<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_05_31_098218</id>
	<title>Paul Wilmott Wants To Retrain and Reform Wall Street's Quants</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243771920000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:theodp@aol.com" rel="nofollow">theodp</a> writes <i>"What if an aeronautics engineer couldn't reconcile his elegant design for a state-of-the-art jumbo jet with Newton's second law of motion and decided to tweak the equation to fit his design? In a way, Newsweek reports, this is what's happened in quantitative finance, which is in desperate need of reform. And 49-year-old Oxford-trained mathematician <a href="http://wilmott.com/">Paul Wilmott</a> &mdash; arguably the most influential quant today &mdash; thinks he knows where to start. With his <a href="http://wilmott.com/cqf.cfm">CQF</a> program, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/200015">Wilmott is out to save the quants from themselves and the rest of us from their future destruction</a>. 'We need to get back to testing models rather than revering them,' says Wilmott. 'That's hard work, but this idea that there are these great principles governing finance and that correlations can just be plucked out of the air is totally false.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>theodp writes " What if an aeronautics engineer could n't reconcile his elegant design for a state-of-the-art jumbo jet with Newton 's second law of motion and decided to tweak the equation to fit his design ?
In a way , Newsweek reports , this is what 's happened in quantitative finance , which is in desperate need of reform .
And 49-year-old Oxford-trained mathematician Paul Wilmott    arguably the most influential quant today    thinks he knows where to start .
With his CQF program , Wilmott is out to save the quants from themselves and the rest of us from their future destruction .
'We need to get back to testing models rather than revering them, ' says Wilmott .
'That 's hard work , but this idea that there are these great principles governing finance and that correlations can just be plucked out of the air is totally false .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>theodp writes "What if an aeronautics engineer couldn't reconcile his elegant design for a state-of-the-art jumbo jet with Newton's second law of motion and decided to tweak the equation to fit his design?
In a way, Newsweek reports, this is what's happened in quantitative finance, which is in desperate need of reform.
And 49-year-old Oxford-trained mathematician Paul Wilmott — arguably the most influential quant today — thinks he knows where to start.
With his CQF program, Wilmott is out to save the quants from themselves and the rest of us from their future destruction.
'We need to get back to testing models rather than revering them,' says Wilmott.
'That's hard work, but this idea that there are these great principles governing finance and that correlations can just be plucked out of the air is totally false.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158321</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243785840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure, you can do that. Blind Monte Carlo simulation sometimes catches reasonable behaviors and gives some glimpse into possible outcomes. But face it, using this kind of technique --- unless backed by a proven physical model, like molecular dynamics --- ***is*** a primary and definitive admission, no, confession, that you don't have ***any*** understanding of the underlying phenomena and that you've given up trying to do ***any*** science about them.<br>No offence.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure , you can do that .
Blind Monte Carlo simulation sometimes catches reasonable behaviors and gives some glimpse into possible outcomes .
But face it , using this kind of technique --- unless backed by a proven physical model , like molecular dynamics --- * * * is * * * a primary and definitive admission , no , confession , that you do n't have * * * any * * * understanding of the underlying phenomena and that you 've given up trying to do * * * any * * * science about them.No offence .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure, you can do that.
Blind Monte Carlo simulation sometimes catches reasonable behaviors and gives some glimpse into possible outcomes.
But face it, using this kind of technique --- unless backed by a proven physical model, like molecular dynamics --- ***is*** a primary and definitive admission, no, confession, that you don't have ***any*** understanding of the underlying phenomena and that you've given up trying to do ***any*** science about them.No offence.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158671</id>
	<title>Re:Hang on...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1243788720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It was somewhere in-between. The model as such worked OK, but only if you assUmeD that each individual loan's probabilities acted in a vacuum. The fundamental flaw in the model is that there are some obvious cases where the loans will act in a coordinated manner that were simply (and pointedly) ignored, such as a bubble bursting.</p><p>THEN, knowingly using the flawed model, they plugged in increasingly dubious numbers and even fed the practically fictional result back in to the flawed model to get more rosy numbers that had no imaginable connection to reality. The one thing they WERE careful with was making sure it was nearly impossible to PROVE legally that they were knowingly acting in a way that would crash the economy in order to grab a pile of cash and get out just before the train wreck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It was somewhere in-between .
The model as such worked OK , but only if you assUmeD that each individual loan 's probabilities acted in a vacuum .
The fundamental flaw in the model is that there are some obvious cases where the loans will act in a coordinated manner that were simply ( and pointedly ) ignored , such as a bubble bursting.THEN , knowingly using the flawed model , they plugged in increasingly dubious numbers and even fed the practically fictional result back in to the flawed model to get more rosy numbers that had no imaginable connection to reality .
The one thing they WERE careful with was making sure it was nearly impossible to PROVE legally that they were knowingly acting in a way that would crash the economy in order to grab a pile of cash and get out just before the train wreck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It was somewhere in-between.
The model as such worked OK, but only if you assUmeD that each individual loan's probabilities acted in a vacuum.
The fundamental flaw in the model is that there are some obvious cases where the loans will act in a coordinated manner that were simply (and pointedly) ignored, such as a bubble bursting.THEN, knowingly using the flawed model, they plugged in increasingly dubious numbers and even fed the practically fictional result back in to the flawed model to get more rosy numbers that had no imaginable connection to reality.
The one thing they WERE careful with was making sure it was nearly impossible to PROVE legally that they were knowingly acting in a way that would crash the economy in order to grab a pile of cash and get out just before the train wreck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661</id>
	<title>The elephant in the room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243779360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, this is just tinkering. It's a way of passing the buck. It's a way of devolving blame. It MUST be the equations, or the software, or some geek or some technological prblem that caused the economics failures.<br> <br>

It wasn't. It isn't.<br> <br>

The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.<br> <br>

Equations, and new software isn't going to change that. What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest. It's really that simple, and also, unfortunately, that difficult.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , this is just tinkering .
It 's a way of passing the buck .
It 's a way of devolving blame .
It MUST be the equations , or the software , or some geek or some technological prblem that caused the economics failures .
It was n't .
It is n't .
The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed .
Equations , and new software is n't going to change that .
What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest .
It 's really that simple , and also , unfortunately , that difficult .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, this is just tinkering.
It's a way of passing the buck.
It's a way of devolving blame.
It MUST be the equations, or the software, or some geek or some technological prblem that caused the economics failures.
It wasn't.
It isn't.
The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.
Equations, and new software isn't going to change that.
What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest.
