[HN Gopher] Why It's Usually Crazier Than You Expect ___________________________________________________________________ Why It's Usually Crazier Than You Expect Author : antdke Score : 73 points Date : 2021-01-30 19:10 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.collaborativefund.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.collaborativefund.com) | alex_young wrote: | Seems like another way to read this is to say that unchecked | capitalism leads to some pretty unhealthy behaviors. | | If people weren't trying to get rich selling tusks we would have | more elephants and if people weren't trying to get rich with GME | stock we would have less fear of our other investments being | randomly targeted. | tradri wrote: | taking the anarchist's approach: if people are happier owning | tusks and using the stock market as a casino than seeing | elephants and having stable finances, let em do it. | alex_young wrote: | Do anarchists really believe that the profit motives of the | few outweigh the collective interest of the masses? | danShumway wrote: | > than seeing elephants | | I don't want to strawman anyone. Are there really | Anachrocapitalists who believe that the market should decide | whether or not we have mass extinctions, or is this post | mostly satirical? | | There are so many problems with this idea, not the least | being that markets aren't designed to eliminate niche ideas, | they're designed to support them -- and because wild | populations of elephants are a shared common resource, even a | small number of people who are happier owning tusks means | that their preferences suddenly outweigh the vast majority | that want them to stop killing elephants. | | Markets aren't designed to stop people from irreparably | damaging commons and messing up the world for everyone. That | doesn't mean markets are bad, it just means... that's not | what they were ever designed to do. You're using them to try | and fix a problem that they're not optimized to fix. | | This is very much a, "if all you have is a hammer, everything | looks like a nail" proposal. We don't need to solve literally | every single problem with Capitalism. We especially shouldn't | look at every single problem and say, "Capitalism doesn't | solve that, so it's not a real problem." | nradov wrote: | In general there's no valid reason to fear our investments | being randomly targeted. GME short sellers have only themselves | to blame by pushing the total short interest to unsustainable | levels and failing to hedge. That is a rare situation which | hardly impacts any of us. | throwawayboise wrote: | If people could not become rich by profiting from their | efforts, we'd all still be living in teepees and spending our | days foraging. | alex_young wrote: | My criticism of unchecked capitalism isn't the same thing as | opposition to capitalism itself. In fact it's easy to argue | that capitalism cannot function without the limits we place | upon it. | tradri wrote: | Interesting read about feedback loops and self-fulfilling | prophecies. | | However, the author made it sound as if "momentum" is the only | thing that drives human behavior. While it's certainly a part, I | wouldn't say it's the only force driving human decisions. | cactus2093 wrote: | I don't think the author was claiming it's the only force. But | I do agree this was interesting but felt like something was | missing. If feedback loops are so powerful, why are most things | actually fairly stable? How and when and why does something get | sucked into a positive feedback loop? I'd be curious to read | more thoughts about that. | tradri wrote: | isn't that the question of what makes things go viral? | tradri wrote: | To link it to the world of investing, other key factors that | drive returns/risk of assets are value, size, quality, yield | and volatility, besides momentum. It's a multi-variate | equation. | FabHK wrote: | 1. I was expecting to read about a gamma squeeze... (people buy | far out-of-the-money calls on GME (low delta), option seller is | short, buys a bit of GME to get flat, more people buy & price | goes up, delta goes up, option seller needs to buy more stock to | hedge, and you have your feedback loop going (until option is far | in-the-money, delta is one, and option seller doesn't need to buy | anymore).) | | But that never came... it was just positive feedback in | perception. | | 2. It's not "usually" crazier than you expect. Most everywhere, | we have feedback loops that keep things stable. Demand rises, | prices rise, people think, eh, too expensive, and demand and | supply are in balance again. Airplane gets bumped nose-up a bit, | angle of attack increases on the wing and the horizontal | stabiliser creating upward forces, but everything (centre of | gravity, tail volume, etc.) is carefully designed such that this | results in a nose-down momentum until the plane is in equilibrium | again. And I could go on. | | That's why it is so _unusual_ when things spin out of control | (nuclear bomb, anyone?). | | 3. As for GME, I trust that the forces of the market will pull it | back down where it belongs soon enough. | | EDIT: closed parenthesis | [deleted] | MaxBarraclough wrote: | > As the number of elephants declines, tusks become rare. Rarity | pushes prices up. High prices make hunters excited about how much | money they can make if they find an elephant. So they work | overtime. Then fewer elephants remain, tusk prices rise even | more, more hunters catch on, they work triple-time, on and on | until the number of hunters explodes as everyone chases the last | herd of elephants | | This is almost the opposite of Jevon's Paradox: | | > _the Jevons paradox occurs when technological progress or | government policy increases the efficiency with which a resource | is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the | rate of consumption of that resource rises due to increasing | demand._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox | pimlottc wrote: | Jevon's paradox can also lead to virtuous cycles. For example, | electric-assist bikes require less user energy per mile, making | biking easier, which leads to more time spent biking, resulting | in more overall exercise. Similarly, increased transit use can | lead to more time spent walking. | laurent92 wrote: | There is also the vicious version: Mandating the wearing of | helmets for cyclists increases the number of deaths, because | of obesity and cardiac diseases due to raising the barrier to | cycling. | Ma8ee wrote: | I've heard that example many times over the years, but I | very much suspect it's and urban myth. Do you know if there | really are any serious studies showing this? | m463 wrote: | There was a TED talk about this, don't know about papers. | | https://youtu.be/07o-TASvIxY | the-dude wrote: | You don't need an urban myth when you already have | statistics. | Ma8ee wrote: | Let me rephrase my question: are there reliable | statistics that shows that that is the case? | laurent92 wrote: | I've personally read it from the book Freakinomics, here | is the article pointing to one scientific paper. But it | could still be false, you are correct: From my | experience, a scientific paper isn't trustworthy until | another paper comes and shows which limits it has. | | https://freakonomics.com/2010/01/19/do-bike-helmet-laws- | disc... | Ma8ee wrote: | Thanks for the link. But that only shows that mandatory | helmets reduce bicycling a few percent. The leap that it | actually increases mortality is still missing. | username90 wrote: | This paper says it increases mortality for that reason: | | https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=13680 | 64 | njarboe wrote: | Mandatory helmets reduce fun and freedom. Laws should not | be passed for marginal improvements in safety or small | reduction of public costs, in my opinion. | bostik wrote: | Think about it this way: if you _choose_ to wear a | helmet, you already have done a personal risk evaluation. | You are also, with a high probability, an avid cyclist. | You are more likely to invest in quality equipment. | | On the other hand, if you are getting a helmet because | you have to but don't really want to, your selection | criteria will be different. You are less likely to invest | in quality equipment. | | The problem with dodgy headgear is that a badly fitting | helmet will not feel right, or align well with your head | movements. This in turn means such a helmet is a source | of low-grade irritation and distraction - and due to bad | fit, may actually limit your field of vision when you | turn your head around. The latter clearly increases the | wearer's risk. | | Hence, a cyclist who wears a helmet only because it's | mandatory is (sadly enough) more likely to get into | dangerous accidents. They are unable to give their | surroundings their full attention, and may also be | suffering from ill effects of their chosen gear. | | Net effect? More dangerous situations, with smaller | safety margins between the cyclist and their | surroundings. | | Full disclosure: I prefer to wear a good, lightweight | helmet that fits snugly and doesn't accidentally impair | my vision. I have also experienced badly fitting helmets | and consider them hazardous. This is the reason why I am | against mandatory cycling helmets - regulation can not | guarantee ergonomics, so with mandatory helmets the truth | is that more people will be in the traffic with headgear | that will make them less safe to themselves, as well as | everyone around them. | tradri wrote: | another relevant one: lockdowns cause more deaths because | people don't have a job and are depressed. | | Edit: According to Elon Musk and others. | [deleted] | newbie578 wrote: | Wow, a really interesting read, nice to think about. | sound1 wrote: | Agree. I thought about how how my personal image perceived by | others may affect my success or failure in life or career. | Interesting and scary at the same time. | yibg wrote: | Seems like a potential confirmation bias here with regards to | GME. GME may be in a feedback loop right now, but how many other | stocks had the beginnings of a feedback loop but fizzled out? How | many companies started to win but didn't attract the best | employees? | | Put it another way, is there any predictive power here or is it | only something that can be observed after the fact? Seems like | the latter. | didibus wrote: | There are firms I've heard of who have social media watchers | and they play based on "buzz". I don't know how that pans out | in long term holdings, but short term I'm guessing they've been | successful or they wouldn't keep doing it. | JW_00000 wrote: | Also, are we even "after the fact" at this moment? In other | words, let's see in three months' time (or one year) whether | there really was a positive feedback loop that saved GME or | whether there was a rapid boom-and-bust cycle and GME is back | to where it was last year (or even bankrupt). It's too early to | draw conclusions while we're still in the middle of the frenzy. | mslate wrote: | Isn't Collaborative Fund the one that got smeared by the CEO of | one of its portfolio companies? | | Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24793170 | vladmk wrote: | It usually is crazier than you expect but I feel the authors | answer "small trends" is a cop out answer. Small trends can be | found in any success, the contrarian view is more interesting: | why do things go right when they're not supposed to? "Small | trends" is a bad answer for GameStop, the answer is more complex | and the variables aren't covered in this article | netsharc wrote: | It seems like cheap thought