75 Message 75: From extropians-request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Mon Aug 9 18:04:39 1993 Return-Path: Received: from usc.edu by chaph.usc.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1+ucs-3.0) id AA05162; Mon, 9 Aug 93 18:04:35 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: from panix.com by usc.edu (4.1/SMI-3.0DEV3-USC+3.1) id AA24491; Mon, 9 Aug 93 18:04:18 PDT Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Received: by panix.com id AA08443 (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for more@usc.edu); Mon, 9 Aug 1993 20:53:21 -0400 Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 20:53:21 -0400 Message-Id: <199308100053.AA08443@panix.com> To: Exi@panix.com From: Exi@panix.com Subject: Extropians Digest X-Extropian-Date: August 10, 373 P.N.O. [00:52:40 UTC] Reply-To: extropians@gnu.ai.mit.edu Errors-To: Extropians-Request@gnu.ai.mit.edu Status: RO Extropians Digest Tue, 10 Aug 93 Volume 93 : Issue 221 Today's Topics: ::uyada [1 msgs] ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness [4 msgs] Existence exists? [1 msgs] INVEST: Transaction costs [1 msgs] INVEST: Transaction costs [1 msgs] INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters [2 msgs] PHIL: The volume of an electron [2 msgs] What's Perry's Notion of Natural Law? [1 msgs] gods [2 msgs] Administrivia: No admin msg. Approximate Size: 53330 bytes. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 09 Aug 93 11:54:39 -0700 From: Sunah Cherwin Subject: ::uyada :;resend #93-8-250 ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 15:43:08 EST From: kwaldman Subject: What's Perry's Notion of Natural Law? starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu says: > I've been unable to find any source that supports Perry's view of > natural law, and I've rounded up all the usual suspects. For instance, > E.D. Hirschfeld, Jr.'s Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: What Every > American Needs to Know (Houghton Miffin, 1988) has the following entry > on natural law on page 99: > "natural law The doctine that human affairs should be governed by ethical > principles that are part of the very nature of things and that can be > understood by reason." How does he know what "the very nature of things are"??? I seriously doubt that there are "ethical principles that are part of the very nature of things" but don't feel bad as I seriously doubt many things. Check out Robert Anton Wilson's "The New Inquisition" New Falcon Publications. Great reminder on what appears knowable. He suggests that perhaps we don't/can't know reality, we just create models, some better than others :-) of what we perceive as reality. [Note: He suggests that even the laws of physics are statistically approximations, - Now that IS discomforting] It's scary to think that most people think they know what really is! Thus we get: 1. Khmer verde (Thanks to whoever posted this one) 2. Republicans 3. Democrats 4. Theists (how do you know there is a god? ) 5. Atheists (how do you know there isn't a god? ) 6. Agnostics :-) (I am sure I don't know) 7. etc. Karl -------- Karl M. Waldman kwaldman@bbn.com BBN Systems and Technologies ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 15:55:01 EDT From: Andy Wilson Subject: ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Date: Sun, 8 Aug 93 14:31:02 WET DST On many occasions I have commented on the the anti-extropic values in the environmental movement, but this newest radical group is the most extreme I have seen. Predictably, they want everyone else to die except themselves. The excuse "By doing X, I am doing far more good than Y" is a cop-out. On two seperate occasions I have been given the same response by eco-nuts. One after I asked the question, "if technology is so bad, why don't you stop using computers?" and another after I said "if you wish everyone lived a tribal/farmer existence, why don't you get off the net and start living by your principles to see how you like it." Recently I found a post on the net called "ecofeminism" which advocated a neanderthal lifestyle but did so by trashing the concepts of utility and progress. e.g. what's so good about progress?, westerners view things in terms of utility, what use of things can be made, whereas ecofeminists believe all things have an intrinsic value in themselves. It went on to claim that women's views were naturally better because they give unconditional love and nurture things. (translation: us westerners are evil because we think only in terms of how we can use objects and people!) I expect I will be flamed again for stating the obvious implications of these ideas (a rehash of the 'Earth Day' flamewar) but I stand by my opinion. The environmental movement will be a serious force for extropians to reckon with in the future. It goes far beyond normal socialism and its ultimate goal is not to protect human lives or an abstract notion of human "society" but ecosystems. (it seems socialists are constantly expanding their sphere of who they are going to take care of and protect) I'm sure many of you who have read Rand at early age see death and misery in many of the left's ideals, I submit the post I am responding to as just more anecdotal evidence. -Ray -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- -- Socrates was a man. This proves that all men are Socrates. An environmental splinter group