Cine va castiga

N-am avut ce face si am clickuit o poza pe aplicatia Votează a site-ului

Si cum tot romanul se pricepe la fotbal si la politica ce-ar fi sa comentez si eu rezultatele astea?

- Site-ul se adreseaza in principal oamenilor preocupati de bani. Nu neaparat unora care au asa ceva, si nici macar unora care stiu cum sa ii faca – aceste doua categorii sunt de obicei suficient de ocupati incat nu prea mai au timp de pierdut pe net, ci mai ales celor interesati de modul in care circula banii prin societate.
– Avand in vedere publicul tinta al acestui site nu trebuie sa ne miram ca ‘dreapta’ castiga detasat. Mai degraba trebuie sa ne bucure ca Ponta ia totusi 16 % din voturile acestei categorii de oameni. Inseamna ca acestia mai au totusi ‘un pic de inima’. Si chiar nu glumesc, cu toate ca eu unul am de gand sa votez cu Iohannis.
– Cel mai interesant lucru de aici mi se pare locul doi ocupat de Monica Macovei.
Pe de o parte e de bine. Inseamna ca mesajul ei axat aproape total pe ‘anticoruptie’ prinde si la aceasta categorie sociala, atasata in mentalul colectiv ideii de ‘coruptie functionala’ – de spaga data multimii de ‘inspectori’ veniti in control si care te amendeaza chiar daca nu ai facut nimic pentru ca ‘trebuie sa scrie si ei ceva in registrele alea de control’. Adica oamenii s-au cam ‘plictisit’ de sistemul asta. E de bine, pana aici.
Pe de alta parte Monica Macovei promite a se implica foarte activ in viata de zi cu zi a tarii: ‘Din prima zi voi….’
Pai asta nu e treaba primului ministru, care o fi el? Un nou un presedinte jucator?

Ar mai trebuie un sondaj pentru a vedea care dintre aceste doua motive a primat atunci cand votantii Monicai Macovei si-au manifestat preferinta pentru ea.

Pana la aparitia acestuia, daca va veni vreodata, putem verifica daca populatia, in general, mai este dispusa sa accepte o ‘figura paterna’ cu ajutorul unui sondaj cu privire la increderea in politicieni, facut in octombrie 2014 de catre CSCI:

incredere oct 2014

Concluzia mea?
Mare atentie. Orice va ocupa scaunul de la Cotroceni trebuie sa aiba grija. Oamenii nu mai sunt dispusi sa creada in figuri providentiale si s-au cam saturat de coruptie.

Extreme fragility, dead ahead.

Just prior to the Great Depression an American accountant, Ralph Elliot, has taken Charles Dow’s insight about economic cycles a step forward and came up with the ‘Wave Theory’.
I won’t enter into details here but I have to give you some broad outlines.
Charles Dow: In any market, prices evolve in trends – sustained moves towards the main direction fragmented by ‘reactions’ that run contrary to the trend. According to Dow there are three categories/levels of trends: major, intermediary and minor. The major trends cannot be manipulated and comprises three phases: ‘accumulation/distribution’, ‘public participation’ and ‘panic’. The names are self explanatory but if you want to read some more please click here.
Ralph Elliot: (If a certain asset is traded by a sufficient number of traders so as that market could be considered ‘free’) Price action is fractal in nature and hence can be broken down and analyzed as such. While Dow identified 3 levels of trending Elliot uses 9 but both ‘agree’ that each action in the direction of the analized trend is followed by a reaction contrary to that direction.

