Interesting. All fall down....

As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected? Really just one system?

I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in
America. It looked like that for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and
then the next, they all fell down. Why? ??

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Oct 14]

Martha Adams wrote:
As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected? Really just one system?

I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in America. It looked like
that for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and then the next, they all
fell down. Why? ??

They believe in God and prayer as well, apparently.

Look at how this has effected a SECULAR nation :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7868614

There you have it. Secularism and rationality works!

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:06:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Martha
Adams" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected?

No.

Really just one system?

It is multiple, interrelated systems.

I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in
America.

The what? What is that's "faith-based" about the economics of Bush?

It looked like that for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and
then the next, they all fell down. Why? ??

Are you really as paranoid and economically ignorant as this post
indicates?

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:06:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Martha
Adams" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected?

No.

But you can't or won't qualify that with discussion.

Really just one system?

It is multiple, interrelated systems.

But you can't describe those systems.

I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in
America.

The what? What is that's "faith-based" about the economics of Bush?

Faith in free markets to solve scientific problems.

It looked like that for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and
then the next, they all fell down. Why? ??

Are you really as paranoid and economically ignorant as this post
indicates?

But you can't point out her paranoia or ignorance.

Has it occurred to you yet that you might be the irrational troll here?

On Oct 14, 1:48*pm, Patriot wrote:
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 15:06:33 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Martha
Adams" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. *The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. *China, even.
Why did that happen? *Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? *Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? *That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected?

No.

But you can't or won't qualify that with discussion.

Really just one system?

It is multiple, interrelated systems.

But you can't describe those systems.

I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in
America.

The what? *What is that's "faith-based" about the economics of Bush?

Faith in free markets to solve scientific problems.

It looked like that for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. *One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and
then the next, they all fell down. *Why? *??

Are you really as paranoid and economically ignorant as this post
indicates?

But you can't point out her paranoia or ignorance.

Has it occurred to you yet that you might be the irrational troll here?- Hide quoted text -


Yes, Rand goes out of his way to hide his cluelessness by attempting
to point it out in others.

"Martha Adams" wrote in message
...
As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question.


This is a very interesting subject.


The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world.

It was a classic panic sell situation, a text book
example.


China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next?
Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?


The behavior we're witnessing today in the markets
is universal and natural to all complex dynamic systems.
A man-made or highly controlled system wouldn't have
a chance to behave this way, while a natural system
can and will when disturbed in a certain way.


Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected? Really just one system?

Just the opposite, the Internet has allowed countless
millions of people to electronically trade. And this
means the market is steadily being taken over by
the small time investors, by the masses. Which
drives the more natural or non-linear behavior.


Perturbation and Transients - The Edge of Chaos

"That nudge we call a 'perturbation', the time during which
something is happening we call the 'transient', and the final
situation the 'steady state'."

'The strength of the perturbation can be measured in terms
of the effect it had - the length of time the disturbance lasted
(or the 'transient length')"

"This is true for any system and is a measure of its stability.
We require short transient length and return to the initial state
for constructions like buildings in an earthquake."

"Consider our air molecules, they collide with each other continually,
never settling down and never returning to exactly the same state
- they are chaotic. For this situation the transient length is infinite,
whereas for our best building method it would be zero."

"So we have two situations here, one with zero length (static systems)
and one with infinite length (chaotic systems). What about the ones
in the middle ? Well, let us take an example - a room full of people.
Here we have an unstable situation - what happens depends on many
things. If one person pulls a gun we may have panic - chaos.
If no one moves we have a static situation."

This 'instability with order' is what we call the 'Edge of Chaos', a
system /midway/ between stable and chaotic domains (also called
self-organized criticality). It is characterized by a potential to
develop structure over many different scales."

Natural Power Laws

"Are these properties restricted to human type systems ? No. Any
system under strain can experience rapid changes of state. One
of the most common is related to earthquakes. It is found that
earthquake activity follows a power law distribution, the severity
of a quake is related to its frequency by an inverse exponential formula.
There are many minor quakes felt over any period but few large ones."

"We cannot in general say that a major perturbation will have the
larger effect and a minor one only a small effect. The knock-on effect
of any perturbation of a system can vary from zero to infinite - there
is an inherent fractal unpredictability."
http://www.calresco.org/perturb.htm



So, how do we design a disturbance that will produce a 'big one' like
we just witnessed? It's easy really, however the answer is counter intuitive
to most science minded people since the situation responsible for the
large non-linear or cascading response is a result of...uncertainty.

