If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   This is why some people should stick with drawing funny cartoons and keep their economic theories to themselves   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 83
    More: Obvious, Dilbert, Honey Nut Cheerios, European debt crisis, market manipulation, Erin Burnett, retail investor, Bilderberger, stock markets  
•       •       •

6277 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2013 at 8:38 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-02 11:03:28 AM

homelessdude: Pegs and Holes
by Scott Adams | Dilbert.com | 6/15/11


I get to this part: The part that interests me is that society is organized in such a way that the natural instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. and my eyes narrow, saying to myself, "yes, but where are you going with this?" and, as is the case with most people who talk about this stuff, it drives off a cliff with the guy and his dick holding hands.
 
2013-03-02 11:05:25 AM

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Monkeyhouse Zendo: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: If arbitrage trades weren't money for the big guys, there would be no money in infrastructure, but there is.

Can you expand on what you mean by "no money in infrastructure"?

Ugh, helps if I scroll down to see the rest of your comment before jumping to the comment box...


No, that was great --  it allowed me to calculate the figures above, which was fun. :)
 
2013-03-02 11:08:16 AM
He has a restaurant also.
 
2013-03-02 11:11:00 AM

vygramul: ral instincts of men are shameful and criminal while the natural instincts of women are mostly legal and acceptable. and my eyes narrow, saying to myself, "yes, but where are you going with this?" and, as is the case with most people who talk a



Just for clarification - Adams has a history of editing his blog posts after the fact when the heat is on. So what is there (on his site) may not be exactly what he originally wrote. I do not have the original archive so I cannot say for sure

FWIW - here is one of his original, un-edited posts on Metafilter.com from a while back (pops). Later in the thread he comes clean to being Scott Adams and was roundly skewered for his stupidity.
 
2013-03-02 11:14:30 AM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Monkeyhouse Zendo: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: If arbitrage trades weren't money for the big guys, there would be no money in infrastructure, but there is.

Can you expand on what you mean by "no money in infrastructure"?

Ugh, helps if I scroll down to see the rest of your comment before jumping to the comment box...

No, that was great --  it allowed me to calculate the figures above, which was fun. :)


What amazes me is that there is so much money in what is essentially salami slicing. The arbitrage trades skim a tiny amount from relatively small discrepancies between markets but do it so rapidly and so frequently the the return is massive. Thirty years ago arbitrage trading still happened but it was still executed by human beings on a human time scale. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I can't help but look at the current model as simply skimming the markets.
 
2013-03-02 11:24:36 AM

clowncar on fire: His conspiracy theory is a rehash of how the psycho-econ model of basic human nature works.  People tend to buy into what they believe is a good thing based on current performance (bet on the horse who is heading the race), and ignore or sell-off the performers that are lagging or are in a negative correction.  Either way, they are allowing the emotional rather than intellectual side of investment to rule their investment strategy.


This is why so many marriages fail.
 
2013-03-02 11:25:07 AM

DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: Monkeyhouse Zendo: DO NOT WANT Poster Girl: If arbitrage trades weren't money for the big guys, there would be no money in infrastructure, but there is.

Can you expand on what you mean by "no money in infrastructure"?

"At an estimated cost of $300 million, Mr. Barksdale had forged a new cable route between Chicago and New Jersey that shortened by three milliseconds the length of time it took for a pulse of light traveling through glass to make a round trip between the two points."

Well, anything that is 'no money in infrastructure' is private investment money not being spent like this:

Money in infrastructure: $300,000,000/3ms/700 miles

$100,000,000/ms/700 miles ~ $143000/mi/ms ~$143,000,000 per mile per second.


Now multiply (or divide, or whatever) that by a jillion transmissions. Three milliseconds adds up.
 
2013-03-02 11:28:39 AM
I hate to break it to articleauthortard, but regardless of whether Scott Adams is right or wrong about there being actual collusion, large sophisticated actors in any market DO watch their peers and CAN react so swiftly as to create the appearance and at times even the effect of collusion.  Implying that it would require telepathy or magic for this to occur just makes articleauthortard look like a moran.

Perhaps articleauthortard should take subby's advice and stick to what he understands.
 
2013-03-02 11:33:37 AM

Emposter: I hate to break it to articleauthortard, but regardless of whether Scott Adams is right or wrong about there being actual collusion, large sophisticated actors in any market DO watch their peers and CAN react so swiftly as to create the appearance and at times even the effect of collusion.  Implying that it would require telepathy or magic for this to occur just makes articleauthortard look like a moran.


Precisely. Watch any flock of birds for a length of time and it's almost incomprehensible that they can almost simultaneously change direction when the reality is that the birds just watch each other very closely and try to stay close to their neighbors.
 
2013-03-02 11:43:37 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: I'm really starting to wonder if this guy's got third-stage syphilis.


...that would explain a fair bit, yes.
Has he written anything indicating an interest in alternative medicine?
 
2013-03-02 12:37:16 PM
The statement "the stock market appears to move as if it is manipulated by a network of big players"  is not the same as "the stock market is manipulated by a network of big players."  Many independent actors in a complex system can be modeled with averaged behaviors.  The model is not meant to explain reality, just create a similar system from which we can predict possible outcomes.
 
2013-03-02 12:54:46 PM
Dilbert's probably right. I'm tempted to pull out now, but I think I'm going to wait and see what Oglaf has to say on the subject.
 
2013-03-02 01:10:07 PM
So he's saying people buy a lot of stocks and when the stocks rise in value people sell those stocks and then buy them back when they are low again? And they do this cyclically? And the little guy gets to rebuild the market so the big shots can "take their profits" again and again?

Obvious.

/oh, wait. psychically. nevermind.
 
2013-03-02 01:13:32 PM

Rich Cream: So he's saying people buy a lot of stocks and when the stocks rise in value people sell those stocks and then buy them back when they are low again? And they do this cyclically? And the little guy gets to rebuild the market so the big shots can "take their profits" again and again?

Obvious.

/oh, wait. psychically. nevermind.


No, that last bit was just the author.  Adams brought the obvious, author brought the nonsense.
 
m00
2013-03-02 01:20:59 PM

Rich Cream: So he's saying people buy a lot of stocks and when the stocks rise in value people sell those stocks and then buy them back when they are low again? And they do this cyclically? And the little guy gets to rebuild the market so the big shots can "take their profits" again and again?

Obvious.

/oh, wait. psychically. nevermind.


What's worse is that if you are invested in a fund, the Big Shots are managing both your money and theirs. So they take the profits with "their" money and rebuilt the market with "yours"
 
2013-03-02 01:53:50 PM

Weaver95: As near as Adams can tell, these manipulators have some kind of mind meld that lets them know exactly when to buy and sell stocks, en masse

not mind meld, just a series of dedicated computers and custom databases, along with a super secret proprietary algorithm that gives them an 'inside track' on the market and one hell of an advantage over everyone else.

or, in other words, Goldman-Sachs.  so while Adams might sound a bit crazy...do some digging for yourselves.  there are a couple players in the market who almost never lose a bet.


The premise of "telepathy" and "mind meld" came from the reporter, not Scott Adams.

Scott's right -- the game IS rigged and manipulated by large players.
 
2013-03-02 01:55:17 PM
In a blog post entitled "<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.dilbert.com/blog/entry/here_come_the_m arket_manipulators/" target="_hplink">Here Come The Market Manipulators," Adams unpacks a theory that the entire stock market is being manipulated by a few wealthy, mysterious operators.

Are they Jewish?  If so then I would believe him.
 
2013-03-02 02:41:24 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-02 04:14:46 PM

Fast Thick Pants: Dilbert's probably right. I'm tempted to pull out now, but I think I'm going to wait and see what Oglaf has to say on the subject.


Judging by the art, Oglaf is always in favor of pulling out. Preferably in a messy way.
 
2013-03-02 06:06:57 PM
Scott Adams has said some pretty dumb things over the years. This isn't one of them.

/sold off last week
 
2013-03-02 08:06:17 PM

Weaver95: commieprogressive: Weaver95: As near as Adams can tell, these manipulators have some kind of mind meld that lets them know exactly when to buy and sell stocks, en masse

not mind meld, just a series of dedicated computers and custom databases, along with a super secret proprietary algorithm that gives them an 'inside track' on the market and one hell of an advantage over everyone else.

or, in other words, Goldman-Sachs.  so while Adams might sound a bit crazy...do some digging for yourselves.  there are a couple players in the market who almost never lose a bet.

So just study it out?

i'm not saying GS is cheating but...they tend to make out very well in the market.  not to mention they've got some very interesting friends in key places.  I don't think i've ever seen them actually break any rules, but they walk pretty close to ethical violations on an almost daily basis.



Well, except for last year

And the year before

And 2008

But you know, other than in three of the last five years they always make money.

And you do realize they're a publicly traded firm.  If you're certain they have the inside track, you can buy the stock and get in on it.
 
2013-03-02 08:26:45 PM
Show of hands, who knew it was about Scott Adams before they even clicked?
 
2013-03-03 12:53:53 AM
Do you seriously mean to tell me that some of you think that people with a lot of money won't try to fix the market so they always win?  C'mon... you can't be THAT farking stupid... can you?
 
2013-03-03 02:48:58 AM
He stopped drawing funny cartoons years ago.  He certainly needs something else to do.
 
2013-03-03 02:53:03 AM

tira: Show of hands, who knew it was about Scott Adams before they even clicked?