wants all humans to die out. This proves that all environmentalists want all humans to die out. -- I will reiterate my heresy: I see no contradiction between extropian values and common sense about environmental concerns. Andy ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1993 16:22:15 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: gods kwaldman says: > It's scary to think that most people think they know what really > is! Thus we get: > > 1. Khmer verde (Thanks to whoever posted this one) > 2. Republicans > 3. Democrats > 4. Theists (how do you know there is a god? ) > 5. Atheists (how do you know there isn't a god? ) > 6. Agnostics :-) (I am sure I don't know) > 7. etc. On 5), I think atheism is quite reasonable, provided one treats it not not as a certainty that there is no god but rather as the idea that given the available evidence one has no reason to believe in a god and thus chooses not to. Few people find it terribly interesting if you profess no belief in the existance of a 12 foot tall invisible rabbit following you at all times, but somehow a lack of belief in something equally weird draws notice. But never mind -- R.A.W.'s point that we only model reality -- we cannot directly perceive it -- seems quite valid. Perry ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 15:28:24 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) Subject: ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness In <9308091955.AA27378@custard.think.com>, Andy Wilson writes: [Ray sounds alarm about eco-alarmists] |> I will reiterate my heresy: |> |> I see no contradiction between extropian values and common sense about |> environmental concerns. That's not heresy, but it is a _non seqitur_. Ray was hardly describing the beliefs of any common-sensical groups. Even moderate environmentalists tend to look first at governmental rather than market solutions -- and this is self-reinforcing: the better they get at lobbying, and the more governmental contacts they cultivate, the more they learn to think in regulatory terms. Have you seen any indication that this is changing? I think I've noticed a little less cozying-up by the media to the radical groups, but no increase in coverage of scientific ecology (unless it's a conveniently sound-bitable pronouncement). ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here Language nit: Khmer verde would be Spanish, Khmer vert (rhymes!) French. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 16:39:33 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness Andy Wilson () writes: > I will reiterate my heresy: > > I see no contradiction between extropian values and common sense about > environmental concerns. Nor do I, however I am not talking about a human-centric environmental viewpoint (e.g. we need to save the earth so we can live here), but the growing eco-centric movement which places the value of the earth and ecosystems above humans. I'm not about to go through a big debate again to present my evidence. Most of the people who have debated environmentalists on list this agree with me. The average yuppie 'recycling' environmentalist who sends donations to greenpeace is not the problem, it is the core intellectual memeset of the _political_ environmentalist movement. Just watch an episode of Captain Planet one day or sit in on an elementary school class. Earth First's values are being taught by the school system. (I recently had a visit by my 15 year old cousin and she has been totally brainwashed.) -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 13:50:21 -0700 From: dkrieger@Synopsys.COM (Dave Krieger) Subject: PHIL: The volume of an electron At 7:05 PM 8/7/93 -0700, D. Anton Sherwood wrote: >Tim [Starr] says: >> Electrons do have weight, though, don't they? How can anything that has >> weight not have volume? This is why E-prime was invented: to keep people from thinking that, because the concept of "volume" is applicable in some domains, then "volume" must be some "thing" that inherently "is" in an object, and that every object must have some "volume" we can measure. Volume is an abstraction we invented to talk about the way physical objects repel each other. The "volume" of a physical object varies depending on what tool you are using to measure it. We have an everyday notion of "volume" that arises from the fact that many classes of physical objects do not interpenetrate easily. Let us take the example of my hand and my desk. Both objects are, in bulk, electrically neutral... they contain the same amount of positively-charged protons and negatively-charged electrons, and so they do not exhibit any net charge. The protons in the desk exert a repulsive force on the protons in my hand and an attractive force on the electrons in my hand, but, at a distance, all of these forces cancel out and there is no net force. However, "up close" (when we say that my hand is "touching" the desk), the electrons of the outer layer of atoms in my hand are in close proximity to the electrons in the outer layer of atoms in the desk. Because electrostatic forces drop off as the square of the distance, this close proximity overrides the other forces in the sum and the outer layer of atoms in the hand and the outer layer of atoms in the desk repel each other (over this, to us, extremely short distance) -- the hand and the desk do not interpenetrate. This gives us our everyday notion of the "surface" of the desk and the "surface" of my hand -- the boundaries in space where this electrostatic repulsion becomes evident. We call the space enclosed by this surface the "volume" of the hand or the desk. We generalize this notion of volume to liquids and gases (water does not pass through the walls of a beaker, nor air through the walls of a balloon) even though liquids and gases can interpenetrate each other, etc. (NOTE: Those who are physically sophisticated will be able to point out a number of gross simplifications I'm making here; this post is aimed at those who are not particularly well-grounded in physics and math. I could make the explanation much longer by taking out the simplifications without making it particularly easier to grasp.) An electron does not have a surface. The distances {at which {the net repulsive forces just described} take hold} are so tiny, to us, that we pretend they aren't there (we say we're "touching" the desk), but they are huge on atomic scales. Rather than the electrostatic forces suddenly taking hold at a particular distance from the positional center of the electron, with a gradient sharp enough to be called a "surface", they instead act along a continuum, growing stronger and stronger as we approach the center of the electron, according to the inverse square law. Any shape we chose as a "surface" for the electron would be arbitrary. An electron could have any "volume" we chose to give it, or none at all, depending on how we defined that surface. (Electrostatic forces don't come into play at all if the object approaching the electron is electrically neutral, for example.) This is how an electron can have weight but not volume. (Recalling that "weight" is another arbitrary quantity, depending on what kinds of gravitational or rotational fields an object is subjected to. BONUS QUESTION: Can you weigh the Earth by turning your bathroom scale upside down? Are you sure?) I could explain similar cases for decades, but does the underlying principle show through? This and the "gravitational potential energy" chimera are examples of the same thing: Humans create abstractions to model relationships in the sense data we receive. We then go off the deep end and assume there is some "real" thing out there corresponding to the name we created -- either an object or a property of objects -- and forget that the domain in which we observed this relationship may not extend to all of space and time. If we understand what we're doing, we refine our model to include information about domain applicability. If not, we go on, in the words of Douglas Adams, to prove that black is white and get run over at the next zebra crossing. dV/dt If you feel this post had value, please consider buying some DVDT on HEx. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 16:33:39 EDT From: baumbach@atmel.com (Peter Baumbach) Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters Perry Metzger writes: >[...] > If I had 100 Billion in CASH to invest today, I think I could do > pretty well with it -- there are several projects I can think of that > I could do if I had resources like that which would produce > spectacular returns. On the other hand, it is obvious that you can't > invest 100 Billion straight in normal markets -- you move the market > too much in so doing. > > PB> If you could, then $1 invested now would be worth $100 Billion after > PB> 266 years. That won't be worth as much then, but what if you > PB> invested $1000 now? It would only take you 194 years to reach $100 > PB> Billion then. In either case, the life span of an extropian is > PB> important. As your investment grows, the return cannot possibly keep > PB> pace. $1 or $1000 invested now will approach the same total as the > PB> return rate decreases for larger investments. > > Why can't they keep pace? I see no reason they can't. Remember, the > economy itself is growing -- and would be growing at quite a strong > clip were it not for the government. > > Investments are not "bets". Your money actually provides the resources > that drive the economy forward. With a lot of money, you can fund new > ventures that will grow the economy and produce good returns. > > (By the way, my personal guess is that the government shaves at least > 10% of the growth off the economy -- possibly far more. I think from > what I've seen that economies should increase their growth rate > post-industrialization, not decrease it, with time.) Interesting. What is it you would invest $100 Billion in? I was thinking along the lines of your comment above, that your $100 Billion would move the market too much in a normal market. I suppose you could create a country with sums like that to play with, but that would be a heavely front loaded investment. ...not that I dislike the idea. If the growing economy would fix the problem, why would Peter Lynch comment that it's easier to invest his smaller charity portfolios than it was Magellan just because of the amounts of money involved? I guess what I'm thinking is that huge sums are limited by the growth of the economy while smaller sums aren't. > > PB> In the short term(?), where do you invest if you think the > PB> cypherpunks will have their way? What if there becomes wide spread > PB> use of digital cash? Will the IRS fold? Will the U.S. fold? > > If any of these happen, you will have plenty of advance warning. I