It's really that simple, and also, unfortunately, that difficult.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158045</id>
	<title>Steve Keen</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm been reading this guy's blog recently, and he has some interesting thoughts on why economists didn't predict the global financial crisis, and how their approach is completely wrong. He's an academic at an Australian university whose predictions of late seem pretty damn close to the truth. He puts together economic models using differential equations - an approach that seems to be very different from most other economists. He essentially says that excessive private debt is to blame for our economic problems.</p><p><a href="http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs" title="debtdeflation.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs</a> [debtdeflation.com]</p><p>Here's two of the more interesting entries:<br><a href="http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2008/10/06/debtwatch-27-october-08-the-failure-of-central-banks/" title="debtdeflation.com" rel="nofollow">DebtWatch - Oct 08</a> [debtdeflation.com]<br><a href="http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2008/11/30/debtwatch-no-29-december-2008/" title="debtdeflation.com" rel="nofollow">DebtWatch - Dec 08</a> [debtdeflation.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm been reading this guy 's blog recently , and he has some interesting thoughts on why economists did n't predict the global financial crisis , and how their approach is completely wrong .
He 's an academic at an Australian university whose predictions of late seem pretty damn close to the truth .
He puts together economic models using differential equations - an approach that seems to be very different from most other economists .
He essentially says that excessive private debt is to blame for our economic problems.http : //www.debtdeflation.com/blogs [ debtdeflation.com ] Here 's two of the more interesting entries : DebtWatch - Oct 08 [ debtdeflation.com ] DebtWatch - Dec 08 [ debtdeflation.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm been reading this guy's blog recently, and he has some interesting thoughts on why economists didn't predict the global financial crisis, and how their approach is completely wrong.
He's an academic at an Australian university whose predictions of late seem pretty damn close to the truth.
He puts together economic models using differential equations - an approach that seems to be very different from most other economists.
He essentially says that excessive private debt is to blame for our economic problems.http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs [debtdeflation.com]Here's two of the more interesting entries:DebtWatch - Oct 08 [debtdeflation.com]DebtWatch - Dec 08 [debtdeflation.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157851</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1243781580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another great evangelist for change, an economist who foresaw this crisis; <a href="http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/05/16/economics-students-join-toxic-textbooks/" title="debtdeflation.com">Steve Keen</a> [debtdeflation.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another great evangelist for change , an economist who foresaw this crisis ; Steve Keen [ debtdeflation.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another great evangelist for change, an economist who foresaw this crisis; Steve Keen [debtdeflation.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157773</id>
	<title>Re:how about reforming pay?</title>
	<author>itsdapead</author>
	<datestamp>1243780860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty?</p></div><p>...because a big wad of money is the only thing that can convince <i>anybody</i> with half a that high finance is interesting and any more worthy of research than (say) looking for mystical patterns in lottery numbers?
</p><p>Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with some impressive and impenetrable mathematical diversion that makes a pyramid scheme sound like responsible investment. </p><p>Because, lets face it: if you tell your bosses that the way to make money is to identify emerging new products, inventions or resources, invest in them and then wait a few years for the payoff, you'll rapidly be cast aside in favour of the guy that successfully dresses up "make $$$$$$$$ in just 7 days using my magic system!!!!" into corporate-speak. And just like the schmucks who reply to those get-rich-quick newspaper ads, they won't stop and think "hang on - if this guy has a failsafe formula for printing money, why is he telling me about it, instead of coining it in himself?"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others ( engineers and scientists ) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty ? ...because a big wad of money is the only thing that can convince anybody with half a that high finance is interesting and any more worthy of research than ( say ) looking for mystical patterns in lottery numbers ?
Your mission , should you choose to accept it , is to come up with some impressive and impenetrable mathematical diversion that makes a pyramid scheme sound like responsible investment .
Because , lets face it : if you tell your bosses that the way to make money is to identify emerging new products , inventions or resources , invest in them and then wait a few years for the payoff , you 'll rapidly be cast aside in favour of the guy that successfully dresses up " make $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ in just 7 days using my magic system ! ! ! !
" into corporate-speak .
And just like the schmucks who reply to those get-rich-quick newspaper ads , they wo n't stop and think " hang on - if this guy has a failsafe formula for printing money , why is he telling me about it , instead of coining it in himself ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty?...because a big wad of money is the only thing that can convince anybody with half a that high finance is interesting and any more worthy of research than (say) looking for mystical patterns in lottery numbers?
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with some impressive and impenetrable mathematical diversion that makes a pyramid scheme sound like responsible investment.
Because, lets face it: if you tell your bosses that the way to make money is to identify emerging new products, inventions or resources, invest in them and then wait a few years for the payoff, you'll rapidly be cast aside in favour of the guy that successfully dresses up "make $$$$$$$$ in just 7 days using my magic system!!!!
" into corporate-speak.
And just like the schmucks who reply to those get-rich-quick newspaper ads, they won't stop and think "hang on - if this guy has a failsafe formula for printing money, why is he telling me about it, instead of coining it in himself?
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157463</id>
	<title>Most influential quant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243776900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that Wilmott is the most influential quant is ludicrous, though he is clearly very adept at self promotion. This story is purely an advertisement for his vastly overpriced CQF course.</p><p>His idea is to 'test models' ? Amazing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that Wilmott is the most influential quant is ludicrous , though he is clearly very adept at self promotion .
This story is purely an advertisement for his vastly overpriced CQF course.His idea is to 'test models ' ?
Amazing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that Wilmott is the most influential quant is ludicrous, though he is clearly very adept at self promotion.
This story is purely an advertisement for his vastly overpriced CQF course.His idea is to 'test models' ?
Amazing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158317</id>
	<title>Re:Theocracy of Quants</title>
	<author>mqsoh</author>
	<datestamp>1243785780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theocracy and theory don't have the same root.
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theocracy?r=75" title="reference.com" rel="nofollow">Theocracy</a> [reference.com], from theokratia<br>
<a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory?r=75" title="reference.com" rel="nofollow">Theory</a> [reference.com], from theoria
<br>
<br>
I also tried to see if they had the same root in Greek, but theos and thea aren't related as far as I can tell. Please defend that correlation.
<br>
<br>
I'm not sure how that got you here:<blockquote><div><p>So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.</p></div></blockquote><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>...but our constitution tries to limit the tyranny of the majority as much as possible. This is what's happening with gay marriage; we're trying to limit the tyranny of the majority -- legally, through our constitution. We're adding entries to the vague laundry list.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theocracy and theory do n't have the same root .
Theocracy [ reference.com ] , from theokratia Theory [ reference.com ] , from theoria I also tried to see if they had the same root in Greek , but theos and thea are n't related as far as I can tell .
Please defend that correlation .
I 'm not sure how that got you here : So now we 're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of " public policy " of " liberal democracy " -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights .
...but our constitution tries to limit the tyranny of the majority as much as possible .
This is what 's happening with gay marriage ; we 're trying to limit the tyranny of the majority -- legally , through our constitution .
We 're adding entries to the vague laundry list .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theocracy and theory don't have the same root.
Theocracy [reference.com], from theokratia
Theory [reference.com], from theoria


I also tried to see if they had the same root in Greek, but theos and thea aren't related as far as I can tell.
Please defend that correlation.
I'm not sure how that got you here:So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.
...but our constitution tries to limit the tyranny of the majority as much as possible.
This is what's happening with gay marriage; we're trying to limit the tyranny of the majority -- legally, through our constitution.
We're adding entries to the vague laundry list.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158035</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is that management do not want quants who rigorously test models - especially risk models.</p><p>They would far prefer to be allowed to collect fees while business is doing well, and if they are taking more risks than they are supposed to, well, its not their money is it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that management do not want quants who rigorously test models - especially risk models.They would far prefer to be allowed to collect fees while business is doing well , and if they are taking more risks than they are supposed to , well , its not their money is it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that management do not want quants who rigorously test models - especially risk models.They would far prefer to be allowed to collect fees while business is doing well, and if they are taking more risks than they are supposed to, well, its not their money is it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159131</id>
	<title>Serious or parody?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243792440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you serious?  Your post sounds like just the kind of hand-waving that is done to produce bad quants and bad models.  It's a good parody, though: the reality is that just munging together a bunch of hacks doesn't produce any deeper understanding of reality, and thus the model will still suck.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you serious ?
Your post sounds like just the kind of hand-waving that is done to produce bad quants and bad models .
It 's a good parody , though : the reality is that just munging together a bunch of hacks does n't produce any deeper understanding of reality , and thus the model will still suck .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you serious?
Your post sounds like just the kind of hand-waving that is done to produce bad quants and bad models.
It's a good parody, though: the reality is that just munging together a bunch of hacks doesn't produce any deeper understanding of reality, and thus the model will still suck.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157507</id>
	<title>Quants failed big time</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1243777500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is just far cry for that happened at big banks and investment firms at the end of the last year. Quants failed, markets crashed beyond believe and below even the worst predictions. Now what Mr. Useless quant, change your theories or bye bye.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is just far cry for that happened at big banks and investment firms at the end of the last year .
Quants failed , markets crashed beyond believe and below even the worst predictions .
Now what Mr. Useless quant , change your theories or bye bye .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is just far cry for that happened at big banks and investment firms at the end of the last year.
Quants failed, markets crashed beyond believe and below even the worst predictions.
Now what Mr. Useless quant, change your theories or bye bye.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157389</id>
	<title>Bruno</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243775880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anyone else think of Bruno/Ali G when reading this?</p><p>Oh, and FP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone else think of Bruno/Ali G when reading this ? Oh , and FP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone else think of Bruno/Ali G when reading this?Oh, and FP.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693</id>
	<title>The problem with economics is</title>
	<author>RichMan</author>
	<datestamp>1243779660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.</p><p>Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.<br>Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157753</id>
	<title>Why should they?</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1243780620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's your money they are paying themselves with, not their own. Until YOU sit up and take notice, then actually DO something you're going to continue to get robbed. But hey, I'm making money off you as well, so don't worry about it "nothing to see here, move along".<br>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's your money they are paying themselves with , not their own .
Until YOU sit up and take notice , then actually DO something you 're going to continue to get robbed .
But hey , I 'm making money off you as well , so do n't worry about it " nothing to see here , move along " .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's your money they are paying themselves with, not their own.
Until YOU sit up and take notice, then actually DO something you're going to continue to get robbed.
But hey, I'm making money off you as well, so don't worry about it "nothing to see here, move along".
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28165513</id>
	<title>Re:Picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1243851900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Some people say that the Market didn't work and market participants did not react rationally.</p><p>I say that the Market did work and market participants did react rationally:<br>- The major investment decision makers were not the owners of the money, they were people which where paid to invest other people's money.<br>- Their upside, due to the bonus structures in place meant that fat profit <b>today</b> =&gt; fat bonus.<br>- Their downside was limited to at worst loosing their jobs (most did not).<br>- A typical yearly bonus represented 5-10 times (or more) a yearly salary. In other words, getting a fat bonus once made up for at least 5 years out of a job.</p><p>Given these conditions, market participants acted rationally and maximized their own (personal) profit as expected. They acted to optimize their bonuses. The fact that on a longer term their personal profit did not match the banks/investors that paid their salaries/bonuses/commissions meant that on those timescales they made money while everybody else lost money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Some people say that the Market did n't work and market participants did not react rationally.I say that the Market did work and market participants did react rationally : - The major investment decision makers were not the owners of the money , they were people which where paid to invest other people 's money.- Their upside , due to the bonus structures in place meant that fat profit today = &gt; fat bonus.- Their downside was limited to at worst loosing their jobs ( most did not ) .- A typical yearly bonus represented 5-10 times ( or more ) a yearly salary .
In other words , getting a fat bonus once made up for at least 5 years out of a job.Given these conditions , market participants acted rationally and maximized their own ( personal ) profit as expected .
They acted to optimize their bonuses .
The fact that on a longer term their personal profit did not match the banks/investors that paid their salaries/bonuses/commissions meant that on those timescales they made money while everybody else lost money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Some people say that the Market didn't work and market participants did not react rationally.I say that the Market did work and market participants did react rationally:- The major investment decision makers were not the owners of the money, they were people which where paid to invest other people's money.- Their upside, due to the bonus structures in place meant that fat profit today =&gt; fat bonus.- Their downside was limited to at worst loosing their jobs (most did not).- A typical yearly bonus represented 5-10 times (or more) a yearly salary.
In other words, getting a fat bonus once made up for at least 5 years out of a job.Given these conditions, market participants acted rationally and maximized their own (personal) profit as expected.
They acted to optimize their bonuses.
