[quote]
On 2002-01-05 18:21, Dave'71 wrote:

Likewise, if you were to apply Darwinism to the economy, wouldn't self-oriented survival be the no.1 motivation for economic progression? If so, is free-market capitalism also your economic method of choice?

So, as a Darwinist, how might you apply the concepts of ecology to economic theory?

Be very careful when applying Darwinian evolution to economic theory. Most evolutionists hold that evolution is a process without any endgoal such as progress. Likewise, the selection mechanism in economic systems can vary, which in no way precludes self-interested units from supporting governmental or other types of external regulations. Thus proponents of free-market capitalism err when they claim evolutionary theory bolsters their case.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Crispy '59 on 2002-01-05 21:11 ]</font>

On 2002-01-05 21:08, Crispy '59 wrote:
Thus proponents of free-market capitalism err when they claim evolutionary theory bolsters their case.

Crispy,

Good points. I personally subscribe to a non-traditional evolution that incorporates both Darwinism and community-based evolution, whereby systems organize around their survivalistic "needs" (individually and among their local- and macro-community). That said, I'd rather call the process by which life organizes Grace.

As I posed earlier, I am very interested in finding out what the fuels of an economy are from those who also know ecology and would be up for challenge of comparison. Metaphorically, I think the current economy runs off of fear (survival) and desire (power). And once these sources run dry, which I believe they will, the economy (if it is so named then) will function under a different fuel.

I did not say that Buchanan was a liberal--he's not. I said he has some positions (such as those on free trade) that are shared by liberals. This is because Buchanan is a populist, like George Wallace or William Jennings Bryan. Buchanan (like Wallace and Bryan) also has many views that are anathema to liberals.

Dave?71?Now let?s be clear about Darwinian evolution: it?s not a case of ?survival of the fittest,? or neo vs. classical. Evolution is entirely a genetic gambit REACTING to physical change. Richard Dawkins and his predecessors speak for me: genes are ?pure information,? deterministically endowed (by who-knows-what) to defeat time by leaping from one individual to the next. And natural selection is not the only way creatures evolve; genes don?t always have deterministic control of their affairs. If you understand the war in the north Atlantic between Oxford?s Dawkins and Harvard?s Stephen Jay Gould (major stuff!), you?ll know what I mean about Darwinian evolution.

Dave, you are little more than a ?survival machine? (Dawkins) for the convenience of your deterministically selfish genes. But I?ll leave all that up to you. If you are more than your genes, then what are you? I?ll tell you what we are. We are pumped full of physical evidence in a chemical called testosterone to prove my point. Ay?

Now, for all of that to have any meaning in an economic context, we have to go to something like information theory. Both genes and $$$ have truck in a world where entropy and information join up recursively to evolve, because they are quantum mechanical replicators. I can see genes there, easily, because they CLEARLY exist in the quantum mechanics of electromagnetism?where genes and light are not so far apart.

If ecologists don?t understand the causal relationships that explain, say, the comings and goings of Spotted owls on the Olympic rain forest, then they certainly don?t know enough to the model the global affairs of human beings, economic or otherwise. I certainly don?t. I?m not at all sure that the next 50 years for humans will be anything like ?Darwinian? in the way they unfold. That?s a hard model to build. I?ll read Pat Buchanan, S&H, Karl Marx, Dr. Laura, Tammy Faye Baker, Saint John The Divine?anybody!?if they have a cyclical model of substance to put on the table.

I want to meet Princess Winter-Spring-Summer-Fall. Can you get me a date?

Croaker:

Richard Dawkins has found his "Selfish Gene" out of the selfishness of his heart. As I've quoted C.S. Lewis so many times before, "we clothe nature with our perceptions." The theories we discover are discoveries out of our own limited minds. We "project" our understanding of ourselves onto everything else that exists. Likewise, if you evolved out of the hippie perceptions of the 60's, you might project the Marxist perspective onto ecology and say that ecosystems are a community of organisms and their groups which develop together for the "good" of the whole. These are absolutely opposite views of evolution. But both, are correct, both are also incorrect--which is why I choose to call it Grace. We currently see genes as "pure information" because we project our information-based society onto our limited understanding of nature. We must apply metaphor, yes, but we must be wary and only apply the "great metaphor(s)."