The most surprising thing about this is that people don't seem to realize that Scott Adams loves to troll the shiat out of any political/economic discussion on the Internet he can. The guy has openly admitted that's what he does (without using the "t" word) on multiple occasions.
 
2013-03-03 09:36:24 AM

tira: Show of hands, who knew it was about Scott Adams before they even clicked?


Actually my first guess was that racist buffoon that winterwhile always used to post.
 
2013-03-03 11:12:20 AM

tira: Show of hands, who knew it was about Scott Adams before they even clicked?


How many other cartoonists (political editorial cartoonists excluded) ever try to spout off about economics?

In terms of him spouting off about things, I remember his first non-Dilbert book, God's Debris.  Basically a short novel about a package delivery man who meets a strange old guy while making a delivery.  It's basically a philosophy book wrapped up in a bad novel (just like Ayn Rand), the entire plot is the delivery guy sitting down with the old man being taught his philosophy.  The philosophy was basically humanism with some atheism thrown in (i.e. people must reject superstition and irrationality, live by logic and reason for the betterment of their fellow man, and organized religion is a plague on mankind).

The part that all these years later made me laugh was somewhere in the promotional materials for it, he claimed it was a puzzle.  He said he'd left an intentional flaw in the argument somewhere in the book and wondered if anybody could find that "intentional" flaw if they read it closely enough.

Well, the arguments themselves weren't exactly rock solid, it always struck me as "I wrote my philosophy down, and if you say you find anything wrong with it, I MEANT to put that flaw in there to make people read it closely".  i.e. he didn't want to be called out on it being bullshiat.

The book itself was pretty much rubbish, if Scott Adams wasn't a bestselling newspaper comic artist there is no way it would have been printed.
 
2013-03-03 02:30:39 PM
1. Scott Adams likes to play the Devil's Advocate. He's not crazy, but in any given group of readers, many will fail to see the joke, miss the "what if", or totally go batshiat crazy when their hobby horses are kicked in the fetlocks (which are not "flowing in the wind"--that would be the mane--but even Dr. Johnson, the lexicographer, got his definition of "fetlocks" from "sheer ignorance, Madam").

2. Scott Adams is a bit naive. Well, quite niave outside of his areas of competence, which are many. Many of the ideas he throws out are wrong, even perversely wrong. This doesn't hurt an engineer or a cartoonist. It doesn't even hurt an investor if they are quick and clever. But it gives trolls, whiners, enemies and other types of people a handle to claim you are a fool. For example, the headline does not match the article. Headline says he's a crazy conspiracist who believes the Big Players are connected by psychic links. The article actually quotes him saying that no psychic links are needed--they just have to watch the other Big Players and play follow the leader. This is how business, politics, and the media really work. This is almost tautologically true. The Big Players don't give a damn about what the little guys do (unless they do it all at once, playing follow the leader, in which case they can cause a brief boom or crash). The Big Players are playing for high stakes.

3. Scott Adams is a bit of a friendly troll, who likes to provoke argument and thought but often rushes in where angels fear to tread.

4. Scott Adams is a liberal-conservative and thus likely to provoke both conservatives and liberals (especially genuine leftists, some of whom are  quite cranky). He sits at the edge of the God-Evolution debate, for example, and drives both sides crazy with his ideas thrown out like sparks in dry tender.

Basically Adams' theory works if you make the following assumption or premise the basis of your analysis:  the Big Players mostly take their profits together. No conspiracy needed. No collusion. No crime. They just decide on the facts that it is time to take their profits and run. Of course, there is conspiracy, collusion and crime, but they aren't necessary for the little schmucks to get screwed while the Big Experts make out like thieves.

A value investor like Warren Buffett has been known to go against the herd based on the underlying value of stocks. He is one of the guys who buy before everybody else, even if everybody else is selling. He is smart, he makes mistakes, he knows how to roll with the punches when he makes a mistake, and he is usually right because he does his homework assiduously and well in advance of big economic trends.

Many other Big Investors and Companies, not to mention Unions and Institutional Investors (Hollywood Studios, Charities, Foundations, and other well-monied types of organizations, even the Roman Catholic Church) have different strong points and weak points.

Adam is a bit naff, but then so are his cartoon characters. He is a cartoonist, not a public intellectual. He is a bit of a maverick and sometimes perhaps a bit cranky, but he does this naturally like every other nerd and geek who opines on the web, and he is largely without malice or aforethought.

I like him, even though he annoys me quite frequently. Hey, what are friends for? EVERYBODY I KNOW ANNOYS ME FREQUENTLY. You're only hurt by the ones you love, to turn an Oscar Wilde quip on its head.

If anything, I am a conservative investor:  buy and hold. Just make sure that what you buy has a long and profitable future ahead of it, not behind it. This is one of the common mistakes of investing: buying on a stock's past, no its highly unpredictable but probable future.