Robert Prechter, the brain behind ‘Elliot Wave International’, ” the largest independent financial analysis and market forecasting firm in the world” – the guys from whom I borrowed the picture above – has been using successfully the ‘Elliot Wave theory’ for some 40 years now.
And here comes the really interesting part. Besides building Elliot Wave International as a market analysis company he also founded The Socionomics Institute, a think tank that starts from the assumption that the markets are driven by the prevalent social mood (sentiment) that is prevalent at any given moment and not all the way around as it is usually believed. Prechter posits that markets go down when/because people are ‘afraid’ and not ‘people start to panic after the market has begun to go down’.
For some people this whole process is a tug of war between greed and fear. It makes a lot of sense but we still lack an explanation about why at some points the bulls are stronger than the bears and at some-other points the situation is completely turned over when reason should take care of business at all times. Right?

Now some of you will tell me that Daniel Kahneman and others have provided ample proof that the market is far from being rational... OK, I agree with that but still, we continue to need an explanation for why the market behaves for so long as if it was reasonable only to break down exactly when everybody was so happy – as it constantly did, since the Tulip Mania in the the XVII-th century Holland to the last financial melt down.

Now please remember two things that I already mentioned.
– One of Charles Dow’s assumptions was that ‘major trends cannot be manipulated while the lesser ones might
– (If a certain asset is traded by a sufficient number of traders so as that market could be considered ‘free’) – Here I was presumptuous enough to introduce my own experience into the equation. After I was introduced to the Elliot Wave theory I found out that it worked (meaning that I could use it successfully – statistically, of course) for indices or other frequently traded symbols while it is completely useless for illiquid ones.

I started to understand what’s going on only after reading Nassim Taleb’s Antifragile.
The gist of this book is that for a system to remain viable, to conserve it’s chances to survive, it has to keep open as many options as it possibly can.
Does it make any sense to you?
To be alive means being able to make decisions, as freely as possible. If you are forced to make one thing or another than you are not free anymore, right? If you have at least the slightest opportunity to choose among two or more posibilities then it means that you still have a sparkle of life in you! Stephen Hawkins, tied in his wheelchair for so many years, is alive just because he choose not to be overwhelmed by his condition while so many of us are (brain) dead because we indiscriminately follow fads, fashions, habits, you name it. The moment we give up our individual autonomy and enroll into a crowd (read ‘herd’) we might have the impression of becoming safe, or at least safer, but in reality we are already headed for the slaughterhouse.

It is somewhat true though that ‘there is safety in numbers’. And no, I’m not contradicting myself. The bigger the crowd the harder it is for someone to control it (take it to the slaughterhouse, by will or by error) and the greater the chances for an individual to escape an unforeseen  predator. So you need a really big crowd if you want to have a survival situation, a reasonably viable system.

If we look back in history – no magical solution can be found there, only a long list of errors – we’ll see that empires never fail to crash, authoritarian regimes last way less than the more democratic ones and that the more powerful a fad was the less it survived. And all these situations fit perfectly Taleb’s theory: the less open options a system has the less able it is to survive. The emperor is but a single man, who inevitable ends up being ‘naked’, no matter how capable it is – and people notice it sooner or later,  the more an authoritarian a regime the less are the ordinary people inclined to contribute to the welfare of the community and the more intense a fad the less inclined to look for alternatives are the people involved in that fad.

Now please take a second glance at this picture.
Extreme fragility, dead ahead.

What does it suggest?
That there is a certain correlation between income being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands and the probability of a market crash?
But correlation is not causation!
No, it isn’t. Not unless we can find a reasonable story for what may ’cause’ that correlation! Explain it, that is!

By now I’m almost convinced that most of you have already ‘got’ it.
Concentration of revenue means concentration of decision power. As less and less people (proportionally) remain in ‘powerful’ positions they not only command a higher proportion of the aggregated revenue of the entire community but they also control in a greater measure the destiny of that community.

No, I don’t think that ‘they’ are ill intended. ‘They’ live here too. They are not idiots, otherwise they wouldn’t have reached/been able to retain those lofty positions. So no, I don’t think they are willingly leading us to disaster.