but he tries to present it like | it's deep insight. | | And in 2008/09, people probably didn't want to buy from a | bankrupt GM because it's hard to get spare parts from bankrupt | car manufacturers. At least for the common definition of | bankrupt (i.e. shuttered). | gautamcgoel wrote: | The ideas discussed in his post, especially the idea of rapidly | expanding spheres of civilizations consuming all resources in | their path, were beautifully explored in Stephen Baxter's sci-fi | book, Manifold: Space (a spin-off of his earlier book, Manifold: | Time, which is also excellent). In his book, alien intelligences | are common; once they become sufficiently advanced, their | civilizations tend to rapidly expand and consume all available | resources, often to the detriment of other civilizations in their | path. This pattern leads to some interesting phenomena: first, | while the night sky might seem quiet at first, once we do | encounter aliens, we tend to see their signals across many star | systems in rapid succession. The reason is pretty obvious: there | is only a brief period of time when we are on the surface of a | sphere - a few years after our first observations of aliens, we | are engulfed within their sphere and observe their signals from | all over our stellar neighborhood. Another idea he plays with is | the idea of "refugee" species, who attempt to flee oncoming | spheres by evacuating ahead of their path instead of being | consumed. | | Actually, he pushes this idea even further: in the book, our | solar system was _already_ engulfed in a few spheres millions of | years ago. He suggests that this why Venus is such a hellscape: | the aliens came, took the resources they wanted, and left behind | a polluted mess. In the case of Venus, they left lots of | greenhouse gases behind as the result of some chemical process | used to extract resources; as a result, Venus quickly became the | warmest planet in the solar system. It 's a fun twist on the | Fermi paradox: signs of aliens are actually all around us, we are | just too dumb to notice them. | | Another interesting idea he explores a bit is "ownership" of | resources. Do the resource-rich asteroids in our solar system | really belong to us? Or are they available to any alien race who | happens to pass through? In the book, we first notice aliens by | observing unexplainable infrared radiation from the asteroid belt | (later revealed to be thermal emissions from their resource | extraction). He suggests that these aliens will potentially crowd | out humans; even if they are not overtly hostile, they could | gobble up all the resources we would have used to expand our | civilization. | | Highly recommend this book. | abbadadda wrote: | Where does one buy said book, "Manifold: Space"? I'd prefer | paperback or hardcover (no options on UK Amazon)... sounds very | interesting. | jfk13 wrote: | eBay? https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p23 | 80057... | AndrewDucker wrote: | https://smile.amazon.co.uk/dp/0008134472/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_. | .. | kqr2 wrote: | https://www.amazon.co.uk/Space-Manifold-Trilogy- | Book-2/dp/00... | superzamp wrote: | Had to read this twice, I think you meant to comment on this | thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25972111 | TameAntelope wrote: | An article last week referred to this as "reflexivity". | | * Reflexivity is a theory that positive feedback loops between | expectations and economic fundamentals can cause price trends | that substantially and persistently deviate from equilibrium | prices. | | * Reflexivity's primary proponent is George Soros, who credits it | with much of his success as an investor. | | * Soros believes that reflexivity contradicts most of mainstream | economic theory. | | https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/reflexivity.asp has some | additional info. | | I wonder if there's a way to marry "efficient market hypothesis" | with "reflexivity on the edges" somehow. _Well_ outside my | ballywick, in any event. | marcosdumay wrote: | No, you can't marry the Efficient Market Hypothesis with any | kind of inefficiency. Even less one that isn't compatible with | a market settling into equilibrium. | | The hypothesis is just false. Markets do seek efficiency, but | not the way it states. But the Efficient Market Hypothesis | leads to tractable mathematics, so people try to approximate | the real world into it. | FabHK wrote: | I think Keynes captured the essence of reflexivity nicely in | his beauty contest: | | "It is not a case of choosing those [faces] that, to the best | of one's judgment, are really the prettiest, nor even those | that average opinion genuinely thinks the prettiest. We have | reached the third degree where we devote our intelligences to | anticipating what average opinion expects the average opinion | to be. And there are some, I believe, who practice the fourth, | fifth and higher degrees." | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_beauty_contest | TeMPOraL wrote: | I've read the Investopedia article, but I struggle to see | what's the big deal about it? Where's the conflict? | | The best I could summarize it is that "reflexivity" postulates | that economic equilibria are usually not stable, but | metastable. That is, they can be easily pushed out of their | stability regime, at which point the feedback loops will no | longer balance, and the equilibrium will get re-established | elsewhere (if at all). | | That's the only thing I can see that requires some empirical | justification. Other than that, the postulates seem to be | basically "feedback loops 101", and the "mainstream economics" | concepts, as I understand them, are built on the same | principles too. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-30 23:00 UTC)