Yes, genes are communities of waves/particles just like I am a collection of waves/particles. To say that the bottom only effects the top, but the top does not effect the bottom, is to say that the spotted owl effects the forest but that the forest does not effect the owl. The effects go both ways. It is also important to understand that the nature of any continuum, be it electromagnetism or evolution, is always circular in nature. They wrap back into each other. Everything is circular: Night becomes day. Day becomes night. The most micro becomes equal to the most macro. The end of time equals the beginning of time. Particle becomes wave. Wave becomes particle. Low frequency radio waves eventually revert to high energy cosmic waves. Gravity eventually converts to mass. And not only is the continuum one-dimensional, the continuum wraps back into a spherical dimension also. It's all about curves, Mr. Croaker. Would you not agree? Can you find a straight line anywhere in the universe? Show me, please, a true straight line and I will shut up and migrate up the Bogachiel to live a life as a hermit forever!

I do believe that all great metaphors apply. Ecology I believe is a great metaphor, as is meteorology, which should be referred to when we try to understand any science or spirit of things. Both of these circular metaphors should be applied to our other theories, so we can begin sharpening our understanding of the implications. E.g., if we apply meteorology to the concept of gravity, we begin to realize that gravity is far from what we think it is. Gravity is then viewed as a "wind" or a flow between differing "space/mass" densities, just as wind is the flow between high and low pressure systems, rather than a flow between large masses.

So, if we apply the concepts of ecology to the economy, we will discover an understanding that the economy is the flow of energy within the human technological system, just as carbon flows within the ecology of the natural community. Once we get to this stage of understanding, only then do the true implications begin to emerge! (I.e., what happens when technology is no longer valued, what becomes the energy of a non-technological human system? What will the new energy source be?)

"I want to meet Princess Winter-Spring-Summer-Fall. Can you get me a date?" Open your eyes, and behold, she is in front of your eyes! (Unfortunately, last time I asked, she said "maybe tomorrow." Hope you have better luck with her.)


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Dave'71 on 2002-01-06 12:23 ]</font>

Subject: What if Chicken Little were right?

Thanks for the appellation "Young Robert". I really appreciate that. Buy you a drink sometime.

But seriously, have I been right or have I been right? We've been in a Bear Market for at least two years now. The current rally is just another typical Bear Market rally to sucker in the shoe clerks for another killing. It will fail before long. We're in a recession. Recessions at the end of Third Turnings have a habit of devolving into depressions. Big Al has just about used up his bullets. The Fed will soon have a zero interest rate policy with little or no effect just like Japan has had for the last ten years. Someone tell me where I'm wrong. And don't give me a lot of blather about "my model of the market and the economy". Anybody with half his brains intact would know it's IMPOSSIBLE to model something as complicated as the economy or the market.

All that it's possible to say is that this ENTIRE boom from 1982 on has been driven by credit and debt expansion and NOTHING ELSE. Sure you can have a high old time living on your credit card but sooner or later the bill for the principal and interest come due.
All I'm saying is that there is a good possibility that time is NOW. NOBODY really knows, it's impossible to predict.

And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods.

And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field.

Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied.

This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. --1 Samuel 17:43-46


We all know how the chapter plays out: A young hero keeps his word while forcing the giant to eat his. Might makes right and a sling shot overcomes the sword.

But thats not my point. My point is that the Chicken Littles of the world contribute nothing while attempting to consume everything. They are but a clanging cymbol within the civil-body politic. They run around hysterical as they posit there doom and gloom scenarios. With absolutely nothing at stake, and hence nothing to lose, they cry wolf often enough that sometime, somewhere their bound to get it right.

Yet when the real wolf does appear they are the last to be found willing to confront the challenge, to stand up to the danger, to confront the Goliath.

Sadly, young Robert Reed (some think of a David-like generation) has chosen to follow Robert's (and those like him) Chicken Little lead.

And yes, the chief prophet of doom and gloom, a man disinherited from the GOP long ago, Mr. Buchanan leadth his flock of goats to bitter waters.

For where else can they go, they that dream of only of darkness, and not of light?

Marc, you and Dave ought to get together and clap for Tinkerbell?or C. S. Lewis.

Buchanan, in fact, is worried to death about Muslims replacing Christians, mosques replacing churches. It?s all about religious attitude, no matter how you cut it. Right here in 2002, we?re still fighting over that same old stupid stuff.

Tinkerbell is dying. Clap real hard!

I am not threatened by a people, however large in number, whose secular leaders use religion to keep them firmly entrenched in the stone-age, Croaker.