The problem is that they are too few! No individual human being is able to make a considerable number of decisions in a short period time. That’s the very reason why we have consultants and so on, right? The problem is that ‘consultants’ only give advice, they cannot/are not allowed to make actual decisions. And the fewer are the people wielding real power the more the rest of us become mere consultants…

And according to Taleb’s theory and to an immense number of historical occurrences the less people are involved in the decision making process the higher are the chances for a catastrophic error to ‘reset’ the entire system.

PS I. Funny for a conclusion like that to be drawn from a picture published by a company that caters for the needs of the kind of people that are working hard to get as rich as possible, isn’t it?
On the other side…if even these people have figured it out that there is something rotten in Denmark… maybe the stench is so pervasive that we have already grown accustomed to it…

PS II Never say never!
I don’t think we are necessarily facing another economic melt down in the immediate future. It might happen, of course. It will happen – sooner or later, of course again, but there is no sure way of telling when.
What I’m trying to suggest here is that there is a very strong possibility that in the near future we’ll witness a considerable change in how we manage the economy and in the way we relate to the concept of ‘money’.

Democratia nu inseamna ‘dictatura majoritatii’, aia este ‘mob rule’ – dictatura gloatei pe romaneste. N-am sa intru acum in amanunte despre cum este aglutinata si manipulata aceasta gloata de catre diversi operatori politici.

Democratie este ceea ce se intampla inainte de vot, discutia pe fata cu privire la problemele cetatii si propunerea de solutii. Dupa aceasta discutie sunt alese solutiile, nu oamenii care sa le puna in practica. Acestia sunt secundari solutiilor, chiar daca ei sunt cei care au propus aceste solutii. Mai mult, democratia nu este nici macar despre alegerea celei mai bune solutii. S-ar putea ca in cadrul acelei discutii sa nu fie identificata solutia optima sau chiar ca cel care o sustine sa nu fie in stare sa o prezinte convingator sau ca marea masa sa nu fie inca pregatiti/suficient de maturi pentru a accepta acea solutie. Dar in mod sigur in timpul discutiilor – daca sunt cu adevarat libere – vor fi eliminate propunerile idioate.

Pentru aceasta este nevoie de libertatea de expresie si de simt civic – adica de niste alegatori suficient de treji incat sa isi dea seama ca este vorba despre soarta lor si nu a altora.

Si nu, nu este acceptabil sa nu te duci la vot. Nu sunt de parere ca votul ar trebui sa fie obligatoriu dar nici sa-i lasi sa faca ce vor fara ca macar sa-i intrebi de sanatate… N-ai inteles nimic? Asta inseamna ca ei nu s-au straduit destul, ca nu si-au facut cu adevarat treaba in campania electorala – discutia aia despre care vorbeam la inceput. Nici unul dintre ei nu iti inspira incredere? Si nu te duci?!?
Asta inseamna ca de fapt nu iti pasa! Daca iti pasa te duceai si anulai votul. Le transmiteai ca ar fi cazul sa se apuce serios de treaba. Asta este singurul fel in care poate fi sprijinita democratia.
Daca nu te duci inseamna doar ca ii sprijini pe cei care sunt la putere, adica esti multumit cu ce se intampla sau nu te intereseaza  ce ti se intampla. Cu alte cuvinte le dai o imputernicire in alb sa continue pe mai departe ce ti-au facut pana acum.

“Kaci Hickox, a nurse whose return to the U.S. after treating Ebola patients in Sierra Leone was sidetracked when she was placed in a mandatory 21-day quarantine Friday, is criticizing the way New Jersey officials have handled her case.

Hickox says she doesn’t have a fever; a preliminary blood test came back negative for Ebola. She reportedly hired a civil rights attorney Sunday to work for her release.

I can understand the notion of ‘quarantine’ even if I have serious doubts about it’s efficiency.
But in an unheated tent and wearing paper scrubs?
I’m afraid this is less about separating people that might be carrying the virus from the rest of the population and more about frightening others from coming in!
Now, I cannot stop wondering, how many otherwise reasonable people will do their ‘best’ (worse?!?) to hide any contact they might have had with this disease?