The fact that on a longer term their personal profit did not match the banks/investors that paid their salaries/bonuses/commissions meant that on those timescales they made money while everybody else lost money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160721</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>bagsc</author>
	<datestamp>1243760880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finance adds a LOT to the economy. The basic idea of finance is deciding where the most "return" is - ie, what investments are the most productive. If you gave money to every entrepreneur who came asking, you'd be out of money by the end of the day.</p><p>Money has meaning. There is a limited supply, and that means you have to prioritize who gets it. It has to be in limited supply in order for it to have "meaning." In order to motivate people to do things, we give them money, instead of trying to guess that they want payment in the form of, say, "a two bedroom house in Santa Monica with a 30 yr mortgage, a 2007 Prius Hybrid on a 5 yr lease, Montessori school for the 7 year old..." Using money not only gives people the freedom to choose what they consume, but it removes the guesswork from employers. If you just hand out money to anyone, you have no price stability, and no ability to plan for the future.</p><p>Deciding who to give money to on what terms, based solely on their ability to honor the terms of the understood mutual agreement, is essential to the economy operating. Finance is the art of acquiring money from one source, such as bank stockholders or bond holders, and allocating that money to borrowers or investments in such a way that you reduce the idiosyncratic risk (which your investors want to avoid), thus earning compensation and a premium.</p><p>How would you feel if you could only buy a house, or a car, or a college education, or whatever you get on credit cards if you could only buy those products after you had all the money to pay for them in full at the time of purchase? Or if you could never get an incentive to save money? If you've ever been a saver or a borrower, the answer is you'd be worse off, by your revealed preference.</p><p>The problems only occur when parts of these statements are negated. For example, if banks extend credit to people who can't repay it, or if bank risk managers are idiots, or if the agreements aren't mutually understood and agreed to. Yeah, there's always going to be people who exploit their position to do unethical things, in any field. I think credit card companies are blood suckers, and I think using credit cards is evil. But I sure as hell save and invest in companies I believe have the ability to improve peoples lives and get paid for it.</p><p>Don't blame finance, blame the people who use it to do evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finance adds a LOT to the economy .
The basic idea of finance is deciding where the most " return " is - ie , what investments are the most productive .
If you gave money to every entrepreneur who came asking , you 'd be out of money by the end of the day.Money has meaning .
There is a limited supply , and that means you have to prioritize who gets it .
It has to be in limited supply in order for it to have " meaning .
" In order to motivate people to do things , we give them money , instead of trying to guess that they want payment in the form of , say , " a two bedroom house in Santa Monica with a 30 yr mortgage , a 2007 Prius Hybrid on a 5 yr lease , Montessori school for the 7 year old... " Using money not only gives people the freedom to choose what they consume , but it removes the guesswork from employers .
If you just hand out money to anyone , you have no price stability , and no ability to plan for the future.Deciding who to give money to on what terms , based solely on their ability to honor the terms of the understood mutual agreement , is essential to the economy operating .
Finance is the art of acquiring money from one source , such as bank stockholders or bond holders , and allocating that money to borrowers or investments in such a way that you reduce the idiosyncratic risk ( which your investors want to avoid ) , thus earning compensation and a premium.How would you feel if you could only buy a house , or a car , or a college education , or whatever you get on credit cards if you could only buy those products after you had all the money to pay for them in full at the time of purchase ?
Or if you could never get an incentive to save money ?
If you 've ever been a saver or a borrower , the answer is you 'd be worse off , by your revealed preference.The problems only occur when parts of these statements are negated .
For example , if banks extend credit to people who ca n't repay it , or if bank risk managers are idiots , or if the agreements are n't mutually understood and agreed to .
Yeah , there 's always going to be people who exploit their position to do unethical things , in any field .
I think credit card companies are blood suckers , and I think using credit cards is evil .
But I sure as hell save and invest in companies I believe have the ability to improve peoples lives and get paid for it.Do n't blame finance , blame the people who use it to do evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finance adds a LOT to the economy.
The basic idea of finance is deciding where the most "return" is - ie, what investments are the most productive.
If you gave money to every entrepreneur who came asking, you'd be out of money by the end of the day.Money has meaning.
There is a limited supply, and that means you have to prioritize who gets it.
It has to be in limited supply in order for it to have "meaning.
" In order to motivate people to do things, we give them money, instead of trying to guess that they want payment in the form of, say, "a two bedroom house in Santa Monica with a 30 yr mortgage, a 2007 Prius Hybrid on a 5 yr lease, Montessori school for the 7 year old..." Using money not only gives people the freedom to choose what they consume, but it removes the guesswork from employers.
If you just hand out money to anyone, you have no price stability, and no ability to plan for the future.Deciding who to give money to on what terms, based solely on their ability to honor the terms of the understood mutual agreement, is essential to the economy operating.
Finance is the art of acquiring money from one source, such as bank stockholders or bond holders, and allocating that money to borrowers or investments in such a way that you reduce the idiosyncratic risk (which your investors want to avoid), thus earning compensation and a premium.How would you feel if you could only buy a house, or a car, or a college education, or whatever you get on credit cards if you could only buy those products after you had all the money to pay for them in full at the time of purchase?
Or if you could never get an incentive to save money?
If you've ever been a saver or a borrower, the answer is you'd be worse off, by your revealed preference.The problems only occur when parts of these statements are negated.
For example, if banks extend credit to people who can't repay it, or if bank risk managers are idiots, or if the agreements aren't mutually understood and agreed to.
Yeah, there's always going to be people who exploit their position to do unethical things, in any field.
I think credit card companies are blood suckers, and I think using credit cards is evil.
But I sure as hell save and invest in companies I believe have the ability to improve peoples lives and get paid for it.Don't blame finance, blame the people who use it to do evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159927</id>
	<title>Mod Parent Up!</title>
	<author>gbutler69</author>
	<datestamp>1243798320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can think of no better use of tax policy than that of regressively taxing short-term investing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can think of no better use of tax policy than that of regressively taxing short-term investing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can think of no better use of tax policy than that of regressively taxing short-term investing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158353</id>
	<title>what quants know</title>
	<author>Erastus</author>
	<datestamp>1243786080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>
I think there is a misperception that quants just run wild with models with catastrophic results and that they are naive when it comes to practical matters.
However, quants are also taught about "model risk" to include things like: wrong assumptions, poor estimation of parameters, errors in discretization, etc.

Let's also not forget the positive social value of financial innovation.  It helps you borrow at lower rates, pay less for insurance, etc.  There were a few problems that led to this financial crisis and I think quants played a relatiely minor role.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think there is a misperception that quants just run wild with models with catastrophic results and that they are naive when it comes to practical matters .
However , quants are also taught about " model risk " to include things like : wrong assumptions , poor estimation of parameters , errors in discretization , etc .