While you probably see no difference wherein followers of Christ are concerned, I might remind you the history, and Robert Fogel, prove otherwise. :smile:

No, I am confident that the west, pluralism, the sheep and the goats, and the Cross will prevail should we tangle with the ever growing herd of mosques-goers.


p.s. Kudos to Mike Alexander for stetting Mr. Croaker straight, in my absence, yesterday. As usual, Mike got it exactly right. Thanks. :smile:

On 2002-01-06 13:47, Marc S. Lamb wrote:

My point is that the Chicken Littles of the world contribute nothing while attempting to consume everything. They are but a clanging cymbol within the civil-body politic. They run around hysterical as they posit there doom and gloom scenarios. With absolutely nothing at stake, and hence nothing to lose, they cry wolf often enough that sometime, somewhere their bound to get it right.

Yet when the real wolf does appear they are the last to be found willing to confront the challenge, to stand up to the danger, to confront the Goliath.

marc,

actually i would not call people calling for depression and other such economic calamity, etc. at this time "chicken littles." rather they are more akin to the "boy who cried wolf." they keep crying and crying that the wolf is at the door but for some reason he never seems to appear. but then when the wolf DOES show up no one wants to listen because of all the false alarms raised previously. THAT is the disservice that they do.

there is no question that we face serious problems in the future that are likely to come down on both this country and the world very hard. but to say its likely when the world still swims in this much liquidity and so many pessimists still abound is just ignoring the lessons that markets have taught over and over and over again.

but i will not complain too loudly. without these people profits would be far harder to come by. so with that in mind, i say let the doomsayers thrive for now. in a way they provide the necessary fuel to propel everything higher and provide the clearest warning signal that i know of, when they finally throw in the towel and begin to buy and become minimally optimistic, that it really is finally time to sell everything, stock up on canned goods and shotguns, and head for the hills.

A bigger acorn has fallen on my head.

From http://www.urbansurvival.com

"Something incredibly scary happened when I looked at numbers this week: The U.S. was within a hair's breadth of being technically bankrupt! As you may or may not know, the amount of debt the U.S. is allowed to rack up is $5.95 trillion. According to the Treasury Department, the debt as of 12/31/01 was:

$5,943,438,563,436.13

No, we're not technically bankrupt...but within a hair's breadth is exactly right. We're talking about being only a few days of credit card payments, a mere $7-billion, from bankruptcy. The U.S. may be able to "borrow its way out in the short term", but we're there, right now...bumping up against a statutory limit. $5.95 trillion is the congressionally imposed limit and we were at $ 5.93 trillion as of year end!"

Of course, I am skeptical, but that is food for thought.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." - John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-01-06 20:33 ]</font>

"A bigger acorn has fallen on my head."


Yeah, so fucking what! Are you the first damn asshole to have an acorn, what ever size, fall on your damn head!

Get a fucking grip, Mr. Reed! You ain't seen nothing yet. Bin laden is but a stinking foreshadow of what's to come! Death, stinking death... till it runs out your damn nostrils, till it reeks in every fiber of your bones, Mr. Reed! Imagine you worst damn nightmare! It comes! It comes! Praise God, Mr. Reed, it comes!

Happy?

Is this the dream of fucking intraverts, or what? Calling Dr. Lamb! Come on fuel this idiot's 4T fire!

Sheesh.

On 2002-01-06 22:16, Marc S. Lamb wrote:

"A bigger acorn has fallen on my head."

Yeah, so fucking what! Are you the first damn asshole to have an acorn, what ever size, fall on your damn head!

Get a fucking grip, Mr. Reed! You ain't seen nothing yet. Bin laden is but a stinking foreshadow of what's to come! Death, stinking death... till it runs out your damn nostrils, till it reeks in every fiber of your bones, Mr. Reed! Imagine you worst damn nightmare! It comes! It comes! Praise God, Mr. Reed, it comes!

Happy?

Is this the dream of fucking intraverts, or what? Calling Dr. Lamb! Come on fuel this idiot's 4T fire!

Sheesh.

Is something wrong with you or something? All I did was post something that might be of value.

You are right, I did post something alarmist, but only to invoke more discussion.

This is a board for the discussion of 4T issues. That means that we will discuss any possibility that might be related to the theory. But if you can't handle it; if you can't handle anyone who might have ideas of what COULD happen, or how things could play out in a 4T, then I would suggest that you leave this website. What you posted was very inappropriate, very insulting to not only me, but to Mr. Howe and Mr Strauss, and to others on here. At the very least, I would've expected an intelligent rebuttal, but not an angry ad hominem attack. I thought you were cooler and more intelligent than to just resort to profanity and personal attacks to get your point across. I will respond very well to nicely written intellectual rebuttals, but never to seemingly drunken personal attacks. One would think that such a middle-aged person would at least have the integrity to not resort to such styles of argument, but of course, I've been proven wrong on several occasions. What you written was what I would expect from someone my age, not someone who has life experience. Here is a tip for you. Grow up!! Anyone who comes to this site should be prepared to face ideas that are very contradictory to themselves. This is normally a site in which everyone gets along, even though their ideology is entirely different. The people that come to this site have fought to keep people who post in such a way that you have above out. We've been mostly successful in keeping this site a clean, intelligent place for discussion. But can we do it? No. One of our regular posters just could not resist acting like a classless 15-year old who posts on usenet. If you are going to start posting like that, please leave. I'm sure that you can find many places in other forums, or on usenet that take kindly to your style of posting.

What a disgrace!

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." - John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-01-06 23:35 ]</font>

Marc--

A drunken outburst? Tisk, tisk. What would Jesus say? Problem is, Marc, I agree with you too much. Osama IS the Second Coming. Jesus is late again, fashinonably late. And He promised to be on time, too. Tisk, tisk.

Hope you got some sleep, Lamb of God.

My apologies, Mr. Reed. I watched the movie Patton last night. Then, when I saw your post, I went off on a tirade.

While it saddens me greatly to see you constantly taking the purely 'alarmest' attitude, it certianly isn't up to me to change that. And even if it was, screaming like I did would not be the way to go about it.

Unless, of course, we were in boot camp. :smile:

[enjolras:] ...but to say its likely when the world still swims in this much liquidity and so many pessimists still abound is just ignoring the lessons that markets have taught over and over and over again.

[Mike:] What exactly do you mean by "liquidity". My understanding of liquidity is cash, not cheap debt (low rates). How much cash are you sitting on right now? More or less than you had in March 2000? How does your cash level today compare to what you had in 1994? I had MUCH higher cash percentage in March 2000 and in 1994 than I do now, so my liquidity is greatly reduced today from what it was then.

How do present levels of cash reserves in mutual funds compare to what funds held in 1994 or 1991? I'll bet that cash levels were higher in '91 and '94 than they are today.

On 2002-01-07 08:00, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[enjolras:] ...but to say its likely when the world still swims in this much liquidity and so many pessimists still abound is just ignoring the lessons that markets have taught over and over and over again.

[Mike:] What exactly do you mean by "liquidity". My understanding of liquidity is cash, not cheap debt (low rates). How much cash are you sitting on right now? More or less than you had in March 2000? How does your cash level today compare to what you had in 1994? I had MUCH higher cash percentage in March 2000 and in 1994 than I do now, so my liquidity is greatly reduced today from what it was then.

How do present levels of cash reserves in mutual funds compare to what funds held in 1994 or 1991? I'll bet that cash levels were higher in '91 and '94 than they are today.

by "liquidity" i am referring to the annualized increase in the monetary base which is currently increasing at almost a double digit annual clip and has almost always coincided with turns in the economy and the markets since they started keeping records. and actually i believe the last numbers i saw are that the total level of mutual fund cash now is higher than during either 91 or 94 simply because there is far more money in the system now.

as for me personally, since my trading is generally of a short to intermediate term scope i currently have a somewhat defensive posture on toward the market, selectively picking my spots and am even looking at some short sales for the short run. but longer run, over the next several years, everything still looks very positive.

the best time to be long will be after a successful retest of the september lows anyway. this is almost always the case as the first move up off a significant low is traditionally the normal "wall of worry" type move. then you get a retracement which brings out all the bears again and, when the lows successfully hold, THAT is when the real money is made as doubts about the future course of the market begin to fade and even all but the most steadfast permabears begin to run for cover. currently, we are still in the "wall of worry" phase. the retracement should be coming soon and that will tell the tale.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: enjolras on 2002-01-07 08:30 ]</font>

[enjolras:] ... as for me personally, since my trading is generally of a short to intermediate term scope i currently have a somewhat defensive posture on toward the market, selectively picking my spots and am even looking at some short sales for the short run. but longer run, over the next several years, everything still looks very positive.

[Mike:] Actually I was asked about the OPM that your manage, not your own private accounts. I thought you said you had gone long in the spring and fall after having gone flat in fall 2000. Based on your long term views these are wise moves.

But now you say you are defensively postured with your own money (but not your clients?). Suppose two months from now the market is significantly higher and there has been no retest. Will you remain defensively postured all the way back up or will you get back in at a higher price than today? And if you are going to get in at a higher price then why not stay in today, after all your model has the market going up in the next few years, why risk missing the rise trying the catch a retest that may never happen?