guess the best investment would be just to use digital cash. A 28% return ;-) > PB> In the shorter term(?), where do you invest if you think the > PB> interest on the U.S. debt will exceed the total income tax revenues? > > If you want to be insulated from hyperinflation, stick to things that > would survive hyperinflation. (By the way, standard advice by swiss > bankers is to keep 5%-10% of your assets in gold just in case. Thats a > very conservative policy, but one can do worse.) In general, bonds do > very badly in inflationary times, while the equities of some companies > would do quite well. Certainly companies with good products but heavy > debt might do well going into a hyperinflationary period. > > Perry Small companies with heavy debt. That sounds like a good idea. Certainly companies with a lot of cash will be hard hit. I gather no one takes the prospect of the U.S. folding seriously. If that does happen, what might happen to property? Would a company still continue to operate under such a change? Should I invest in bullets? Does history provide a good guide? Peter Baumbach baumbach@atmel.com HEx: PETER ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 14:21:32 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: gods > But never mind -- R.A.W.'s point that we only model reality -- we > cannot directly perceive it -- seems quite valid. > > Perry Valid only as much as any other philosophy might be. It certainly isn't objectivist (not implying here that extropians must be objectivist, just stating fact). This is because this philosophy denies that one can ever know any truth, but instead can only know approximations of the truth. I'll do one quick analogy, just in case someone isn't familiar with this (I expect most are). Take the statement "most humans can talk". An objectivist like myself would take this as being true, as being an accurate statement of "reality". Given more platonistic viewpoints, such as the one given above, you would instead have to claim that it can only be _perceived_ that most humans talk, and that there is no way to know for sure. The humans may or may not exist, and if they do, the speech may or may not be what it seems. Both philosophies are certainly "valid". The difference is that the latter just isn't practical (IMO anyway). So, the objectivist assumes that reality is not some unknowable concept, but something which can in fact be quantified, something which even humans can even understand, in parts. In other words, no matter what model to the contrary that someone holds with respect to humans talking, most _can_ talk, and that is reality. Now, I don't want to push objectivism, but I thought I'd just remind anyone who cares where R.A.W.'s beliefs (as relayed on this list - I haven't read any of it) lie. As to utility, one might argue that such a view can be useful, so far as keeping us on our toes in search of more answers. But if one _does_ argue that, they just don't understand objectivism. Love to talk about it, but it's not what this reply was for. Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 14:27:32 PDT From: szabo@netcom.com (Nick Szabo) Subject: INVEST: Transaction costs Perry Metzger and I seem to agree on the basic "invest in what you know", but of courese we're going to quarrel about the details. :-) This is an interesting and important topic, so I hope we can keep this out of the ad hominem territory some of our earlier stuff degenerated to, OK? > 1) The only thing that might help you in terms of automation is access > to a quote machine and news wire. For the typical individual investor, this is true. That's why they shouldn't play that game. (Although there is some good fundamental analysis software coming out, including complex math models that big players have used to beat the market, even if you haven't seen them at Lehman). Even quote machine and news wire only work if you are very experienced and sophisticated on the subtleties of what all that data means (eg Paul Tudor Jones, long-time floor trader before he went into fund management), plus or minus the typical huge doses of luck that make and lose most fortunes in the trading business. That game is saturated with very experienced players like Jones, and the market price already reflects the news wire (and the ticks in ways humans can intuit) long before the indy (who can't afford real-time news or quotes) can even get them, much less figure out what they mean in terms of mispricing. > And really, most people who understand what they are doing do just > fine as "part-time amateurs" when it comes to picking stocks. Bull. I heavily doubt the average investor in such cases does better than the dart board minus transaction costs. And the transaction costs eat small portfolios alive in the long run. Transaction costs are controllable and (usually) predictable, while the securities themselves are neither for most indies. My own sample is that most people I know well who've done this (about 8 out of 12, with me one of the lucky ones) have lost money. As you point out commodity futures are even worse (as are options and other kinds of leverage when you don't have an edge, or don't bother to compute your chance-of-ruin stats or transaction costs, also starting to become available in software packages these days). >> [2.5%] > Even if you just bought a passive S&P 500 mutual fund, you would have > done far far