Talk-Polywell.org

Again it's the old central planning problem of not being able to control feedback in a large system:
http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_ ... selgin.pdf

I know an economist who is studying for a PhD. I got sent a paper on optimal investing. It started out with something on the order of: "assume an optimal path" followed by: "if the optimal path is not followed less than optimal results will follow". Well duh. With a lot of math to show exactly the defects of not following the optimal path.

I told the economist that such thinking was nuts. That there was no way (except in the simplest of cases) to know in advance what the optimal path was. I went on to say that engineers are allowed no such assumptions. I got no reply.

There are so many places where engineering thinking could improve real results. But we are disdained as mere mechanics insufficiently versed in the required higher theory and math.

MSimon wrote:I know an economist who is studying for a PhD. I got sent a paper on optimal investing. It started out with something on the order of: "assume an optimal path" followed by: "if the optimal path is not followed less than optimal results will follow". Well duh. With a lot of math to show exactly the defects of not following the optimal path.

I told the economist that such thinking was nuts. That there was no way (except in the simplest of cases) to know in advance what the optimal path was. I went on to say that engineers are allowed no such assumptions. I got no reply.

There are so many places where engineering thinking could improve real results. But we are disdained as mere mechanics insufficiently versed in the required higher theory and math.

The difference between engineering and what Jerry Pournelle(an engineer) calls the voodoo sciences is that engineers are actually expected to show results that actually work in the real world. I think that in climatology and economics especially lately that far too many people involved want to get to the neat Progressive policy, "we can run things" stuff and not get too bogged down in that messy observation, math, fiddling, testing and stuff.

Well, from what I understand the US is one of few countries that does not have a central, government owned, national bank that prints their money, right?
Most countries in Europe do. Seeing that the inflation is lower here and the economy is more stable (at least in the richer European countries), it might not be so bad at all.

Skipjack wrote:Well, from what I understand the US is one of few countries that does not have a central, government owned, national bank that prints their money, right?

How cares about printing the money?

And unless am I completely wrong, US as any other country has central bank that lends money to other banks. Which is what is really important (the central bank interest regulates the economy).

Most countries in Europe do. Seeing that the inflation is lower here and the economy is more stable (at least in the richer European countries), it might not be so bad at all.

Are you really sure about this?

Are you really sure about this?

Well, I do have an eye on the value of the USD versus the Euro and the USD went from 1.2 Euros to 0.66 Euros (the Euro went down a bit too, thanks to Greece, but the USD is still at 0.72) since the introduction of the Euro. Also, economic growth is already happening again in many European countries, in fact has been since autumn last year and that despite us pumping much less money into "stimulus" and rescue plans.

Skipjack wrote:Well, from what I understand the US is one of few countries that does not have a central, government owned, national bank that prints their money, right? ...

This little piece of paper in my pocket says "United States Federal Reserve System".
I think that qualifies as a Central Bank in spite of some disingenuous claims otherwise.
No it is not exactly owned by the US government, but it is still a central bank that prints the money, both paper and electronic.
And I would say that they are up to their armpits in responsibility for the instability we have been seeing.

Skipjack wrote:

Are you really sure about this?

Well, I do have an eye on the value of the USD versus the Euro and the USD went from 1.2 Euros to 0.66 Euros

And your point is? Conversion rate says really a little about economy. And it is in fact one of quite good free market feedback.

If USD goes from 1.2 to 0.6 euro, it is a big trouble. For Europe.

Also, economic growth is already happening again in many European countries, in fact has been since autumn last year and that despite us pumping much less money into "stimulus" and rescue plans.

US is growing as well.

Also, US still can afford to pump more money, as national debt much lower than that of average European country.

In europe, the debt is often larger than 100% GDP, in US, with stimulus, AFAIK still bellow 50%.

Normally I would never be willing to admit the Canadian Liberal Government did anything right when Cretien was PM. But the one good thing he did was, not bowing to pressure and deregulate the banking system. The result, Canada's banking system got through the global financial meltdown relatively unscathed, just a token bailout because all the other countries were doing it.

The international banks are ramping up the lobby pressure to prevent new regulations, hence the article in question.

The more I see of the financial mess, the more I think the old Social Credit Party might not have been so crazy, the Parties economic theory was devised by an engineer.

despite us pumping much less money into "stimulus" and rescue plans.

Actually, pumping less money into the economy and avoiding regulatory uncertainty (health care bill, carbon tax bill) may be a reason for the faster take off. Or so many believe. Of course in economics (people interaction) nothing is certain. I can tell you that people are in the streets about the intersection of economics and politics.