Let 's also not forget the positive social value of financial innovation .
It helps you borrow at lower rates , pay less for insurance , etc .
There were a few problems that led to this financial crisis and I think quants played a relatiely minor role .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I think there is a misperception that quants just run wild with models with catastrophic results and that they are naive when it comes to practical matters.
However, quants are also taught about "model risk" to include things like: wrong assumptions, poor estimation of parameters, errors in discretization, etc.
Let's also not forget the positive social value of financial innovation.
It helps you borrow at lower rates, pay less for insurance, etc.
There were a few problems that led to this financial crisis and I think quants played a relatiely minor role.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157749</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>AlexBirch</author>
	<datestamp>1243780560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure they do, they ensure that the fools and their money are parted in the most efficient way possible.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they do , they ensure that the fools and their money are parted in the most efficient way possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they do, they ensure that the fools and their money are parted in the most efficient way possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158011</id>
	<title>It is all a question of leverage</title>
	<author>dloyer</author>
	<datestamp>1243783020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Betting too large on any trading system will gurentee that you blow out your account.

<p>
Hardest part is controling the emotions of greed and fear.  When things are working, it is temping to make bigger bets.  If the bets are too large, they will wipe out the account, or even fund when the natural and normal losses hit.
</p><p>

Risk Managment often goes out the window during good times.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Betting too large on any trading system will gurentee that you blow out your account .
Hardest part is controling the emotions of greed and fear .
When things are working , it is temping to make bigger bets .
If the bets are too large , they will wipe out the account , or even fund when the natural and normal losses hit .
Risk Managment often goes out the window during good times .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Betting too large on any trading system will gurentee that you blow out your account.
Hardest part is controling the emotions of greed and fear.
When things are working, it is temping to make bigger bets.
If the bets are too large, they will wipe out the account, or even fund when the natural and normal losses hit.
Risk Managment often goes out the window during good times.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157607</id>
	<title>Certificate in Quantative Finance</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1243778580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who needs people with certificates in oxymorons?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who needs people with certificates in oxymorons ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who needs people with certificates in oxymorons?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>florescent\_beige</author>
	<datestamp>1243779540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...you always reach a point where there's this one number that is completely made up...</p></div><p>***Try a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo techniques. That sounds hard but it isn't. Take the parameter that you have doubts about and give it a distribution (Gaussian or rectangular or something) with the mean at your best guess and the std deviation chosen to be big enough to cover the range it might reasonably vary over.</p><p>***Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but aren't exactly sure, rectangular if you really have no idea. A rectangular distribution says "I have no idea, the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range."</p><p>***Then run your analysis a million times with the parameter selected randomly from it's distribution for each run.</p><p>***That gives you a stochastic dataset of results. You can run simple stats on that data set to find the mean and std dev of the result value. You will then know how sensitive your results are to your poorly understood input parameter. If your 2-sigma output tells you the expected rate of return on a particular investment varies between -50\% to +50\% then you will know your model is pretty much useless and you will be doing a better job than the vast majority of professional analysts.</p><p>****Monte Carlo is great for those of us who don't care to learn the arcane minutiae of stat math. If you have a working model it takes an hour or two to extend it so you get stochastic results. Note that it's no harder to give a distribution to all your input parameters not just one. In which case you will be doing the kind of work that people who make 500 grand a year do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you always reach a point where there 's this one number that is completely made up... * * * Try a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo techniques .
That sounds hard but it is n't .
Take the parameter that you have doubts about and give it a distribution ( Gaussian or rectangular or something ) with the mean at your best guess and the std deviation chosen to be big enough to cover the range it might reasonably vary over .
* * * Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but are n't exactly sure , rectangular if you really have no idea .
A rectangular distribution says " I have no idea , the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range .
" * * * Then run your analysis a million times with the parameter selected randomly from it 's distribution for each run .
* * * That gives you a stochastic dataset of results .
You can run simple stats on that data set to find the mean and std dev of the result value .
You will then know how sensitive your results are to your poorly understood input parameter .
If your 2-sigma output tells you the expected rate of return on a particular investment varies between -50 \ % to + 50 \ % then you will know your model is pretty much useless and you will be doing a better job than the vast majority of professional analysts .
* * * * Monte Carlo is great for those of us who do n't care to learn the arcane minutiae of stat math .
If you have a working model it takes an hour or two to extend it so you get stochastic results .
Note that it 's no harder to give a distribution to all your input parameters not just one .
In which case you will be doing the kind of work that people who make 500 grand a year do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...you always reach a point where there's this one number that is completely made up...***Try a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo techniques.
That sounds hard but it isn't.
Take the parameter that you have doubts about and give it a distribution (Gaussian or rectangular or something) with the mean at your best guess and the std deviation chosen to be big enough to cover the range it might reasonably vary over.
***Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but aren't exactly sure, rectangular if you really have no idea.
A rectangular distribution says "I have no idea, the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range.
"***Then run your analysis a million times with the parameter selected randomly from it's distribution for each run.
***That gives you a stochastic dataset of results.
You can run simple stats on that data set to find the mean and std dev of the result value.
You will then know how sensitive your results are to your poorly understood input parameter.
If your 2-sigma output tells you the expected rate of return on a particular investment varies between -50\% to +50\% then you will know your model is pretty much useless and you will be doing a better job than the vast majority of professional analysts.
****Monte Carlo is great for those of us who don't care to learn the arcane minutiae of stat math.
If you have a working model it takes an hour or two to extend it so you get stochastic results.
Note that it's no harder to give a distribution to all your input parameters not just one.
In which case you will be doing the kind of work that people who make 500 grand a year do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160823</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1243761540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FAIL. You clearly don't know much about these financial instruments. Most financial products distribute risk in a win-win fashion from the seller to the purchaser, in the same way insurance policies do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FAIL .
You clearly do n't know much about these financial instruments .
Most financial products distribute risk in a win-win fashion from the seller to the purchaser , in the same way insurance policies do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FAIL.
You clearly don't know much about these financial instruments.
Most financial products distribute risk in a win-win fashion from the seller to the purchaser, in the same way insurance policies do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>viyh</author>
	<datestamp>1243776180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>What a concept! Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model. That's incredible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a concept !
Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model .
That 's incredible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a concept!
Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model.
That's incredible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28168739</id>
	<title>Re:Theocracy of Quants</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1243874100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>With the 13th Amendment people were free to vote with their feet and migrate to States that agreed with them.  The 14th's entire purpose was to invert the sovereignty of the US so that the Federal government, via the Judicial interpretation of the vague wording of the 14th Amendment, could socially engineer States rather than allowing them to operate as a free scientific laboratory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>With the 13th Amendment people were free to vote with their feet and migrate to States that agreed with them .
