(FB 1543608359 Timestamp) STATUS FROM ELI
Form: Short Note
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543607997 Timestamp) Another nit: Great Men “Candidates” evolve (emerge) in batches, usually over three generations of incentives (really). In other words, the market for great men exists at all times (iron law of oligarchy so to speak). World Communism was such a threat (and it’s legacy still is) that it created demand for great men to both take advantage of it, and to oppose it with Fascism. Everything else that occured within those societies was simply utilitarian. whether we get a Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot is merely a function of utility in the sphere of influences. And as controversial as it might seem today, Hitler and Mussolini if not Stalin and Mao, will be judged by history quite differently. And it is happening already. Science evolves with the death of the advocates of theories. As a struggle for expansion during an era of western dominance we skew one bias, and as an attempt to save the core of western civilization in a period of anticipation of decline, we skew yet another. History is unkind to the consensus of an era. That is because consensus is merely utilitarian – rarely true. Its not uncommon to see informed debate that the anglos should have stayed out of the wars, rather than contributing to cause and conflict.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543603044 Timestamp) ARE HISTORIANS OR ECONOMISTS MORE RIGHT? Um…. Let me help you: OUTLIERS. Economists are better at explanation post hoc, and historians are better at prediction, for the simple reason that history consists of the analysis of outliers (opportunities in signal), and economics the analysis of regularities (opportunities in noise). At present it is painfully clear to me that we are both at the most fragile condition any empire has been in history, and we have a surplus of agitated external competitors, and a surplus of agitated internal males ready to seize the opportunity. If the economics profession measured ALL capital changes and incentives those changes cause, and demand for it’s reallocation, as well as rates of consumption and production, then the profession MIGHT come close to the predictive ability of historians. But as we have consistently seen, (which I have been measuring since 2002), the opinions of economists (confidence) vary inversely to the predictability of the conditions. So, it’s not an either or proposition. Bias Confirmation in History, Projection in Psychology and Sociology, and; Cherry Picking in Economics. Next time you hear an economist say ‘but we don’t try to measure that’, inform him that his position is no different from theologians saying ‘we don’t account for that’.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543759047 Timestamp) ART ISN”T THAT HARD TO PRICE – IT’S HARD TO LIQUIDATE QUICKLY —“…Value of art varies….”— Hmmmm…. One can objectively compare art, particularly by triangulation. One can, with some skill, estimate its current market value by RANGE – dealers are relatively good at it. But doing so requires a rather great deal of knowledge of the pieces in the inventory whether on market or not. When talking of rarities (culturally, technically, or aesthetically significant pieces, or pieces from an artist), one has to understand the liquidity of customers and their incentives. Houses are less ridiculous, and more likely to take a loss, but follow the same general rules. Fashion less ridiculous than houses, but following the same general rules. Ergo, “All Stereotypes Are True”, “Class Stereotypes Are True”, “Taste Stereotypes Are True”, and one need only understand the relationship between Stereotype, Available Inventory, and Current Economic Conditions within that Stereotype. As in all economic questions, the more predictable the price range the lower the value of the service, commodity, product, item. Signal Value is Costly Regardless of Class.
-
(FB 1543690331 Timestamp) FB Nicely Clarifies Categories of Inappropriate Posts
(FB 1543690331 Timestamp) FB Nicely Clarifies Categories of Inappropriate Posts
-
(FB 1543690331 Timestamp) FB Nicely Clarifies Categories of Inappropriate Posts
(FB 1543690331 Timestamp) FB Nicely Clarifies Categories of Inappropriate Posts
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543675502 Timestamp) ÐÑо пÑоÑÑо. Ðам нÑжно болÑÑе ÑÑÑÑкой ÐÑÑÐ¸Ð½Ñ Ð² наÑей кÑлÑÑÑÑе и в РоÑÑии болÑÑе наÑего ÐÑÑинного ТеÑÑиÑÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð² Ð¸Ñ . Eto prosto. Nam nuzhno bol’she russkoy Istiny v nashey kul’ture i v Rossii bol’she nashego Istinnogo Testirovaniya v ikh. Es ist einfach. Wir brauchen mehr russische Wahrheit in unserer Kultur und Russland mehr von unserer Wahrheitsfindung in ihrer. It’s simple. We need more Russian Truth in our culture and Russia more of our Truth Telling in theirs.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1543675502 Timestamp) ÐÑо пÑоÑÑо. Ðам нÑжно болÑÑе ÑÑÑÑкой ÐÑÑÐ¸Ð½Ñ Ð² наÑей кÑлÑÑÑÑе и в РоÑÑии болÑÑе наÑего ÐÑÑинного ТеÑÑиÑÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ Ð² Ð¸Ñ . Eto prosto. Nam nuzhno bol’she russkoy Istiny v nashey kul’ture i v Rossii bol’she nashego Istinnogo Testirovaniya v ikh. Es ist einfach. Wir brauchen mehr russische Wahrheit in unserer Kultur und Russland mehr von unserer Wahrheitsfindung in ihrer. It’s simple. We need more Russian Truth in our culture and Russia more of our Truth Telling in theirs.
-
Curt Doolittle shared a photo.
(FB 1543761176 Timestamp) THERE ARE ONLY THREE MEANS OF COERCION All groups govern one another and compete with others, using a combination of those three means of coercion. And with those means of coercion they put them to good or ill use. For example, force can be used for predation or law, remuneration for bribery or trade, speech et all for moral or immoral purposes.