MTG Salvation

Quote from Jetfire911

I appreciate the title, but I decline to accept it. I apologize but as normal, this is a debate and these are merely my assertions.

Yes, relevant information does arise more often than the companies own published records. It is my contention that due to this fact companies need to publish their information more regularly and more transparently. The more information is hidden or undisclosed, the less the market can mirror reality. The more time the market spends devoid of pertinent information the more it uses the results of speculative buying and selling as a substitute for valid information.

Regardless of how often companies publish official records, pertinent information can arise at any time. By restricting the trading time period, as would be the case in what you call the "ideal situation", you are impeding the reflection of this information in markets, which is a bad thing by your own criterion.

Quote from Jetfire911

While it is true human intuition and emotion are very random, they are limited to functioning at human speeds. A computer program which buys and sells stocks with the normal holding time from one to the other being 10 seconds, is an entirely different animal.

In an ideal situation, companies must maintain up to date records of sales and forecasts which are made public at an interval which coincides with peoples ability to trade. This would tie trading to actual performance of the company. Short periods of speculation following information disclosure is a system which would lead to markets reflecting real value.

Instead we have a system where limited information is provided far less frequently than the market is open. This causes the market to delink from reality for large stretches of time. This puts more emphasis on speculation, rather than prudent planning and decision making.

The fact the market is delinked from reality for so long allows short selling to further push the markets from reality as now, in order to sell a large volume of stock, one need not actually own it, only accept a certain risk of loss.

Now combine that computer trading every few seconds with a market lacking substantial information and with short selling incorporated and you have a system which fluctuates far more than the reality of any companies value could possibly fluctuate. This allows the companies running those computer trades to skim vast amounts of money out of the system.

Startlingly similar to the virus that they cooked up in office space actually. An automated system which skims money from a large pool of moving money.

Well folks, we should be quite honoured. Apparently we have the Grand Master of Reality joining us today. I don't even know where to start, and I'm terribly hungry at the moment, so I'll just go with this:

"Relevant information" consists of far more than a company's own records. It involves practically anything going on in the world at any possible point in time. Or do you believe that a university discovering new health benefits of cranberries doesn't affect the bottom line of a cranberry producer?

Quote from Jetfire911

The stock market is not reflective of reality for several reasons.

1. Insider knowledge of company performance cannot be applied in the market, so up to date information on the companies real value is not available.

2. Computer based trading allows for unnatural behavior in what should be an emergent system based on facts, human intuition and emotion. Instead it becomes largely driven by unknown algorithms in a number of larger trading companies.

3. Short selling allows for further manipulation of the market.

These are the 3 largest influences that cause the stock market to perform in a manner that deviates from reality based on company performance.

Maybe you can elaborate.

There was once a man named Robinson Crusoe who was stranded on a desert island without so much as a volleyball for company. But make no mistake, he was a resourceful man, so he hunted, gathered, and fished to stay alive. Then one day, another individual named Friday fortuitously landed on the island (well, maybe not so fortuitously for Friday). Crusoe took a liking to his visitor and showed him how to live off the land. So they both continued to scrounge up food. Friday turned out to be a better fisherman than Crusoe, so Friday spent less time gathering and instead grabbed extra fish while Crusoe gathered berries. That way, they both got more fish and more berries.

Anyways, Friday came on a ship that got wrecked in a storm. The rest of the passengers, it so happened, straggled in over several days. These passengers – named Saturday through Thursday, of course – also figured out how to make ends meet, a job simplified by tools recovered from the sunken ship. In fact, they do so well that not long after arrival, they had made wheelbarrows and treehouses and had a nice little economy going. The islanders were accustomed to their situation by that point, so specialization naturally increased. Monday through Thursday produced various kinds of food, and Crusoe and Friday, Saturday, and Sunday manufactured tools and constructed buildings.