The 14th 's entire purpose was to invert the sovereignty of the US so that the Federal government , via the Judicial interpretation of the vague wording of the 14th Amendment , could socially engineer States rather than allowing them to operate as a free scientific laboratory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the 13th Amendment people were free to vote with their feet and migrate to States that agreed with them.
The 14th's entire purpose was to invert the sovereignty of the US so that the Federal government, via the Judicial interpretation of the vague wording of the 14th Amendment, could socially engineer States rather than allowing them to operate as a free scientific laboratory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159899</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157387</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243775880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159337</id>
	<title>Re:The One True Law of Finance</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1243794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
There is this software mentioned in Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently book - name escapes me, "Reason?" - that, given the desired course of action, it spits out persuasive rational for the course, step-by-step.  You tell it what you really want to do, and it tells you why it's perfectly logical and sensible to do so.
</p><p>
It's like the whole finance industry OD'ed on such software, and they called it "quants".
</p><p>
Btw, Tim, this doesn't belong under the heading "science".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is this software mentioned in Douglas Adams ' Dirk Gently book - name escapes me , " Reason ?
" - that , given the desired course of action , it spits out persuasive rational for the course , step-by-step .
You tell it what you really want to do , and it tells you why it 's perfectly logical and sensible to do so .
It 's like the whole finance industry OD'ed on such software , and they called it " quants " .
Btw , Tim , this does n't belong under the heading " science " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
There is this software mentioned in Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently book - name escapes me, "Reason?
" - that, given the desired course of action, it spits out persuasive rational for the course, step-by-step.
You tell it what you really want to do, and it tells you why it's perfectly logical and sensible to do so.
It's like the whole finance industry OD'ed on such software, and they called it "quants".
Btw, Tim, this doesn't belong under the heading "science".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157719</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1243780080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Many financial products don't add anything to the real economy at all.</i></p><p>I agree.  T-bills, for example.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many financial products do n't add anything to the real economy at all.I agree .
T-bills , for example.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Many financial products don't add anything to the real economy at all.I agree.
T-bills, for example.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519</id>
	<title>Hang on...</title>
	<author>grcumb</author>
	<datestamp>1243777680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a long way from New York, so someone correct me if I'm wrong[*], but I've always understood the problem to lie more with the people feeding data into the equations, rather than with the equations themselves.</p><p>Now, I accept that risk calculations consisted of a great deal of voodoo because, as <a href="http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/" title="fooledbyrandomness.com">Taleb</a> [fooledbyrandomness.com] tells us, they tended to ignore <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black\_swan\_theory" title="wikipedia.org">'Black Swan'</a> [wikipedia.org] events (where the 1 in a million catastrophe wasn't going to happen just yet) and saw patterns where only chaos existed, but as I understand it, the core of the problem was simple greed: money-hungry mortgage and securities dealers deliberately feeding bad data into the system.</p><p>So-called quants may be decidedly imperfect, but if someone's willing to game the system to make a buck, nothing the quant does can stop it.</p><p>If Wilmott doesn't have an answer to that, I fear that his efforts will only obscure the real problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a long way from New York , so someone correct me if I 'm wrong [ * ] , but I 've always understood the problem to lie more with the people feeding data into the equations , rather than with the equations themselves.Now , I accept that risk calculations consisted of a great deal of voodoo because , as Taleb [ fooledbyrandomness.com ] tells us , they tended to ignore 'Black Swan ' [ wikipedia.org ] events ( where the 1 in a million catastrophe was n't going to happen just yet ) and saw patterns where only chaos existed , but as I understand it , the core of the problem was simple greed : money-hungry mortgage and securities dealers deliberately feeding bad data into the system.So-called quants may be decidedly imperfect , but if someone 's willing to game the system to make a buck , nothing the quant does can stop it.If Wilmott does n't have an answer to that , I fear that his efforts will only obscure the real problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a long way from New York, so someone correct me if I'm wrong[*], but I've always understood the problem to lie more with the people feeding data into the equations, rather than with the equations themselves.Now, I accept that risk calculations consisted of a great deal of voodoo because, as Taleb [fooledbyrandomness.com] tells us, they tended to ignore 'Black Swan' [wikipedia.org] events (where the 1 in a million catastrophe wasn't going to happen just yet) and saw patterns where only chaos existed, but as I understand it, the core of the problem was simple greed: money-hungry mortgage and securities dealers deliberately feeding bad data into the system.So-called quants may be decidedly imperfect, but if someone's willing to game the system to make a buck, nothing the quant does can stop it.If Wilmott doesn't have an answer to that, I fear that his efforts will only obscure the real problem.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159635</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with economics is</title>
	<author>servognome</author>
	<datestamp>1243796040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.</p></div></blockquote><p>It really is no different than dealing with other extremely complex systems such as global weather patterns, biological systems, or quantum mechanics.  Just as in other sciences predictions are made, but then new data comes in that overturns conventional thinking.  The biggest difference is that the successes and failures of economic models are internalized more because of its direct effect on individuals.  The discovery of dark energy didn't make planes fall out of the sky, nor make computers stop working; however, such a drastic change in thinking for economics would cause financial panic.  It is this compounding effect at the individual level that makes economics more volitile than other sciences.  Look at the recent economic collapse in the US - people aren't less skilled or productive, factories didn't just vanish.  What changed is that "financial experimentation" didn't have the expected results.</p><blockquote><div><p>Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.</p></div></blockquote><p>Economics goes beyond that and talks of supply and demand in all kinds of market environments - perfect competition, monopolies, oligopolies, etc.  In fact, supply and demand is just one model used to understand how resources are developed and consumed.</p><blockquote><div><p>Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.</p></div></blockquote><p>It is important we recognize that humans are driven by more than the easily quantifiable - look at the old Nomad vs iPod debate.  Many aspects of modern culture have evolved from judgements that go beyond pure utility.  The arts are important parts of human civilization but not a fundamental need, nor easily assessed for their utility.  Because of their relationship with individuals, economic systems too have had to rely on the esoteric concept of value beyond utility.  Gold for example generally isn't mechanically useful other than its corrosion resistance.  Yet it is considered valuable because 1) It is rare, 2) It is "pretty," 3) Because it is "pretty" it is easily traded.  The herd mentality of accepting gold as an exchange medium for trade helped develop complex economies.  Today we have moved beyond the need for a pretty piece of metal and become more abstract in our use and acceptance of what is valuable - fiat currency and even electronic transactions.<br> <br>While we often see marketing as a negative side-effect for unlimited wants, we also shouldn't ignore the positive from the desire for more.  Unlimited wants have driven human creativity, entreprenuership, exploration, and social development.  Organized civilization developed when technology had reached a point where needs were met (neolithic revolution), and excess labor could be applied to wants with specialization and trade.  Civilizations that become satisfied with their state of being typically stagnate in their cultural and technological development.<br> <br>The space program, research investments, funding of arts, the Olympics, etc. are all marketing ploys to show national dominance.  They also help move humanity forward in understanding the world around and ourselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.It really is no different than dealing with other extremely complex systems such as global weather patterns , biological systems , or quantum mechanics .
