piezoe turned me on to these lectures, I think there are 11 of them, you can watch them on www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCaCrWzFPYY&feature=relmfu the gist of the theory of reflexivity is that what is subjective happens in your head what is objective happens in the market reflexivity is in the interaction between the two so when you go to refinance your house in 2006 to pay off your divorcing wife because some other man is better, subjectively you can't believe that anybody in their right mind would pay 3 times as much for this old house as you paid 20 years ago. But who can argue with the objective market? And so all subjectivity becomes lost, and there is only the objective market to tell you the truth, and there is no reflexivity, and so a bubble is formed. same in 2009, when everything is just going on in your head, and it is all subjective, and all objectivity is ignored, then again, no reflexivity and you miss a good buying opportunity in the stock market in a healthy economy, there will be a huge difference between what you think is going to happen, and what is happening as long as you realize that there is some reflexivity between your subjectivity and your objectivity you are probably ok
the thing Soros can't understand is, many of us lived under the Clinton Administration when all the govenment was overtaken by the democrats and we had no where to go. In his case, when the Soviets invaded/overtook his country, he simply skipped town and attended the London School of Economics,and after being bored there moved to NYC and managed a hedge fund. And after making billions of dollars, now all he does is still make money and give it away and think and talk about things. He has no idea what its like to be a Republican living under a Democratic administration. at anyrate, the lectures are very interesting if you want to learn how they think
All in all, I'll take the word of the US Founding Fathers, who, unlike Soros, fought off an empire and actually had to create a functioning government on the fly, not create a think tank model of a functioning government. Their consensus seems to be that government is a "necessary evil", which, I suppose, using Soros' logic, lead them to create a government which does the necessary things and considers it evil to go beyond those. I don't see anything wrong with that approach. The other thing I find frustrating about Soros' thoughts on governance is that if they had been in place when he was a younger man, the world would never have heard of him because the kind of separation of fortunes that has occurred between him and the mass of humanity would not have been possible, due to the leveling forces of egalitarianism. Or, if he had become famous, it would most likely have been the result of his brutality, which is how all almost all of those who "stand out" in egalitarian societies become famous (or, more accurately, "infamous"). We know next to nothing about 99% of the nameless and faceless people sent to Siberia or Auschwitz, but we know almost every detail of the lives of Stalin and Hitler. The other way to "stand out" in an egalitarian society is to be a very good liar and work your way up to Propaganda Minister. These are the traits which egalitarianism in actual practice rewards. There are no "Mother Theresas" or "Andrew Carnegies" or anyone who exhibits any of the virtues we in the West have found praiseworthy for the past two millennia. It's all grim "dog eat dog" survivalism beyond anything capitalist society ever exhibited. Sometimes I wish that the West was run by emigres from the former Soviet Union. Those people can spot political bullsh!t from a mile away, unlike much of the naive Western populations. It's funny because our Western ancestors could see through BS back when the particular form of BS being spouted was "the divine right of kings", but for some reason, "the divine right of bureaucrats" is like catnip to a certain portion of the population. My guess is that the same people whose ancestors supported the king are the ones who now support the bureaucrat. There's something genetically wrong with them, for sure.
hey logic, it's always good to hear from you on a Sunday when I know you are couped in that jungle you call home (if that's even what you call it. At anyrate you live there, by according to you, your choice.) I hear ya, nobody would listen to him if he hadn't broke the Bank of England. But you must admit, that's a pretty decent calling card. Out in here in the midwest, we don't need calling cards. Everybody knows everybody. But I guess in NYC, you need to either break a bank or a leg just to get an intro.
I don't disagree that it's a good "calling card", I just dislike it when someone who has the brains to do that sort of thing becomes so dominated by short-term thinking that he then turns around and says "No one should be allowed to do this in the future" and that appears to be the direction in which Soros leans.
one thing that always permeates your posts is you acknowledge that you are selfish and self serving and have no compassion unless it serves your own self interest. Yet you know that this is wrong and constantly challenge anybody to bet you otherwise.
Government is inherently bad, because of the human element. Power corrupts humans. In the case of the free market, there is always competition, so if and when a company is corrupted, they are forced to change due to competition or they will cease to exist as a company (except big banks and GM currently). In the case of government, unless you can or are willing to relocate to a different company, there is no competition to force a government to run efficiently and in an uncorrupted way. This is much of the reason of why the US has been so successful. We have worked our entire existence to contain the federal government. Unfortunately those on the left been working hard too. Government has really picked up steam under both Democrats and Republicans in the past 70 years, and seems to be getting close to a tipping point.
well, this is the point another poster random.capital makes. He has a hard history of immigration. We all talk about free trade and fair trade, but nobody talks about free immigration, and without it, there will never be competition among governments. Kind of scary when you think of human beings being captured by their government. If USA is so good, everybody should want to move here and we should welcome them. I mean really, are people an asset or a liability? No one can imagine a world where everybody wants people to immigrate to their country. If you are racist or bigoted, just spare me. I don't want to even try to cure stupidity on a Sunday afternoon. And for that matter, since 1970 I gave up ever trying to cure stupidity. The only hope is you die off and never reproduce.
If the quotes below are accurate, it seems even George and his son have called B.S. on these grand theories. www.gladwell.com/2002/2002_04_29_a_blowingup.htm George Soros seemed to be successful for a reason, too. He used to say that he followed something called "the theory of reflexivity." But then, later, Soros wrote that in most situations his theory "is so feeble that it can be safely ignored." The truest thing about Soros seemed to be what his son Robert had once said: My father will sit down and give you theories to explain why he does this or that. But I remember seeing it as a kid and thinking, Jesus Christ, at least half of this is bullshit. I mean, you know the reason he changes his position on the market or whatever is because his back starts killing him. It has nothing to do with reason. He literally goes into a spasm, and it's this early warning sign.