Why is the Mona Lisa considered art? Why does that work have
such a profound effect? Because the expressions are all elegantly
left uncertain. So that the ...observer...is left to define the expression.

The work does not define itself.

This uncertainty has the same potential to 'move' or effect
the market as it does the world of art.

While science likes to find and deal with certainty, to understand
the behavior of natural complex systems we must understand
how to deal with that which /by definition/ cannot be quantified....

Uncertainty.

But it's not enough to create a disturbance that's elegantly uncertain.
The level of connectivity to the system variables is equally
important. This is also maximized if the disturbance directly
effects a primary system variable. Most systems have two
such primary forces.

A perfect example of how such an elegantly uncertain perturbation
was suddenly connected to the maximum amount of system variables
and shocked a system into a cascading response would be the
famous Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl.

Was it deliberate or an accident?
Was that perturbation a crass publicity stunt?
Or was it an expression of beauty?
Or a statement against censorship?
Illegal or not?
Was it porn, art, greed or a political statement?
Or was it just a simple slip-up?

From the smallest to the largest, from crude to inspiring,
no one can really tell. It's left to the /observer/ to decide
....each and every one. This draws in or attracts the
maximum response possible.

It was an elegantly uncertain perturbation ...suddenly
combined with the massive parallel connectivity
of the Super Bowl and the Internet, literally
no one on the planet didn't know it about it
the next day. A /split second/ act, with cloud like
and elegant uncertainty suddenly exposed to the bulk
of the 'system'.

This is how the maximum amount of system effect
is generated. Once we can mathematically model
uncertainty, we can bring science to the realm
of art and all the other messy real world disciplines
that are 'more art than science'.



I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in America. It looked like that
for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and then the next, they all fell
down. Why? ??


A primary system variable was suddenly confronted with
a high level of uncertainty. Real estate starting bubbling
while the variable rate mortgages started to go up in rate.
The two viscous cycles combined to created a level of
complexity/uncertainty where no one knew just how
big the problem really is, or just how fast it would spread.

The highest level of uncertainty.

So everyone .....always....assumes the worst, and
at the /same time/, and the panic is on.

Elegant uncertainty suddenly unleashed on the whole.





Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Oct 14]

Martha Adams wrote:
As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected? Really just one system?




Watch the 1976 movie "Network"... God explains that all to Howard Beale
in it.
Also, try to remember that when that movie was made it was a hilarious
parody on what would happen if the wrong people got hold of
television...and is now a dead-on prophecy of what was actually going to
happen when they really _did_ do that.
In fact, one suspects that corporate TV moguls watched that movie like
it was a primer on how to do it - rather like carefully scrutinizing
Machiavelli's "The Prince" for worthwhile modern political strategies.
I'm pretty sure Karl Rove has a copy of that...that's so repetitively
read that the pages are falling out of it. :-D

Pat

Patriot wrote:

They believe in God and prayer as well, apparently.

Look at how this has effected a SECULAR nation :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7868614

There you have it. Secularism and rationality works!

I'm more into profanity.

Pat

Patriot wrote:

No.

But you can't or won't qualify that with discussion.

He is a man of few words... most of them insulting. :-)

Pat

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 04:06:33 +1300, Martha Adams wrote:

As I look at the recent finance/economic news, I
have a question. The systems crashed, pretty much
all at once, all around the world. China, even.
Why did that happen? Aren't there any firewalls
between one system and the next? Does this support
the ideas of those who say the whole world is held
by a tiny group of exceptionally rich families?
Bilderberger theory, etc? That the world money
systems we thought were ours, are theirs, made by
a very few people and so all made the same and
totally interconnected? Really just one system?

I'd have thought the faith-based economics of Bush
et al would have originated the crash here in America. It looked like
that for a while. But then
in England, in Europe, going over to Asia, the fall
spread like ink in blotter paper. One by one, like
a string of dominoes, one and then the next and then the next, they all
fell down. Why? ??

A brief rough amatuer explanation.

Banks lend money to each other. They are required to have 10% cash at the
end of the day in most countries.

The amount of cash to go around diminished as a result of the cunning new
lending policies.

In the Panic, they were too wary to lend money to other banks, or any but
very low risk businesses.

They then were earning less money. Neither the banks nor the economies can
function like this.


Gunn