Just as in other sciences predictions are made , but then new data comes in that overturns conventional thinking .
The biggest difference is that the successes and failures of economic models are internalized more because of its direct effect on individuals .
The discovery of dark energy did n't make planes fall out of the sky , nor make computers stop working ; however , such a drastic change in thinking for economics would cause financial panic .
It is this compounding effect at the individual level that makes economics more volitile than other sciences .
Look at the recent economic collapse in the US - people are n't less skilled or productive , factories did n't just vanish .
What changed is that " financial experimentation " did n't have the expected results.Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.Economics goes beyond that and talks of supply and demand in all kinds of market environments - perfect competition , monopolies , oligopolies , etc .
In fact , supply and demand is just one model used to understand how resources are developed and consumed.Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.It is important we recognize that humans are driven by more than the easily quantifiable - look at the old Nomad vs iPod debate .
Many aspects of modern culture have evolved from judgements that go beyond pure utility .
The arts are important parts of human civilization but not a fundamental need , nor easily assessed for their utility .
Because of their relationship with individuals , economic systems too have had to rely on the esoteric concept of value beyond utility .
Gold for example generally is n't mechanically useful other than its corrosion resistance .
Yet it is considered valuable because 1 ) It is rare , 2 ) It is " pretty , " 3 ) Because it is " pretty " it is easily traded .
The herd mentality of accepting gold as an exchange medium for trade helped develop complex economies .
Today we have moved beyond the need for a pretty piece of metal and become more abstract in our use and acceptance of what is valuable - fiat currency and even electronic transactions .
While we often see marketing as a negative side-effect for unlimited wants , we also should n't ignore the positive from the desire for more .
Unlimited wants have driven human creativity , entreprenuership , exploration , and social development .
Organized civilization developed when technology had reached a point where needs were met ( neolithic revolution ) , and excess labor could be applied to wants with specialization and trade .
Civilizations that become satisfied with their state of being typically stagnate in their cultural and technological development .
The space program , research investments , funding of arts , the Olympics , etc .
are all marketing ploys to show national dominance .
They also help move humanity forward in understanding the world around and ourselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with economics is that is probably more a sociological study than a idealized science.It really is no different than dealing with other extremely complex systems such as global weather patterns, biological systems, or quantum mechanics.
Just as in other sciences predictions are made, but then new data comes in that overturns conventional thinking.
The biggest difference is that the successes and failures of economic models are internalized more because of its direct effect on individuals.
The discovery of dark energy didn't make planes fall out of the sky, nor make computers stop working; however, such a drastic change in thinking for economics would cause financial panic.
It is this compounding effect at the individual level that makes economics more volitile than other sciences.
Look at the recent economic collapse in the US - people aren't less skilled or productive, factories didn't just vanish.
What changed is that "financial experimentation" didn't have the expected results.Economics talks of supply and demand and perfect markets.Economics goes beyond that and talks of supply and demand in all kinds of market environments - perfect competition, monopolies, oligopolies, etc.
In fact, supply and demand is just one model used to understand how resources are developed and consumed.Yet we all know the advertising and social herd behavior affect purchases much more than any real needs or demands.It is important we recognize that humans are driven by more than the easily quantifiable - look at the old Nomad vs iPod debate.
Many aspects of modern culture have evolved from judgements that go beyond pure utility.
The arts are important parts of human civilization but not a fundamental need, nor easily assessed for their utility.
Because of their relationship with individuals, economic systems too have had to rely on the esoteric concept of value beyond utility.
Gold for example generally isn't mechanically useful other than its corrosion resistance.
Yet it is considered valuable because 1) It is rare, 2) It is "pretty," 3) Because it is "pretty" it is easily traded.
The herd mentality of accepting gold as an exchange medium for trade helped develop complex economies.
Today we have moved beyond the need for a pretty piece of metal and become more abstract in our use and acceptance of what is valuable - fiat currency and even electronic transactions.
While we often see marketing as a negative side-effect for unlimited wants, we also shouldn't ignore the positive from the desire for more.
Unlimited wants have driven human creativity, entreprenuership, exploration, and social development.
Organized civilization developed when technology had reached a point where needs were met (neolithic revolution), and excess labor could be applied to wants with specialization and trade.
Civilizations that become satisfied with their state of being typically stagnate in their cultural and technological development.
The space program, research investments, funding of arts, the Olympics, etc.
are all marketing ploys to show national dominance.
They also help move humanity forward in understanding the world around and ourselves.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158217</id>
	<title>Wall Street</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wall Street Is just Las Vegas with better clothes. All the day traders and other 'quick money" guys have rendered the idea of having an actual <i>investment</i> in a company because you believe they are going to do well in the future and desiring to be a part of that passe. They have also trained corporations to "damn everything but the quarterly reports!" causing long term damage and even failure to a company in return for short term profits.</p><p>

We need to get the day traders out, and the investors back in. perhaps by setting up a tax than penalizes anyone who buys stocks for very quick turnovers and rewards those that hold onto a stock for a set period. Because real long term growth of a company takes investment. Investment and the building of infrastructure, training of employees, construction of new buildings, etc and all of these things cost. In the current Wall Street model such investments show up on the quarterly report and torpedo the stock. We should legalize gambling for those that want to take a shot at the quick cash and leave investing in the growth of businesses to investors that are willing to look at the long term picture, not simply the quarterly report.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wall Street Is just Las Vegas with better clothes .
All the day traders and other 'quick money " guys have rendered the idea of having an actual investment in a company because you believe they are going to do well in the future and desiring to be a part of that passe .
They have also trained corporations to " damn everything but the quarterly reports !
" causing long term damage and even failure to a company in return for short term profits .