better than that. This is quite embarassing, Nick. No, it's embarassing you quote me out of context. The c. 2.5% figure is for a lowest-risk portfolio, such as Browne's mix of T-bills, gold, and money market and stock mutual funds. (Browne backcast 5% but I've already pointed out why that's probably bogus as a forecast). Dollar-denominated S&P 500 mutual fund is hardly a good place to be if the U.S. Feds hyperinflate or go bankrupt, is it? (Hint: S&P 500 lost nearly 50% after inflation during the 1970's, and that was fairly tame inflation in worldwide historical context). Now several good international funds denominated in several currencies, we might have something. I'd love to see a system for pulling that off with a small portfolio for low transaction costs (it may be possible, but I haven't seen it in the pop indy literature). > Bull. You can rebalance a diversified at NO COST AT WILL if you stick > to no-load mutual funds. I agree mutual funds are more attractive than most other indy strategies, but ever heard of capital gains tax? The hit can differ greatly from year to year, depending on performance of the securities in the portfolio, other sources of income, etc. For most small portfolios it makes more sense to "rebalance" in ways that minimize their tax bill -- one of those rare risk-free wins (as long as you do your homework), as opposed to rebalancing to try to guess the market, or make minor improvements in the risk profile of their portfolios -- uncertain wins and the vast majority of small investors don't know what their risk profile is anyway. > You *CAN* make good investments on your own > in the stock markets, and you CAN beat the "professionals", especially > when the companies involved are firms you are personally familiar with > -- computer people investing in computer companies, for example. You have to have information that is both _unique_ enough to you that it is not yet reflected in the stock price, and _important_ enough to the company that it will effect its stock price. Even then it's not even close to low risk, you often have to gamble big chunks of your life savings (otherwise the transaction costs are greater than the value of your information). A basic to keep in mind: TANSTAAFL. Plus or minus luck, you have to: * work and produce value to make money at a job * produce something of value to sell it * spend money in a win-win way to buy something * in general you must bring unique, important information to the market if you expect to make any money Opinions on, eg how a company's theoretically hot technology will actually play in the market are typically not uniquely known or important enough to effect the stock price. On the other hand there are some small sure wins, like tax savings, but the homework is hard (and for small portfolios may not be worth the labor time, though annually updated tax-law software is starting to make it easier). There are opportunties for unique & important information in most companies, but they are quite rare and can be quite misleading unless you do the homework. Being in the marketing departement and CEOs desk provides usually more opportunity for this than, eg being an expert on the physics of spread-spectrum technology. Another avenue to pursue unique and important info, even better for technological info, is small start-up companies. But as you can see the more specialized the info gets, the riskier the gamble, and this is true for most technical information (an extreme example being a small start-up based on a breakthrough trade secret technology in spread spectrum). On the flip side, I've argued that a risk-free portfolio is hard to achieve. Something like Browne's comes somewhat close but probablgy that a truly low-risk" is extremely difficult, Browne only seems to come close. The average investor *has* to gamble with their life savings, and they might as well do it investing in what they know. But it usually takes homework to get a real edge, not just naive (usually naively patriotic) intuition about one's own company or industry, which is what most tech-industry indies gamble on (including myself until I started studying the market in-depth and mathematically a few years ago). > You > are talking about boys like D.E. Shaw, Susquehana, and the like. And Hull, CRT, etc., and probably dozens to hundreds neither of us have heard of, because it's not sexy to brag about making money with their computers, and bragging attracts the parasites (IRS, lawsuits, bribed or Luddite SEC officials, etc.) The markets are getting more decentralized. For those of us good with computers, knowledgeable about the parts of the market we want to invest in, with an edge (important information not reflected in the market), and a sufficiently large and well-characterized portfolio, program trading is the way to go. (This is not one-day-a-week stuff, though -- it's pretty much a full-time job for me right now). > Thats merely to say, Nick, that you don't have a good idea of > WHY [Soros] is successful -- and it isn't huge computer operations. A typical mistake of the indy investor is thinking they know more than they know. In this case, you are make some major leaps about what I know! If we're going to get into Soros we'd better start talking about Stanley Druckenmiller, technical strategies (most non-superstitious ones are heavily computer-dependent these days), in-depth knowledge of