinkeds(sp!)
[2-17-11 UPDATE:(not) Talk about a fifth sense? Yikes.]
And Criss-Classification
It is not about right or left but who* is the behind.
*please excuse the just(juxt)aposition of humor
---
For Sagans Sake: I will ungoogle the B. or link con tent:
(i.e. list of links above)
TED: Sandel as noted
Sandel/Soros
BookTV: Hedges on Class
New Yorker: Taleb
Jim Wallis(Sojourners) Sandel
BBC:Sit com? (no pun but Latin roots**)
Taleb Context
*
Asimov context
Mike Wallace: Ayn Rand
Embed(un) Pop Culture
Pre-Decartes or Aristotellian***?
**actual roots are(not) the spin on "darkest before the storm"
*** not to mention the B&A tangents not relinkeds(sp!)
[2-17-11 UPDATE:(not) Talk about a fifth sense? Yikes.]
Friday, January 03, 2014
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Hi Ate Us
[updated 6-23-11 here and here]
[updated 6-22-11 below]
Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)
US in perspective?
(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)
[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]
[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]
[updated 6-22-11 below]
Escher On Edge
(8-29-10)US in perspective?
(Obliquity?)
Follow up from Bib Leo File.(Interesting)
[Log-in prevented me from posting this comment (at INET...) which I save here.]
Michael your comment on "free market" and "freedom" begs definition. Words are often taken out of context or provide context, but my comment might be better framed as "problematic" or hitting the nail on the head. A "free market" will always be defined by some powers, and that does not imply that "freedom" exists. "Freedom" will always existed in the context of(relation to) other forces, market or no. This is not to provoke or confound, but may just be paraphrasing your intent, as I seem to find in your conclusion. The need for providing... an equation for the real world, or rather for economics which is yet to reflect the real world and thereby address the "myopia of share ownership". Hint to self: regards dymamics of "free market" regulating power. Back to the drawing board?[Now I just may review the interview and two comments before "provoking". Earlier, I caught the lede of a "related video" by a grad student about getting economists out into the real world, but I have been unable to find it @inet...]
[Provocative thought two: Companies should not be run in the interest of the owners. i.e. maximizing value for share holders Correlated provocation: what about the costs to the economy?]
[6-22-11(cont){italics above denote changes} PT1: There is no such thing as a "free market". Myth of "market objectivity". Myth2: "Free Trade does not make countries richer".]
[6-22-11 Comment submitted and extended here and here meanwhile regarding the golden rule .]
[Footnote on "Hi Ate" US i.e. Taleb and Kay (in the context of politics/economics being connected but having different objectives)] O K ? Navigational Models. Again, what is the point?]
Monday, June 13, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Over Helming.
[6-24-11 The lack of pomp and need for circumstance*(or circumdecision?)
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]
Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.
* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]
President Obama on the Way Forward in Afghanistan(video)
Just an aftergoogle. But I will add that Randi Rhodes gave an impressive perspective on the President's remarks, not necessarily here, but it is reflected a bit in the video of the Democrats bringing it home.]
Please note the navigational metaphor in Professor John Kay's interview in the context of Professor Ha-Joon Chang's interview and the Bib Leo File of Republic Cons.
Inter-Dimentionalism and Ge Oh Metricks not so aside: The 6Sigma of Newt needs a pinnacle of purpose. i.e. there truly needs to be a navigational approach. Not akin to "rocket science"**, but having an aim and the model to chart it. My point is that 6 Sigma does not have a point, or rather a point is needed a priori for it to work. Actually it is not about the 6 edges of a tetrahedron, but the break down of the bell curve. If it were only about the bell curve it might have a point. My point is that politics has a point of balancing power and processing the point. But from a freedom perspective is that a goal? But from a navigational perspective there is a need for a 3D grid plus time and processing. The six edges of a tetradedron reflect the 4D dynamics of the process, that is not the goal. The goal is out there, the dream or unrealized principles if you will. The balance or base is the Try Angle*** and dynamics of Physics, Psychology and Philosophy(also processes as well as subjects) for realizing our balance of powers and dreams.
* an after link: NY Times from Randi Rhodes Blog
(also TPM)
** after bolds(4) in original post
*** pun on 3 points determine a plane(and tripod) but a 4th point determines 3 dimensions. Not to mention the Geo of Risk and Robustness of Nassim Taleb. He must not be taken out of context. Reducing debt does not mean reducing spending and economics is not the most efficient determinant. "(nature) it seems very inefficient for an economist but it is robust"(...)"I want society...to be more robust and more open to up side." My only point is that society(politics see "science" bold following "rocket") has a place in determining the rules that provide the circumstances.]
Monday, August 09, 2010
In Balance
In a recent conversation with a rather critical* or independent Democrat(i.e. moderate or typical American) the issue of why the Democrats might lose in the mid-term elections came up. I don't think he used the word populism, but he did note that something should be done about jobs, or rather outsourcing/imports and addressing it dramatically with some sort of tariff. The discussion revolved around doing something, even if it was not the effective thing; it would be what the people want and it would show that the Democrats were doing something. One of the tangents took off on the Arizona immigration laws, as an example of the states doing something because the federal government wasn't. And fighting them in court was wrong, because it went against what the people wanted. i.e. do something about China and imports because it looked right, not necessarily that it would be most effective.
Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**
*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]
Needless to say the conversation did not go exactly like this, but this is possibly clearer than my usual meandering.**
*bordering on cynical
** this is not mine, nor meandering
(The American Prospect*** magazine: "Forget Populism")
(The New Yorker Online: "Risk and Robustness")
[With proper perspectivism, pragmatism and incrementalism, we could balance nature with our values, or make our values work.]
[***8-12-10 revised only to note magazine(also corrected) was in my mailbox after our discussion, New Yorker Online, was view prior to, but discussed and Meet the Press was found later.]
[update Taleb Label and The New Yorker link.]
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Tall Ebb and Try Pod.
Taleb and Tri-pod.
Bingo: Hint scroll over
[Footnote: another Try Pod]
[If some have problems with the President, how would they handle even more heat from the kitchen.]
[For later digging: Clams or C-shells...but my original intent was in the context of the Halperin/Evans political/media calculus or shore.]
[7-6-11 Follow-up: Rachel Maddow*, Chris Matthews**, Chris Hayes***, Last Word?*4. Not Quite. Tax & Spend R.I.P.* 3:25 and 11:00 economic brick, Rube Goldberg(Frank Rich)
** Sen. McCaskill Joan Walsh
*** David Frum, Eugene Robinson (& David Brooks)
*4 Do Nothing Congress]
Bingo: Hint scroll over
[Footnote: another Try Pod]
[If some have problems with the President, how would they handle even more heat from the kitchen.]
[For later digging: Clams or C-shells...but my original intent was in the context of the Halperin/Evans political/media calculus or shore.]
[7-6-11 Follow-up: Rachel Maddow*, Chris Matthews**, Chris Hayes***, Last Word?*4. Not Quite. Tax & Spend R.I.P.* 3:25 and 11:00 economic brick, Rube Goldberg(Frank Rich)
** Sen. McCaskill Joan Walsh
*** David Frum, Eugene Robinson (& David Brooks)
*4 Do Nothing Congress]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)