I know that you engage in trading. But has the fund or collection of assets that you manage outperformed a buy-and-hold position placed in an S&P500 index fund from the time you started to run money?

The vast majority of mutual funds do not outperform the index. If you have done so, I would expect your management skills would get you a job managing one of the thousands of mutual funds out there (if so which one is yours?). If you have not outperformed the index, why do you engage in trading rather than a buy-and-hold index strategy--especially since you see the indices going higher than their 2000 highs in the next few years?

On 2002-01-06 20:29, madscientist wrote:
A bigger acorn has fallen on my head.

From http://www.urbansurvival.com

"Something incredibly scary happened when I looked at numbers this week: The U.S. was within a hair's breadth of being technically bankrupt! As you may or may not know, the amount of debt the U.S. is allowed to rack up is $5.95 trillion. According to the Treasury Department, the debt as of 12/31/01 was:

$5,943,438,563,436.13

No, we're not technically bankrupt...but within a hair's breadth is exactly right. We're talking about being only a few days of credit card payments, a mere $7-billion, from bankruptcy. The U.S. may be able to "borrow its way out in the short term", but we're there, right now...bumping up against a statutory limit. $5.95 trillion is the congressionally imposed limit and we were at $ 5.93 trillion as of year end!"

Of course, I am skeptical, but that is food for thought.

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
---------------------------------------------
"Life is not a cancer of matter; it is matter's transcendence of itself." - John S. Lewis
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." - Einstein

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-01-06 20:33 ]</font>

Not to worry. This is a political game that happened frequently during the 1980s and 1990s. All Congress has to do is raise the debt ceiling. This they have done routinely in the past and presumably do so in the future. Even the Boomers currently leading the Congress would not be so insane as to hold up Grandma's social security payment.

Jeeze! These Millennials don't remember deficit spending!

:grin: :lol:

On 2002-01-07 09:16, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[enjolras:] ... as for me personally, since my trading is generally of a short to intermediate term scope i currently have a somewhat defensive posture on toward the market, selectively picking my spots and am even looking at some short sales for the short run. but longer run, over the next several years, everything still looks very positive.

[Mike:] Actually I was asked about the OPM that your manage, not your own private accounts. I thought you said you had gone long in the spring and fall after having gone flat in fall 2000. Based on your long term views these are wise moves.

But now you say you are defensively postured with your own money (but not your clients?). Suppose two months from now the market is significantly higher and there has been no retest. Will you remain defensively postured all the way back up or will you get back in at a higher price than today? And if you are going to get in at a higher price then why not stay in today, after all your model has the market going up in the next few years, why risk missing the rise trying the catch a retest that may never happen?

I know that you engage in trading. But has the fund or collection of assets that you manage outperformed a buy-and-hold position placed in an S&P500 index fund from the time you started to run money?

The vast majority of mutual funds do not outperform the index. If you have done so, I would expect your management skills would get you a job managing one of the thousands of mutual funds out there (if so which one is yours?). If you have not outperformed the index, why do you engage in trading rather than a buy-and-hold index strategy--especially since you see the indices going higher than their 2000 highs in the next few years?

mike,

i run a private investment partnership, a hedge fund, that is closed to new investors at this time. and yes, we have outperformed a buy and hold strategy versus the S&P index since inception. its virtually a requirement since i don't get paid unless i make money for my clients.

i use a variety of strategies for myself and my clients to manage their funds, some of which are shorter term in scope than others. longer term, as i have said, my distinct bias is to be a buyer, but in the short run now there are some risks which i am hedging against. after all, the S&P index alone has risen around 25% just since the september lows. some sort of pullback would not be unexpected from here so i hedge my bets accordingly.

On 2002-01-07 09:37, Jenny Genser wrote:
Jeeze! These Millennials don't remember deficit spending!

:grin: :lol:

Well, I don't have a good memory of the Bush Sr. presidency. :razz:

On 2002-01-07 11:04, madscientist wrote:

On 2002-01-07 09:37, Jenny Genser wrote:
Jeeze! These Millennials don't remember deficit spending!

:grin: :lol:

Well, I don't have a good memory of the Bush Sr. presidency. :razz:

What? You didn't follow the deficit when you in middle school? I'm shocked, shocked!

:lol:

Marc, Devil got your tongue?? Shame, shame!

Susan--

Marc's not a happy face these days. He's troubled about what the meaning of is is.