311600+ entries in 0.185s
mircea_popescu: something like
that. at least in macro
terms, cash is not much more or much else
than a right
to organise activity.
wywialm: yes, indeed
this is why economic power is no power at all unless explicitly (but not always consciously) involved in politics
mircea_popescu: suppose, alternatively,
that
tomorrow china declares
that apple is banned as a
terrorist organisation, and no azn corp can do business with
them.
mircea_popescu: for
the simple reason
that
they put it
there in
the first place.
mircea_popescu: let's make it even worse. suppose
tomorrow its governmental sponsor announces
that it is "under investigation" for "violations". you know for a fact
they can steal any amount from its coffers, liek
they did with say jpm.
☟︎ wywialm: and
these limits are obvious once you start comparing apples and russias
wywialm: of course
there are limits
to corporate valuation based on marginal
transactions and comparison of
this valuation
to
total nominal spending of final goods aka GDP
mircea_popescu: wywialm i sympathize with
the "not every asset is a scam angle". but consider say apple. could it buy russia ?
wywialm: but while it is possible
that
there is only one bullshit (global currency) it is not possible
that
the number of currencies equals number of economic and political entitites
☟︎ mircea_popescu: with less integration,
the respective bullshits can at least be somewhat measured against each other on
the fx markets.
wywialm: i still hold
that is not possible
that every asset is a scam
mircea_popescu: but once
the market is both predicated on and discerning
the bullshit, you have constructed a very unstable circularity.
mircea_popescu: indeed, not all bullshits are made equal ; and supposedly
the market might help distinguish. maybe so.
mircea_popescu: maybe. but
this suddenly is a different discussion
than
the lofty place we started.
mircea_popescu: well, from
the investor's perspective, "you have
to accept
that
this is bullshit anyway" is
the same
thing in either case.
wywialm: yes, i'm looking from
the investor's perspective (or at least
try
to)
mircea_popescu: i and i alone benefit from
the priviledge of calling it "other risks". not
them.
mircea_popescu: there's no executive priviledge vested in anyone but myself. if
the president of
the united states and some low life in niger say
the same
thing,
they ARE
the same
thing.
wywialm: that's why 'it exposes you
to other risks'
mircea_popescu: wait, and it's not worthwhile for
the social security administration
to scam it from you ?
wywialm: in a hyip world, you have
to 'invest' something
that is at least a bit worthwhile
to scam it from you, which means
that
there is at least one non-hyip asset and holding it without investing is an investment decision. holding
this asset (e.g. USD) is not itself risk-free, but insulates you from hyip risk and exposes you
to other risks
mircea_popescu: how is it, for
that matter, different from "you have
to accept, as a hyip investor,
that it's not really an investment".
mircea_popescu: this "realize" is of
the nature of "you have
to understand we love you", ie, entirely devoid of cognitive content. it is a bit of propaganda one has
to accept. ok, so
they accept it - or don't. fine. what now ?
wywialm: it still works when you realize
that you have
to invest in something and
there is no risk-free asset
mircea_popescu: so in
this sense
the "split risks so i only undertake what i want
to" works well in
theory and on paper, but it is in practice always devolved
to a luzly idiocy like "the gauss copula", direct equivalent
to yesterday's discussion re
the problem of computers
wywialm: but i suspect we may come close
to a sort of
tautology quite soon
wywialm: oh, yes, we certainly agree on
that point. one cannot
trade something which is not an asset.
mircea_popescu: this splitting works for definedrisks. it can never work when you want
to put defined risks in one pile and undefinable risks in
the other pile.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: this is
the defense against
the risks problem above usually deemed as rational.
the problem here is
that
this in practice always devolves
to a sort of "when confronted with
the number e, i wish
to be insulated from
the part past
the decimal point and underwrite
the part before
the decimal point".
wywialm: yes, it is not possible
to be insulated from anything and stay 'active' in any meaningful way, but it doesn't mean
that you can be exposed
to everything or
that one shouldn't choose carefully what risks
to
take and from which
to insulate.
mircea_popescu: successful insulation is another way
to say economically dead, really.
wywialm: nevertheless, in a very general sense, any action involves
taking specific risks and avoiding others. Say, me not invested in S.BBET successfully insulated me from
the risk of it going into receivership
mod6: (04:07) <+ben_vulpes> mod6: i have a
trashy pdf copy of dodrill's 95 ada instructional material. lmk if you want a copy. << sure! hit me with a link or we can
talk in pm if you wanna exchange in other method.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: yes, it is frequerntly implemented. but always as a ponzi
to date.
wywialm: i certainly agree with
that observation
mircea_popescu: obvious why people want insurance. unobvious
that such a
thing is even possible.
mircea_popescu: wywialm well,
the idea is
that what people want and what people need rarely meet.