central banking practices, sophisticated computer models on how to best use leverage of synthetic assets (eg built out of currency options & forwards) to play the currency markets. etc. You bet they use computer models to help construct their trades, and of course we could debate all day on how much the computer models vs. the knowledge of central banking's impact on currencies, etc. bring to the ballgame, how much pattern recognition like "a tick for 10 million DM, that must be the Bundesbank buying back", etc. goes on, and how much is just luck. > The best speculative trader I've ever worked near was Paul Tudor > Jones, who never touched machines in the time I watched him Paul Tudor Jones is one in a million in terms of skill, and may be one in a thousand in terms of luck. He uses his long experience as a floor trader to get in on the market at the right times, experience that is not relevent to long-term trends and which most traders do not have. People like Jones used to be much more common, making their money on the bid/ask spread, ie the transaction costs of the small investor. So Jones is hardly a role model for the part-time investor with a small portfoilo. Nor is he demonstrative of how most investing or even trading is done these days. > So if you don't know the variables in the foreign exchange market, > don't trade forex. Everybody trades Forex. If you get your wages, your coupons, your capital gains, etc. in dollars, or you borrow dollars (eg for a mortgage), you are making a bet on what the dollar will be worth. But cute stuff aside we agree here. Play the games you know how to play. I'd just add that knowledge has to be specific and important enough to effect the stock price. The typical "my division has a great product" is usually not unique or signifcant enough. Also it's a gamble, and while there are ways to lower risk (cf. Browne discussion), you can't eliminate them. Nick Szabo szabo@netcom.com ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 14:34:24 PDT From: thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com (Tony Hamilton - FES ERG~) Subject: INVEST:extropians, cypherpunks and congresscritters Perry wrote this (apologies, Perry - I didn't read your original post, but am repying to a reply of someone else's which excerpted this:): > > (By the way, my personal guess is that the government shaves at least > > 10% of the growth off the economy -- possibly far more. I think from > > what I've seen that economies should increase their growth rate > > post-industrialization, not decrease it, with time.) I was channel-flipping last night when I caught some Christian economics show, and it turned out to be fairly interesting, from a libertarian point of view. One of the topics was this one guy's (I assume he was an economist or something) view of the demise of our government, or at least a total economic crisis in the US in the next 3-5 years. ANYWAY, he had some figures, and one was something like the US government operating on something like 57% of the GNP right now. I think this meant that the current budget, combined with interest on the national debt, equals 57% of the GNP. The chart showed that about 30 years ago that figure was only 10% or something, and that it would be 100% soon enough. Anyway, I'm sure I messed up something, because I was doing other things while keeping one eye on this show, but I thought it was relevant when you threw out that 10% figure. The point this economist made was that once the figure hits 100% (from the current 57 or whatever), there will then be no more resources for loans, for starting new businesses. I admit, I have yet to take a macro economics class (but will soon enough), so I don't understand all this, but I gather the savings and loan industry is somehow tightly coupled with the government and its expenditures. I'm sure anyone on the list can comment more on this. Anyway, Perry, you are right when you say "possibly far more" above. This Christian economist guy also had some interesting things to say on what might happen when this financial crisis comes. Thought I might say something real quick on that: He feels that, rather than simply decide to stop paying interest on the national debt (and therefore severely devalue the dollar in international markets), the government would just start printing money like crazy, and send us into an inflation spiral. Well, the show was interesting. Seem that while the Libertarians are waiting for the government to fail for their purposes, the Christians are doing the same thing (I guess they think that the US failing will be a sign that the end is coming or something. At least, the J.W.'s I've talked with interpret it as such). Tony Hamilton thamilto@pcocd2.intel.com HAM on HEx ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 17:37:40 WET DST From: rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Ray) Subject: PHIL: The volume of an electron Dave Krieger () writes: > This is how an electron can have weight but not volume. (Recalling that > "weight" is another arbitrary quantity, depending on what kinds of > gravitational or rotational fields an object is subjected to. BONUS > QUESTION: Can you weigh the Earth by turning your bathroom scale upside > down? Are you sure?) No, but you could weigh the Earth by tossing the scale out the window and timing its descent. ;-) Digression: There was a thread in rec.arts.sf.science