Though they often just shared goods, a lot of trading happened too. Carrying out all of the desired trades, though, became a little tougher than when the island held just Crusoe and Friday. Monday had to choose who to trade with and what to trade for keeping in mind that Crusoe would only give up a shovel for four bags of coconuts, the “weekend crew” would build a shed in exchange for 20 bags of coconuts or 10 bags and two shovels, Wednesday preferred a bag of coconuts each day in return for half a bag of potatoes but would be willing to give a full bag of potatoes in two days for a bag of coconuts today, and so on for everyone. It wasn’t an easy task, but each person knew the others and their preferences fairly well, so they managed to work out their individual trades. All were rather satisfied. Friday was a particularly respected figure, having been the second castaway as well as proving to be a proficient craftsman. He started trading with IOUs to acquire other tools that raised his productivity; the others accepted it because, hey, it’s Friday. Heck, they even traded Friday’s IOUs amongst themselves knowing that everyone would accept it.

One day, Friday died in a bad tortoise accident (though he saw it coming a mile away). Everyone kept accepting his IOUs, so they continued to circulate. (In his honour, these IOUs came to be called francs, and bore the inscription “Thank God it’s Friday”.)

Several months later, a boat carrying the entire cast and crew of Battlefield Earth also went down (would that there were such a loving god) and its passengers swam to the island. All of a sudden, there were far too many people to keep track of, and while the usual sort of barter and trade still occurred, far too many trading opportunities were left untouched. Crusoe, being the canny fellow that he was, saw a new opportunity of his own. He enlisted the help of some islanders and instructed them to visit as many people as they could to gather information on who was willing to buy or sell coconuts at what prices. Crusoe created a list from this assembled information and found what he was looking for. Monday was willing to sell bags of coconuts at two francs per bag, and often traded with Sunday who was willing to spend up to three francs for a bag. But John Travolta, who lived in a tree on the other side of the island, would part with four francs for a bag of coconuts. So Crusoe bought a bag of Monday’s coconuts for three francs and sold it to Travolta for four, pocketing the differential.

What did Crusoe do? He captured an arbitrage opportunity. He found a disparity in prices so that he could buy an asset and immediately sell it for more. Crusoe didn’t actually gather any of the coconuts himself or provide labourers with any shovels. Nonetheless, the outcome changed: Monday received an additional franc, and Travolta, who placed a higher value on the coconuts than did Sunday, got those coconuts. Crusoe meanwhile collected the incidental reward for his service.

Still, a lot of opportunities were missed, and the islanders weren’t so thrilled. They began aggregating at the island’s beach every day around midday. To this event, they brought their wares for sale. This beach market expedited the process of finding trading partners. Undaunted by the reduction in his pickings, Crusoe tried to figure out what he could do, and soon hit upon a plan. Fishing was one fairly popular activity. But during some weeks, people just wanted less fish than during other weeks, and so on some weeks fish could be traded for two francs, while they fetched only half a franc on others. Crusoe thus visited the fishermen and arranges an agreement with them to buy their following week’s fish supplies for a guaranteed one franc.

Of course, Crusoe was no ichthyophile and didn’t plan to eat all that fish himself. What he did afterwards was to turn around and sell off the fish. Although that fish could often only be sold for half of what Crusoe paid for it, over the long run he took home a positive sum. Again, the outcome changed. The fishermen were happy because they didn’t have to worry about risks in selling their goods, and Crusoe, as usual, took his share.

Now that the fishermen only had to bother with fishing, some extra time revealed itself. There’s not a lot to do on desert islands, so they trudged around bemoaning exactly that fact. Some of the movie crew members overheard these complaints. Agreeing with the fishermen, the stuntmen decided that they were sick and tired of Travolta getting all the credit when they did the dirty work. So they banded together and resolved to start up their own travelling theatre troupe, called StuntCo. But after eagerly starting to create a play, they realized that, while they may have a spiffy name, they didn’t have enough resources to accumulate all of the desired props, and no one person would be willing to loan the whole amount. What to do? After some thinking, one among them came up with a way to acquire resources. As it stood, each of the members effectively had a little stake in the enterprise. Why not extend that idea? Let other islanders buy a stake in StuntCo, so those islanders get some share of the revenues in return for the funds that the stuntmen need. They all considered this a smashing idea and canvassed the island looking for shareholders. A few days later, StuntCo had what they needed. In fact, the islanders liked the idea so much that they started creating groups of their own and raised funds through the provision of ownership shares. Over the next month, the stuntman group travelled around the island putting on beloved classic plays with explosive twists, while other island companies sprang up dealing in all sorts of business.

Always looking for his next opportunity, and growing a little weary of swimming in piles of francs, Crusoe saw these shares as a way to productively use some of the francs he had saved. But how exactly could he do so? Crusoe devised several strategies. He paid some attention to the organization’s workings, frequently watching StuntCo’s plays to gauge audience reactions. But he also tried to figure out where he could profit based on generic facts about a group, leaving aside whether they produced plays (StuntCo), harvested snozzberries (SnozzCo), or sold coconuts (CocoCo). For instance, although Crusoe didn’t know much about snozzberries (and, to be honest, thought they sounded rather unappealing), he knew that SnozzCo made a heap of francs each month, while StuntCo made somewhat less (the other islanders didn’t seem to share Crusoe’s tastes). However, he could purchase a share in either SnozzCo or StuntCo for the same amount. So he picked up shares of SnozzCo for relatively cheap, and in doing so, raised the price of SnozzCo shares.

When SnozzCo’s stock appreciated, the company found it easier to obtain resources, since they could give away less ownership to raise the same funds. As a result, SnozzCo, which sold the much-desired snozzberries, got more funding and resources; as with Travolta’s bags of coconuts, goods were attracted to where they were valued more. And Crusoe held some of these appreciating assets.

Now, Crusoe wasn’t the only one investing in these companies. Many other islanders saw it as a good way to grow their wealth. But actual investment procedure was a bit of a nuisance. For someone to sell a share, they had to literally walk around the island and find someone willing to buy it. Needless to say, this was a tedious affair. So Crusoe hired movie techs to build and program a robot at the market that did two things: first, anyone could buy shares from or sell shares to Crusoe through the robot at prices pre-set by Crusoe that day; second, at random intervals the robot called out “Danger, Will Robinson!” (Crusoe had been stranded on the island a little too long at this point).

Because of this easy mechanism, Crusoe was a natural trading partner for most people. Whenever someone wanted to buy or sell shares, Crusoe was the one on the other side of that transaction, and by consequence, he made a mint. And though he only partially intended it, the islanders could trade more easily between shares and francs and goods, in turn making it easier for all of those resources to be attracted to where they were more valued.

And so Crusoe lived out his days innovating, indirectly finding new ways to better the islanders’ lives, and being an all-around crazy bastard because he could afford it. Well, at least until the robot became sentient and destroyed the island. But that’s a story for another day.

Quote from Mad Mat

I'd rather see it the other way round: sometimes you do, but mostly you don't. We rarely intend to form sentences, we just use it as a means to some other intention. Picking up a bucket for those who do that often is also an automatic act: you don't intend to pick up the bucket, you intend to water the plants. And even that may become a habit.

And if something has become an actual habit, we will do it because our contextual memory tells us to do so. When we see a computer (we suspect to have internet), we will doubleclick firefox and type the MTGS URL. No intent required.

Actually, I suppose it's not necessarily conscious intent that's the issue, but free will. That is, just because an action is not consciously undertaken does not mean it is unfreely caused. The crux of the main topic is

Quote from Blinking Spirit »

in what pertinent respects does their disorder differ from that of, say, a reckless bank executive whose egotism, avarice, and skewed sense of risk keep him from acting responsibly with other people's money?

Quote from Mad Mat

Well, that's exactly the problem: are we? Most if not all of our actions are still greatly driven and influenced by our 'subconsciousness'. Naturally too, as human reasoning is just too slow. We'd be worse than ents.

We don't reason how to pick up a bucket. We don't reason how to form vowels. We don't reason how to form sentences and we don't reason how to punch someone in the face. And after a long run of chronic internet abuse, we don't reason why to go on and for how long. Just as we don't reason why we do any typical daily activity: we just do it, out of habit.

But you still generally intend to pick up a bucket, form sentences, or punch someone in the face. Sometimes you don't, but mostly you do.

Quote from Harkius

Actually, the fact that their is neural activity suggests several interesting things immediately.

First, some people could be biologically amoral, regardless of age, and therefore inculpable for their crimes.

Second, it could be possible to disable these regions of the brain and create sociopaths at will.

Third, the fact (and I've seen it elsewhere, so I do accept its credibility) that you make the choice based on emotion and then rationalize it later, has incredible ramifications for morality, religion, and all behavioralistic biosoftware.

