On a sunny day (Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:08:44 +0100) it happened Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote in <ti99lt$vs1$1@gioia.aioe.org>:

>On 13/10/2022 15:49, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 7:31:49 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 22:43:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 8:12:50 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:03:09 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/as-the-fed-fights-inflation-worries-rise-that-it-e2-80-99s-overcorrecting/ar-AA12PoPQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of control, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as long as things are 'as usual', that says we don't have another great depression.
>>>
>>>> "As usual" means wild instability.
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly. That's what a system with gain looks like, with random inputs (pandemic,
>>> war, drought...). The great depression was bad-times-ahead because of bad-times-now, with
>>> no upswing for years. Instability would have broken that cycle quicker.
>>>
>>> Why would you want stability instead?
>>
>> Yes. If we indeed want a bunch of politicians and academics playing
>> with trillions of dollars (and we don't) we need policies that dampen
>> oscillations. That could only be enforced by law; the pols and profs
>> can't restrain themselves from flailing.
>
>I think you will find it is mostly the derivatives traders and hedge
>fund managers that cause the instabilities. They have information not
>available to everyone else and use it for their advantage.
>
>Insane leverage financial engineering amplifies the gains and losses.
>
>The academics tend to stick to their computer models - which by and
>large are reasonably accurate for macroeconomics. They can't do much
>about boom bust cycles though since if everyone is persuaded that they
>must buy cryptocurrencies by some airhead influencer then pump and dump
>can be incredibly profitable with first mover advantage.
>
>I once watched the guy who designed the UK 3G auction that nearly
>bankrupt the mobile phone industry sell a £1 coin for £2. I stopped
>bidding at 99p but two testosterone (and likely cocaine) fuelled traders
>got into a bidding war for possession of it. Most amusing - there was
>nothing special about the £1 (and this was clearly stated at the outset).
>--
>Regards,
>Martin Brown

Very long time ago I did a trading course from a local uni.
Well so I know how to make some money on the stock market and did some option trading.
I did that course because I really did not understand the stuff and had no financial background.
You learn some simple basics that way,, so I started coding what I learned, the world followed, got some email from some students
if they could use the code... You described what happened... automatic trading...
http://panteltje.com/panteltje/financial/index.html#xkra
But then I started thinking, why learn from somebody who can just make a little bit of money
why not learn for the best?
So I bought George Soros' book "The Alchemy of Finance".
In that he goes into the connection between the markets and politics.
We see politics now at play in the US...
And George is in the game for the demoncrates I think.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros

Its not all that hard.... But you have to want it,,,

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 11:07:56 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 10/13/2022 10:49 AM, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 7:31:49 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 22:43:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 8:12:50 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:03:09 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/as-the-fed-fights-inflation-worries-rise-that-it-e2-80-99s-overcorrecting/ar-AA12PoPQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of control, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as long as things are 'as usual', that says we don't have another great depression.
>>>
>>>> "As usual" means wild instability.
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly. That's what a system with gain looks like, with random inputs (pandemic,
>>> war, drought...). The great depression was bad-times-ahead because of bad-times-now, with
>>> no upswing for years. Instability would have broken that cycle quicker.
>>>
>>> Why would you want stability instead?
>>
>> Yes. If we indeed want a bunch of politicians and academics playing
>> with trillions of dollars (and we don't) we need policies that dampen
>> oscillations. That could only be enforced by law; the pols and profs
>> can't restrain themselves from flailing.
>>
>
>US economy in a boots-on-the-ground sense is not too bad right now. Lots
>of people have quit low-paying jobs for better ones, which is part of
>why my girlfriend's local Taco Bell only has two people working there on
>a Saturday night. Good for employees, bad if you want a taco in a hurry.
>
>The stock market is buggered, though.

Yes. Zero interest rated drove everyone into stocks, many of which
were crazy SPAC type things. Lots of things are at a few percent of
peak.

>
>It's a good time to be in the business of actually making product, I think

Especially designing analog-centric electronics, which not many people
can still do.

On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:08:44 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:

>On 13/10/2022 15:49, John Larkin wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 7:31:49 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 22:43:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 8:12:50 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:03:09 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>> <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/as-the-fed-fights-inflation-worries-rise-that-it-e2-80-99s-overcorrecting/ar-AA12PoPQ
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Out of control, as usual.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as long as things are 'as usual', that says we don't have another great depression.
>>>
>>>> "As usual" means wild instability.
>>>
>>> Yes, exactly. That's what a system with gain looks like, with random inputs (pandemic,
>>> war, drought...). The great depression was bad-times-ahead because of bad-times-now, with
>>> no upswing for years. Instability would have broken that cycle quicker.
>>>
>>> Why would you want stability instead?
>>
>> Yes. If we indeed want a bunch of politicians and academics playing
>> with trillions of dollars (and we don't) we need policies that dampen
>> oscillations. That could only be enforced by law; the pols and profs
>> can't restrain themselves from flailing.
>
>I think you will find it is mostly the derivatives traders and hedge
>fund managers that cause the instabilities. They have information not
>available to everyone else and use it for their advantage.