Women are great investors because they, like Warren Buffett, look for value and do their homework assiduously. They are also less emotional than men (despite all the BS that flies around on the subject) and can thus cut their loses more rationally and with less regret. Even smart men are very poor investors (I read a book by the mathematician John Allen Paulos on how he went wrong in the stock market, and there are many thousands of brilliant men, even smarter than John Allen Paulos, who have made mistakes just as bad). But a value investor who does his or her homework is hard to beat in the long run because they have time, reality, and facts on their side. Even with a lot of crookedness and error, the market tends to work on average, and it works really great if you can spot the rare days when buying or selling will make you rich. As another author whom I have read, Nicholas Nassim Taleb, author of The Black Swan, points out, almost all of the money that has been made or lost in the markets for centuries has been made or lost on five or six days.

NOW THAT'S UNPREDICTABLE! But it isn't if you understand and have the ability to override your monkey brain long enough to do what you should instead of what your stupid monkey brain (or worse brains below) tell you to do.

Don't Panic. Keep calm and make lots of money.

And so I conclude my Apologia for Scott Adams. So, he's a fool! Aren't we all a little bit foolish. I know you are!
 
2013-03-03 08:49:10 PM

Jensaarai: The most surprising thing about this is that people don't seem to realize that Scott Adams loves to troll the shiat out of any political/economic discussion on the Internet he can.


Saying something incredibly stupid, getting torn to shreds for it, and then saying "yeah, I meant to do that" like farking Pewee Herman after crashing his bike is not what I'd call "trolling the fark" out of anyone.

Jensaarai: The guy has openly admitted that's what he does (without using the "t" word) on multiple occasions.


"Admissions" of "I was just trolling" that come afterbeing torn three new assholes are not credible.

melem1.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-03 08:51:05 PM
brantgoose:

Yes, he plays the "I was trolling / playing devils advocate!" card when people call him on saying stupid and/or offensive shiat. I don't know if that's really a point in his favor.
 
2013-03-03 09:16:33 PM

brantgoose: 1. Scott Adams likes to play the Devil's Advocate. He's not crazy, but in any given group of readers, many will fail to see the joke, miss the "what if", or totally go batshiat crazy when their hobby horses are kicked in the fetlocks (which are not "flowing in the wind"--that would be the mane--but even Dr. Johnson, the lexicographer, got his definition of "fetlocks" from "sheer ignorance, Madam").

2. Scott Adams is a bit naive. Well, quite niave outside of his areas of competence, which are many. Many of the ideas he throws out are wrong, even perversely wrong. This doesn't hurt an engineer or a cartoonist. It doesn't even hurt an investor if they are quick and clever. But it gives trolls, whiners, enemies and other types of people a handle to claim you are a fool. For example, the headline does not match the article. Headline says he's a crazy conspiracist who believes the Big Players are connected by psychic links. The article actually quotes him saying that no psychic links are needed--they just have to watch the other Big Players and play follow the leader. This is how business, politics, and the media really work. This is almost tautologically true. The Big Players don't give a damn about what the little guys do (unless they do it all at once, playing follow the leader, in which case they can cause a brief boom or crash). The Big Players are playing for high stakes.

3. Scott Adams is a bit of a friendly troll, who likes to provoke argument and thought but often rushes in where angels fear to tread.

4. Scott Adams is a liberal-conservative and thus likely to provoke both conservatives and liberals (especially genuine leftists, some of whom are  quite cranky). He sits at the edge of the God-Evolution debate, for example, and drives both sides crazy with his ideas thrown out like sparks in dry tender.

Basically Adams' theory works if you make the following assumption or premise the basis of your analysis:  the Big Players mostly take their profits together. N ...


We found Scott's Fark handle.
 
2013-03-04 05:31:42 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: We found Scott's Fark handle.


He's not really too good at this, is he?
 
2013-03-04 04:05:57 PM

Ctrl-Alt-Del: Jensaarai: The most surprising thing about this is that people don't seem to realize that Scott Adams loves to troll the shiat out of any political/economic discussion on the Internet he can.

Saying something incredibly stupid, getting torn to shreds for it, and then saying "yeah, I meant to do that" like farking Pewee Herman after crashing his bike is not what I'd call "trolling the fark" out of anyone.

Jensaarai: The guy has openly admitted that's what he does (without using the "t" word) on multiple occasions.

"Admissions" of "I was just trolling" that come afterbeing torn three new assholes are not credible.

[melem1.files.wordpress.com image 520x432]


Well, considering how I know this about him and I haven't read a word by the guy in a couple years, I think it's safe to say he gave pre-warning. He seems to be succeeding, judging by your reaction.
 
Displayed 33 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report