Group items tagged

There is a parallel between today's stock market and Fischer random chess. The last time we faced a global pandemic was in 1918, and this might as well have been in the BC era. Few of us were alive then, but even the history books are not that useful, as the structure of the US and global economy, the central bank system, the diversity and dynamism of society, and the state of technological progress are nothing like the world knew then. Most of the mental models we as investors rely on are based on an environment that no longer exists. The only common denominator between now and then is that humans have not really changed that much - it takes a few millennia to rewire our DNA and thus our fundamental behavior.

You probably interact with fifty to a hundred machine learning products every day, from your social media feeds and YouTube recommendations to your email spam filter and the updates that the New York Times, CNN, or Fox News decide to push, not to mention the hidden models that place ads on the websites you visit, and that redesign your 'experience' on the fly. Not all models are created equal, however: they operate on different principles, and impact us as individuals and communities in different ways. They differ fundamentally from each other along dimensions such as alignment of incentives between stakeholders, "creep factor", and the nature of how their feedback loops ope !L

Human networks are not random. We connect to others who're like us in some way; social scientists call this homophily. A point of similarity might be something as fundamental to our identity as gender, religion, ethnicity, age, values, or beliefs. Or it could be, and often is, socioeconomic status. Or geographic-say, a neighborhood, city, or region where you grew up. Or an enthusiasm-football, a popular video game, or a breed of dog. When we meet someone at a party, we quickly try to find out if our networks connect in some way. Where are you from? What do you do? How do you know the host? Homophily is a human universal and an essential piece of our mental equipment for sustaining cooperation.

The result highlights a fundamental tension: Either the rules of quantum mechanics don't always apply, or at least one basic assumption about reality must be wrong.

We need to take a hard look at what parts of the world are critical to the security of the West and rethink how to make its alliances work again. The following geopolitical reality is still true today: The United States has to ensure that no power hostile to its interests can assert exclusive control over Eurasia, including the European rimland. Today preventing China's domination of Eurasia should be our overarching strategic objective, and to achieve this we need to focus on three fundamentals: 1) Prioritize Eurasia and stop draining our military resources in secondary theaters; 2) invest in allies who see their interests directly aligned with ours and are willing to assume the attendant risk; and 3) decouple U.S. strategic industries from China's and redefine the rules of international trade to ensure equitable competition.

Contrary to common beliefs on fiscal fundamentals, the current debt crisis in the global periphery demonstrates that the solvency of sovereign states is determined by their monetary power. Crucially, liquidity has a cyclical character in the periphery of global capitalism and a countercyclical character in the core.

Or, What's Really Missing From Tech, the World, and Us Today

"This is Part 3 (and final) of my series responding to an iNET claim that Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and mainstream macroeconomics were essentially at one in the way they understand the economy but differ on matters of which policy instrument (fiscal or monetary) to assign to counter stabilisation duties. In Part 1, I demonstrated how the core mainstream macroeconomic concepts bear no correspondence with the core MMT concepts, so it was surprising that someone would try to run an argument that the practical differences were really about policy assignment. In Part 2, we saw how the iNET authors created a stylised version of mainstream macroeconomics that ignored the fundamental building blocks (how they reach their conclusions about the real world), which means that they ignore important differences in the way MMT economists and mainstream macroeconomists interpret a given economic state. I will elaborate on that in this final part. Further, by reducing the body of work now known as MMT to be just 'functional finance', the iNET authors also, effectively, abandon any valid comparison between MMT and the mainstream, although they do not acknowledge that sleight of hand. The series so far is: 1. The divide between mainstream macro and MMT is irreconcilable - Part 1 2. The divide between mainstream macro and MMT is irreconcilable - Part 2"