One simple damper: a 0.5% tax on all financial transactions.

While we're at it, a 1 cent tax on every email.

>
>Insane leverage financial engineering amplifies the gains and losses.
>
>The academics tend to stick to their computer models - which by and
>large are reasonably accurate for macroeconomics.

Umm, you can't be serious about that. Their predictive value is zip.
The only things macroeconomic theories agree with are themselves.

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 7:49:37 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 7:31:49 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
> >> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 22:43:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:

> >> >Well, as long as things are 'as usual', that says we don't have another great depression.
> >
> >> "As usual" means wild instability.
> >
> >Yes, exactly. That's what a system with gain looks like, with random inputs (pandemic,
> >war, drought...). The great depression was bad-times-ahead because of bad-times-now, with
> >no upswing for years. Instability would have broken that cycle quicker.
> >
> >Why would you want stability instead?

> Yes. If we indeed want a bunch of politicians and academics playing
> with trillions of dollars (and we don't) we need policies that dampen
> oscillations. That could only be enforced by law; the pols and profs
> can't restrain themselves from flailing.

Damping doesn't prevent oscillations.
Apparently, you don't like the Federal Reserve? And you're
calling them 'pols and profs'?
That's silly; politicians and professors will answer questions that the Fed
is silent about, and you're just dramatizing some kind of resentment of the
answers.

On 13/10/2022 17:07, John Larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:08:44 +0100, Martin Brown
> <'''newspam'''@nonad.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 13/10/2022 15:49, John Larkin wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 13:08:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 7:31:49 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2022 22:43:01 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2022 at 8:12:50 AM UTC-7, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2022 08:03:09 -0700, John Larkin
>>>>>>> <jla...@highlandSNIPMEtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/as-the-fed-fights-inflation-worries-rise-that-it-e2-80-99s-overcorrecting/ar-AA12PoPQ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Out of control, as usual.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as long as things are 'as usual', that says we don't have another great depression.
>>>>
>>>>> "As usual" means wild instability.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, exactly. That's what a system with gain looks like, with random inputs (pandemic,
>>>> war, drought...). The great depression was bad-times-ahead because of bad-times-now, with
>>>> no upswing for years. Instability would have broken that cycle quicker.
>>>>
>>>> Why would you want stability instead?
>>>
>>> Yes. If we indeed want a bunch of politicians and academics playing
>>> with trillions of dollars (and we don't) we need policies that dampen
>>> oscillations. That could only be enforced by law; the pols and profs
>>> can't restrain themselves from flailing.
>>
>> I think you will find it is mostly the derivatives traders and hedge
>> fund managers that cause the instabilities. They have information not
>> available to everyone else and use it for their advantage.
>
> One simple damper: a 0.5% tax on all financial transactions.

For once we sort of agree although I think it only really needs to be
applied to trades in the more volatile markets. It would be a bit
annoying as a surcharge for buying your lunch for instance.

I think 0.1% tax on trades would be enough to damp out the worst
excesses of high frequency traders. Some of my contemporaries sold their
souls to the city using what is effectively rocket science and complex
mathematics to make money. Most of the time it works but when it doesn't
you get spectacular failures like LTCM going bust (which was a classic).

Snag is their bosses (and they) have no idea what their software is
capable of and 2ms is a very long time at modern computer speeds.

> While we're at it, a 1 cent tax on every email.

That's a bit OTT. 0.01 cent might be more reasonable.

>> Insane leverage financial engineering amplifies the gains and losses.
>>
>> The academics tend to stick to their computer models - which by and
>> large are reasonably accurate for macroeconomics.
>
> Umm, you can't be serious about that. Their predictive value is zip.
> The only things macroeconomic theories agree with are themselves.

I had a chance to torment the Oxford economic model some years ago. It
would pretty much have predicted the massive MFU that Trussonomics have
got us into. Some financial rules cannot be broken without consequences.

It will be very interesting to see if the BoE holds to its threat not to
intervene in the markets if UK pension funds go into a tailspin because
the government has effectively made gilt securities worthless.

If you persuade the markets that government debt may not be a safe
investment and repayment might be optional they want a hell of a lot
more interest before they are willing to fund someone's crazed pipe
dream. The net effect is that everyone's mortgage will go up.

I'm sitting pretty I don't have one and I do have enough land that if
necessary I could live off it by growing produce.

Massive tax cuts for corporates and the richest 1% funded by increased
borrowing and a claim that growth will increase was never going to work.

It didn't help that the Chancellor was at a champagne reception with the
guys who sold him down the river by shorting the pound once his "Mini"
Budget^d^d^d^d^d^d Financial Event was over. No wrong doing has been
proved but it really doesn't look good for him now!

--
Regards,
Martin Brown