PS. “Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo Sunday night said people returning from West Africa who have come in contact with Ebola virus patients but are not showing symptoms will be quarantined for 21 days at home instead of in a hospital.

The announcement marked a change in the policy outlined by Cuomo and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie on Friday that drew criticism from federal and local officials, and medical…”

Altruism is a behavior that has been ‘naturally’ selected at the ‘social’ level,
Communities that encourage it fare better, as a whole, than communities that condone widespread indifference towards the others.
Please notice that the opposite of altruism is not ego-centrism and not even egoism but complete indifference. An egocentric or egoistic individual is one that is aware of his person and values his individuality. As such he will try to take good care of himself and never dare to behave in a completely callous manner because he fears social rejection, provided his egoism is tamed by reason.
If his egocentricity becomes unmanageable he turns into a sociopath that is, sooner or later, expelled from the society.
If nothing out of the ordinary (extremely good or extremely bad) comes along, naturally (randomly) occurring ‘altruism’ is encouraged by some, faked by others and on the whole a ‘moderately altruistic’ behaviour becomes the modus vivendi of that particular community. Ties between the members of that group gather more and more force but don’t overwhelm the individual autonomy of the members, on one side because of the ‘fakers’ and on the other because the ‘real’ altruism involves a certain degree of respect towards the others.
If a particular social group, for whatever reasons, stops discouraging extreme egocentricity, as Caligula and his heirs started to do in Ancient Rome, that entire group is doomed. The largely disseminated egocentricity gives birth to indifference about the fate of the group, later to lawlessness and eventually to a state described as ‘anomie’ by a certain Durkheim – a French sociologist who discovered the link between the number of suicides taking place inside a community and the intensity of the forces that coalesce that community.
Durkheim had reached the conclusion that although the actual decision belongs to the individual, each of the members of a community is more or less ‘prone’ to consider doing it according to the strength of the bonds that exist inside that community. (Suicide, A study in Sociology). Anomie, as described by Durkheim is “a condition or state in which there is a breakdown of social norms and guidance for the citizens of a society. Anomie occurs when society has little influence on individuals’ propensity to follow rules and norms, and individuals are, therefore, left without moral guidance. Individuals do not feel attached to the collective society.”

So, in a situation when individuals are disoriented enough as to be more liable to kill themselves than in other circumstances what would keep that particular society from falling apart?

Let’s go back to Caligula in Ancient Rome or to the pre-Revolutionary France. The general atmosphere in both instances could be very accurately described by ‘apres moi, le deluge‘ (‘a huge amount of water will be needed to cleanse after me’) – a phrase attributed either to Louis XV of France or to his mistress.
Well, we all know what followed. Ancient Rome collapsed under the attacks of the barbarians and the famous Bastille was occupied by the sans-cullotes.


Dati click pe poza.
Zoom in pana se vede bine scrisul.
Si acum spuneti-mi ce cauta trandavia pe lista asta?

Sau manastirea Comana o fi ajuns cumva salas de cersetori budhisti?

It is up to us how we put traditional precepts into practice!

islamic law about marriage

And what is there to stop the father from accepting her choice except for his ego or self serving interests?

Click on the picture, watch the video and then tell me what ‘higher instance’ forced any of those people to do what they did, to make the choices they made..
All people featured in this video belong to the Afghan people and, presumably, to the Muslim faith. Yet their attitude to things cover the entire spectrum. Don’t tell me there is no such thing as free will and individual responsibility.

What forced the father to give away his daughter as a compensation for his son’s “sins”?
Peer pressure?!? (‘Relatives’ that may become belligerent if their demands are not met.)
But what are these ‘peers’ if not other people?

When are we going to understand that we can not quell yesterday’s conflict by inflicting fresh sufferance?
It just doesn’t work!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 247 other followers

%d bloggers like this: