84,028
edits
Template:M intro systems financialisation: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→There are no straight lines in nature
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
''[[There is no machine for judging poetry]]''. | ''[[There is no machine for judging poetry]]''. | ||
In which JC reminds us of Robin Williams’ great scene in {{br|Dead Poet’s Society}} and invites us to, well take it [[ | In which JC reminds us of Robin Williams’ great scene in {{br|Dead Poet’s Society}} and invites us to, well take it [[metaphor]]ically. [[Peotry]], right? It’s ''meant'' to be taken figuratively. | ||
''There is no machine for judging commerce either''. Any set | ''There is no machine for judging commerce either''. | ||
Any set of [[metrics]], any balance sheet, any [[org chart]], any [[formal]] accounting for the intensely human activity of doing business jettisons much of what is important about it. The [[map]] can never be more than a schematic. It cannot convey the grandeur — or the ''horror'' — of the [[territory]]. | |||
This much is obvious: this is not the lesson we should be drawing — it is already imprinted in our cultural fabric, however determined the modernists may be to forget it | This much is obvious: this is not the lesson we should be drawing — it is already imprinted in our cultural fabric, however determined the modernists may be to forget it | ||
| Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
But non-linear loss is the consequence, and corollary of non-linear opportunity and vice versa. If we put our selves on a linear track that approximates the non-linear reality we will be fine until there is actual event at either end. Persuading everyone else to get on the linear track is a good strategy. As long as it works. If you can persuade everyone in the system to behave, the system will “behave” — in the sense of not producing unexpected outcomes, and not necessarily optimising, or producing particularly ''good'' outcomes. Volatility will drop. ''As long as everyone behaves''. | But non-linear loss is the consequence, and corollary of non-linear opportunity and vice versa. If we put our selves on a linear track that approximates the non-linear reality we will be fine until there is actual event at either end. Persuading everyone else to get on the linear track is a good strategy. As long as it works. If you can persuade everyone in the system to behave, the system will “behave” — in the sense of not producing unexpected outcomes, and not necessarily optimising, or producing particularly ''good'' outcomes. Volatility will drop. ''As long as everyone behaves''. | ||
====Misbehaviour as arbitrage==== | ====Misbehaviour as arbitrage==== | ||
Misbehaviour is ''[[arbitrage]]'': exploiting structural differentials you are not, by the rules of the game, meant to see, and that the loyal behavers ''cannot'' see (or ''refuse to look at''). They may be obscured by the behaver’s internal model/narrative, or by moral principles. In either case arbitrage behaviour is destructive to the present configuration of the system, and those who stand to gain from the present configuration will be hostile to arbitrage. Arbitrage is ''defection''. The system will be set up to make arbitrage difficult, and to eradicate it, that is to say. The system will self purge. To the extent it doesn’t this will be because of novelty — a previously undetected arbitrage opportunity has arisen. This could be a latent arbitrage — that was always there, but no-one noticed, or one arising from new technology, new language or a new independent event presenting itself to the system | Misbehaviour is ''[[arbitrage]]'': exploiting structural differentials you are not, by the rules of the game, meant to see, and that the loyal behavers ''cannot'' see (or ''refuse to look at''). They may be obscured by the behaver’s internal model/narrative, or by moral principles. In either case arbitrage behaviour is destructive to the present configuration of the system, and those who stand to gain from the present configuration will be hostile to arbitrage. Arbitrage is ''defection''. The system will be set up to make arbitrage difficult, and to eradicate it, that is to say. The system will self purge. To the extent it doesn’t this will be because of novelty — a previously undetected arbitrage opportunity has arisen. This could be a latent arbitrage — that was always there, but no-one noticed, or one arising from new technology, new language or a new independent event presenting itself to the system | ||