not too long ago which "disproved" the plausibility of Vinge's bobbles based on relativity. If bobbles are incompressible, and you can push them around (like in the book), you can signal faster than the speed of light. How? Construct a bobble one lightyear in size. Push it. Since it is incompressible, all of it must move it once, therefore the force applied is propagated super luminally. (I can see a way out of this. Just claim that the bobble won't start to move until the force reaches all parts of it. This makes the accerlation have a delay) Could we not apply this to a non-zero-volume electron? If an electron is fundamental (no substructure) and is actually made up of 'stuff',the whole electron is forced to move as a whole. (no compression) Thus, to FTL signal, pack electrons ('touching') into a "cable". Pushing the end electron forces all of them to move at once. Violation of relativity, hence no volume allowed. QED (I'm assuming that when they are touching, no messenger particles are exchanged, but the force is transmitted instantaneously ;-)) -Ray p.s. I think it can be said that the proton does have a "volume" since it bounded by 3 quarks and is not a point particle. -- Ray Cromwell | Engineering is the implementation of science; -- -- EE/Math Student | politics is the implementation of faith. -- -- rjc@gnu.ai.mit.edu | - Zetetic Commentaries -- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1993 18:29:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Mark Sulkowski Subject: Existence exists? From: Arkuat >I can't stand it anymore. > >Rand's rants to the contrary, "Existence exists" is not and cannot be an >axiom. It is a tautology, a statement with null information content. I think she phrased it that way to make it short and sweet (apparently not so sweet for some people in this conference...) Would it be less objectionable to phrase it something like: There is an existence. -or- Things exist. -or somesuch... * . ====\\. ~ //==== || \\ ~ . *// || || \\ * // || || \\.~// || || \\// || || Mark \/enture || ==================== ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 9 Aug 93 18:30:43 EDT From: Andy Wilson Subject: ECOMAD: Gaia Liberation Front Madness Date: Mon, 9 Aug 1993 15:28:24 -0500 From: extr@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) In <9308091955.AA27378@custard.think.com>, Andy Wilson writes: [Ray sounds alarm about eco-alarmists] |> I will reiterate my heresy: |> |> I see no contradiction between extropian values and common sense about |> environmental concerns. That's not heresy, but it is a _non seqitur_. Ray was hardly describing the beliefs of any common-sensical groups. Even moderate He did indeed state that "the environmental movement" would be an obstacle to extropian values. That would include reasonable environmentalists. Also it is indeed heresy on this list, judging from the period that I have been on it. Another recent post jokingly suggested killing environmentalists would be a good thing. My point was precisely that Ray was using the statements of a fringe group to discredit the entire movement, a classic ploy of propagandists. I would much rather see substantive posts like Nick Szabo's (although it was colored by the use of the word "ecofascist") than simple rants like Ray's. Entertaining rants, on the other hand, can be a lot of fun ;-). environmentalists tend to look first at governmental rather than market solutions -- and this is self-reinforcing: the better they get at lobbying, and the more governmental contacts they cultivate, the more they learn to think in regulatory terms. Have you seen any indication that this is changing? I think I've noticed a little less cozying-up by the media to the radical groups, but no increase in coverage of scientific ecology (unless it's a conveniently sound-bitable pronouncement). Most special interest groups tend to look first at governmental rather than market solutions. So what? There's nothing special about environmentalists in this regard. If you want to promote libertarian ideas, trashing all environmentalists will get you nowhere. Using market solutions to deal with environmental issues is a very important idea that needs to be promoted more. Andy ^ / ------/---- extropy@jido.b30.ingr.com (Freeman Craig Presson) /AS 5/20/373 PNO /ExI 4/373 PNO ** E' and E-choice spoken here Language nit: Khmer verde would be Spanish, Khmer vert (rhymes!) French. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1993 18:26:33 -0400 From: "Perry E. Metzger" Subject: INVEST: Transaction costs Nick Szabo says: > Perry Metzger and I seem to agree on the basic "invest in what you > know", but of courese we're going to quarrel about the details. :-) > This is an interesting and important topic, so I hope we can keep this > out of the ad hominem territory some of our earlier stuff > degenerated to, OK? > > > 1) The only thing that might help you in terms of automation is access > > to a quote machine and news wire. > > For the typical individual investor, this is true. That's why > they shouldn't play that game. Nick, you seem really adamant on all this. Why? Lots of people I know make money in the markets -- its really not so tough. > (Although there is some good fundamental analysis software coming > out, including complex math models that big players have used to > beat the market, even if you haven't seen them at Lehman). I've