mircea_popescu: what's next, we're gonna discuss whether "obama is for
the people" ?
wywialm: yes i am familiar with
the censor
mircea_popescu: jurov i have nfi why
the peanut gallery got stuck on "0 fee
tx", and i have nfi why you particularly wanna paint yourself in
those colors, but w/e.
mircea_popescu: the reason was very strictly
that, obviously, if you pay
ten aurei for a nice purple, and
then wear it off, you WILL be
ten aureii less rich.
wywialm: in a general sense, we can expoit less
than 1 correlation among different assets, bets or scenarios
mircea_popescu: wywialm you might be familiar with
the unpopular office of
the censor in
the roman empire. his job was principally
to deny women, 2nd class citizens with very little self-expression debuchees allowed by society outside of conspicuous consumption,
the use of luxurious products.
jurov: yeah, right, let us eschew insulation from risk and send out zero fee
transactions, lest it be misinterpreted!
mircea_popescu: the immediate correlate of "oh, i can distribute my risk
to unknown parties" is, "i'll right now!! put less
thought into
the matter proportionately". however, whether
the risk distribution works or does not work is not actually known, or even computed, now.
this impedance causes
trouble.
mircea_popescu: but, currently, i am not even convinced
the possibility of hedging is actually a wealth increaser.
mircea_popescu: apparently even
the slightest insulation from risk is bound
to be misinterpreted in
the most extensively insane sense. i have nfi how
the fed chairman sleeps at night.
mircea_popescu: if anything,
the bitbet experience has
taught me
that i had been erring in
the supportive direction, at any rate.
☟︎ wywialm: i hope you are right in
this case.
mircea_popescu: while
these facts are exactly
that - facts ;
the situation remains what it is. lots of people working
to fix it, of course, but until it's fixed it's not fixed.
wywialm: also,
the interest of a shareholder in a public company is not always in line with
the exchange's. And exchange can encourage volume or discourage it.
mircea_popescu: and without a solid protocol
there can be no serious interest in cryptocurrency.
wywialm: indeed it does. but without liquid (or at least 'fairly liquid') stocks,
there can be no derivatives market on
top of
them (no hedging available at reasonable price).
mircea_popescu: taking mpex private resolves
the last possible avenue for derps
to argue about
this point.
mircea_popescu: attempting
to "create business" from
the position of
the central bank is both stupid and a doomed enterprise.
mircea_popescu: if one's not happy with
the volume
thereof, one's only recourse is
to start a business.
mircea_popescu: the idea here is
that mpex is a strictly correct and strictly complete reflection of bitcoin business, such as it is.
mircea_popescu: another's what he said
to
the berkshire market maker, ie
that if
the next
trade happens next quarter he'll be happy.
wywialm: i didn't even know
this one
mircea_popescu: well,
there's plenty. one went something like "to call a party with low capital and high
transacted volume an investor is not unlike calling a guy in a dirty overcoat
that stalks women and jacks off a romantic".
wywialm: i'm familiar in general on his views on not having a liquid market available, but cannot recall
the quote
mircea_popescu: wywialm you familiar with
that buffett quote about volume ?
wywialm: could you please share what are
the plans for MPEx future, besides what has already been revealed at
the announcement? in particular, S.MPOE produced majority of volume. Are
there any plans
to increase
the activity on other stocks?
wywialm: ah, ok, similarly
to
the previous assbot
mircea_popescu: you pm it $up and decrypt
the otp it gives you,
then pass it back with $v <result>
wywialm: i haven't yet got
the hang of deedbot voicing
mircea_popescu: davout> ben_vulpes
trinque mats
ty, fixed.
this particular flavour of retardation has been shot in
the head << making it
the... 5th ? since bitbet receivership brought serious republican scrutiny
to franco.is blog ?
jurov: and
the lmao line is badly escaped,
too
jurov: (see $currentline-2 in
the btcbase log)
☟︎ davout: ben_vulpes
trinque mats
ty, fixed.
this particular flavour of retardation has been shot in
the head
ben_vulpes: much like
the language in its explicitness.
ben_vulpes: mod6: i have a
trashy pdf copy of dodrill's 95 ada instructional material. lmk if you want a copy.
☟︎ phf: i've been getting a lot of not founds
to
those urls, so hopefully some of
the bots are now going
to be satisfied
mod6: asciilifeform:
this guys introduction
to Ada looks like a really good
tut.
mthreat: jeez i
take a little
trip and
there's a revolution
mod6: sure. good habits are hard
to form, bad habits are hard
to break. etc.
mod6: such is a bad idea
to sign small amounts of
text, grunts, w/e
mod6: i understand
that he realized many cipher
text messages were signed with "HH" at
the end.
mod6: maybe im not
talking about
the same
thing...
turing, while
trying
to crack enigma