No, the fact that there is whatever particular pattern of neural activity is interesting, but not merely that there is neural activity. What Sciros said is fine, for instance.

Quote from Sciros

Different parts of your brain are responsible for the initial, "auto" decision that you want to make in these sort of moral dilemmas, and for rationalizing the decision you ultimately make.

I've seen some interesting videos on the subject... can't find the links unfortunately, so here's an article about the brain and morality.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117884235401499300-search.html?KEYWORDS=hauser&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month

Not to be mean but it's bizarre and a little annoying when people say things like "It tells us there is some neurobiological basis for morality," [said Harvard philosophy student Liane Young, who helped to conceive the experiment.] What do they expect, that there won't be any brain activity when someone is thinking?

A distressing trend that has existed in Hollywood for ages continues even today: the whitewashing of actors – the prevalent casting of white actors in movies, particularly as the main characters and heroes, even for characters originally of other ethnicities. This practice of disallowing non-whites from being heroes has been going on for nearly a century. More recently, we’ve seen movies like 21 and Dragonball: Evolution (ugh), and now The Last Airbender is getting people up in arms. A website, www.Racebending.com, has sprung up to call attention to these issues with a focus on the up-and-coming M. Night Shyamalan movie, documenting a variety of gaffes made by the makers of the film. Here is a primer on the controversy. It’s short, but in case of tldr: The TV show on which the movie is based featured a thoroughly diverse cast, with Inuit protagonists “set in a fantastical Asian world”. However, the movie preferentially sought and originally cast four Caucasians in the main roles, until one of them (in the role of the main villain) dropped out and was replaced with an actor of Indian ancestry. The rest of the main antagonists are also non-white.

Why the movie casting does not reflect the respect proffered by the show and its creators

Notable quote:
“We want you to dress in traditional cultural ethnic attire,” [Deedee Ricketts, the casting director for the film] said. “If you’re Korean, wear a kimono. If you’re from Belgium, wear lederhosen.”

When is it acceptable for a character to “change races”? If it is not ok for a white actor to portray an Asian character, is it ok for a non-white actor to portray a white character (like Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury in Iron Man 2)? Considering shows like Lost featuring an “international cast”, how far have we progressed towards what you consider the ideal scenario? Does this thread belong in the Entertainment forum?

Quote from Mad Mat

Do you think a resolution will ever be reached to this issue, as it has such immense effects on various other hot debates: socialism vs libertarianism (Homo economicus or not), abortion, animal rights, any debate on morality (what constitutes intent?), metaphysics (determinism and probably any theological issue)...?

There have been some debates, but they all died eventually.

I mean when they died, did people come to agree on anything?

How do you guys survive? The test reveals 17.47 Mb/s download (and 0.97 Mb/s up...) for me. No idea why there's such an up/down disparity. But I'm pretty happy.

Edit: Ran the test again. 27.33 Mb/s down, 0.58 Mb/s up

Quote from Horseshoe_Hermit

Taylor, is there some kind of statement in a vector calculus form that states the universe determines its course by its current state + laws (rather than two or more states + laws)?

I'm not Taylor, but by "two or more states", you mean "current state and one or more previous states"? If that's the case, I guess you could say that, letting x(t) be a vector representing the state at time t,

Δx(t) = f(x(t))

as opposed to

Δx(t) = f(x(t), ..., x(0)).

In the context of probability, the Markov property may fit.

(Arguably you might have to further ensure that x is defined appropriately in order to really say history doesn't matter since otherwise you could trivially define x to include history.)

Quote from Card Slinger J

Heck the idea of cloning dead dictator's like Hitler and Stalin is just evil or even dinosaurs which they went extinct because they weren't meant to co-exist with humans as been proven in Stephen Spielberg's "Jurassic Park".

I never thought I would read this sentence in my life. thank you forums user Card Slinger J


This sentience debate has happened many times (including on this forum). Was a resolution ever reached?

Quote from Zachary74

I'm pretty sure you are not a liberal. Huckabee is about as conservative as you can get. Maybe you meant to say 'I'm a classic non-liberal'.

Quote from kmzandrew

Huckabee is a lot more conservative than I would like

But more importantly,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

This data suggests that being moderate is more likely to work than leaning far right.