yet to hear of anyone using such stuff successfully. I've seen LOTS of stat arb operations in action, and I even worked for the grandpa of all stat arb proprietary trading groups at Morgan Stanley. I hear intimations from my friends at some companies that they have new and interesting things available, but I never see them make money. > Even quote machine and news wire only work if you are very > experienced and sophisticated on the subtleties of what all that > data means (eg Paul Tudor Jones, long-time floor trader before he > went into fund management), The only reason for the quote machine and news wire is to give you the sort of data you could get from the newspaper in real time. In fact, it tends to be a distraction if you are value investing. > That game is saturated with very experienced > players like Jones, and the market price already reflects the news wire > (and the ticks in ways humans can intuit) long before the indy (who can't > afford real-time news or quotes) can even get them, much less figure out > what they mean in terms of mispricing. Bull. A year ago, I made a big mistake -- I never asked my friends at Qualcomm if they were public -- I idiotically assumed they weren't. Had I known that they were, I would have bought heavily, because I knew from personal experience that they had a really really good thing going in CDMA. As it turned out, they quadrupled in price. You tell me that the average analyst knows didly squat about what spread spectrum means, what the implications of soft handoff are, etc. A couple of years ago, some people in my office noted that Cabletron and Synoptics both had pretty good products, and that the hub market was going through the roof -- and that the firms were priced low. It was also obvious that the guys at the houses on wall street didn't know TCP/IP from blue cheese. Lots of us bought. The stocks went through the roof. I can go on and on. You don't need to watch the ticks all day long. You just have to know your companies. > > And really, most people who understand what they are doing do just > > fine as "part-time amateurs" when it comes to picking stocks. > > Bull. I heavily doubt the average investor in such cases > does better than the dart board minus transaction costs. I should show you some of my friend's portfolios. Note, I didn't say "average" investor. I said people WHO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE DOING. Many people go off and invest in things they don't know and haven't researched. I don't know supermarkets from a hole in the ground -- what could I figure out about Seaway Food Town that would give me an edge? On the other hand, with little effort I can tell you that Qualcomm is going to be an outstanding company someday soon. (Unfortunately, they are already trading at an outrageous multiple.) > And the > transaction costs eat small portfolios alive in the long run. Only if you trade constantly. If you buy what you believe in and don't try trading every day, you'll be fine. I really don't see how you can make broad generalizations about transaction costs that way. > Transaction costs are controllable and (usually) predictable, while > the securities themselves are neither for most indies. My own > sample is that most people I know well who've done this (about 8 out > of 12, with me one of the lucky ones) have lost money. Lots of people here in my office make money at this, and aren't equities professionals. Not to get ad hominem, but I get the impression you are just bad at this and project it on everyone else. > As you point out commodity futures are even worse (as are options > and other kinds of leverage when you don't have an edge, or don't > bother to compute your chance-of-ruin stats or transaction costs, > also starting to become available in software packages these days). Commodity futures are bad largely because soybeans don't appreciate (companies do) and because with the leverage you have in futures markets a small move in the wrong direction wipes you out. Options are a problem largely if you use them for the wrong reason -- as a way to increase your leverage. > > You *CAN* make good investments on your own > > in the stock markets, and you CAN beat the "professionals", especially > > when the companies involved are firms you are personally familiar with > > -- computer people investing in computer companies, for example. > > You have to have information that is both _unique_ enough to you that > it is not yet reflected in the stock price, and _important_ enough to > the company that it will effect its stock price. Even then it's > not even close to low risk, you often have to gamble big chunks of your > life savings (otherwise the transaction costs are greater than the > value of your information). This is fairly easy with small high tech firms. The analysts understand nothing about them, they are easy for good computer people to grok, and good new products mean big bucks. > A basic to keep in mind: TANSTAAFL. Plus or minus luck, you have > to: > > * in general you must bring unique, important information to the > market if you expect to make any money Often, "unique" and "important" simply means you understand something where millions of others do not. Its not that hard. 99% of the people in the country are idiots. Perry ------------------------------ End of Extropians Digest V93 #221 ********************************* &