We need to get the day traders out , and the investors back in .
perhaps by setting up a tax than penalizes anyone who buys stocks for very quick turnovers and rewards those that hold onto a stock for a set period .
Because real long term growth of a company takes investment .
Investment and the building of infrastructure , training of employees , construction of new buildings , etc and all of these things cost .
In the current Wall Street model such investments show up on the quarterly report and torpedo the stock .
We should legalize gambling for those that want to take a shot at the quick cash and leave investing in the growth of businesses to investors that are willing to look at the long term picture , not simply the quarterly report .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wall Street Is just Las Vegas with better clothes.
All the day traders and other 'quick money" guys have rendered the idea of having an actual investment in a company because you believe they are going to do well in the future and desiring to be a part of that passe.
They have also trained corporations to "damn everything but the quarterly reports!
" causing long term damage and even failure to a company in return for short term profits.
We need to get the day traders out, and the investors back in.
perhaps by setting up a tax than penalizes anyone who buys stocks for very quick turnovers and rewards those that hold onto a stock for a set period.
Because real long term growth of a company takes investment.
Investment and the building of infrastructure, training of employees, construction of new buildings, etc and all of these things cost.
In the current Wall Street model such investments show up on the quarterly report and torpedo the stock.
We should legalize gambling for those that want to take a shot at the quick cash and leave investing in the growth of businesses to investors that are willing to look at the long term picture, not simply the quarterly report.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28161095</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1243763580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>But you just have to build hundreds of years of market data and human history into the current state. Then you are markov again.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>But you just have to build hundreds of years of market data and human history into the current state .
Then you are markov again .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you just have to build hundreds of years of market data and human history into the current state.
Then you are markov again.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157857</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158309</id>
	<title>I dont get it</title>
	<author>Antisyzygy</author>
	<datestamp>1243785720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why is everyone blaming the mathematics for the financial problems? Its quite clear that its the industry as a whole is at fault. Greed and corruption are in all facets of the industry. I have a feeling that alot of so-called quants and finance professionals are completely under-qualified for what they do. It has been my experience that most people in finance and business are diletants that just took business in college so they could have it easier than the engineers and science majors. I am sure that a REAL mathematician that specializes in finance could handle the uncertainty in the models accordingly.

-I am a mathematician, but my specialty has nothing to do with finance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is everyone blaming the mathematics for the financial problems ?
Its quite clear that its the industry as a whole is at fault .
Greed and corruption are in all facets of the industry .
I have a feeling that alot of so-called quants and finance professionals are completely under-qualified for what they do .
It has been my experience that most people in finance and business are diletants that just took business in college so they could have it easier than the engineers and science majors .
I am sure that a REAL mathematician that specializes in finance could handle the uncertainty in the models accordingly .
-I am a mathematician , but my specialty has nothing to do with finance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is everyone blaming the mathematics for the financial problems?
Its quite clear that its the industry as a whole is at fault.
Greed and corruption are in all facets of the industry.
I have a feeling that alot of so-called quants and finance professionals are completely under-qualified for what they do.
It has been my experience that most people in finance and business are diletants that just took business in college so they could have it easier than the engineers and science majors.
I am sure that a REAL mathematician that specializes in finance could handle the uncertainty in the models accordingly.
-I am a mathematician, but my specialty has nothing to do with finance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28173685</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1243850820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance, then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No it doesn't. Throw a singe dice a million times: it'll have a flat distribution of values. Now if you have a set of two or more dices, then yes, their combined value does follow Gaussian distribution, because it is a <em>sum of multiple arbitrary variables</em>; however, a single arbitrary variable may or may not be.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance , then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition .
No it does n't .
Throw a singe dice a million times : it 'll have a flat distribution of values .
Now if you have a set of two or more dices , then yes , their combined value does follow Gaussian distribution , because it is a sum of multiple arbitrary variables ; however , a single arbitrary variable may or may not be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance, then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition.
No it doesn't.
Throw a singe dice a million times: it'll have a flat distribution of values.
Now if you have a set of two or more dices, then yes, their combined value does follow Gaussian distribution, because it is a sum of multiple arbitrary variables; however, a single arbitrary variable may or may not be.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</id>
	<title>How about...</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1243776240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... getting back to the real economy?  Many financial products don't add anything to the real economy at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... getting back to the real economy ?
Many financial products do n't add anything to the real economy at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... getting back to the real economy?
Many financial products don't add anything to the real economy at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157611</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>TinBromide</author>
	<datestamp>1243778640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I reject your reality and substitute my own!<br>/mythbuster<br> <br>or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/Wallstreet broker, whichever, really. This also reminds me of a quote I read as someone's signature in a forum somewhere: "If your car doesn't run 12's, shorten the track"<br> <br>In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself. If its common practice (which its not) for aeronautical engineers to tweak the fundamental laws of physics simply because they need them to make a non-working design work, maybe its time to get rid of all of the AE's in the field, and possibly the field itself. Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful. <br> <br>For the final part of my post, I shall now ignore the second part of the summary involving the testing of financial models and the entirety of TFA. Thank you.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I reject your reality and substitute my own ! /mythbuster or /Wallstreet broker , whichever , really .
This also reminds me of a quote I read as someone 's signature in a forum somewhere : " If your car does n't run 12 's , shorten the track " In all seriousness , this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself .
If its common practice ( which its not ) for aeronautical engineers to tweak the fundamental laws of physics simply because they need them to make a non-working design work , maybe its time to get rid of all of the AE 's in the field , and possibly the field itself .
Something does n't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so , or at the very least , not harmful .
For the final part of my post , I shall now ignore the second part of the summary involving the testing of financial models and the entirety of TFA .
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I reject your reality and substitute my own!/mythbuster or /Wallstreet broker, whichever, really.
This also reminds me of a quote I read as someone's signature in a forum somewhere: "If your car doesn't run 12's, shorten the track" In all seriousness, this does not sound like a field that needs saving from itself.
If its common practice (which its not) for aeronautical engineers to tweak the fundamental laws of physics simply because they need them to make a non-working design work, maybe its time to get rid of all of the AE's in the field, and possibly the field itself.
Something doesn't get to be common practice unless a good portion of the field believes that it is good to do so, or at the very least, not harmful.
For the final part of my post, I shall now ignore the second part of the summary involving the testing of financial models and the entirety of TFA.
Thank you.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160525</id>
	<title>Its not a science</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1243802880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wall Street, or more accurately, the financial business, isn't a science. Its about selling product. The models provide what a friend of mine in the biz calls "a compelling story" used to move the product.
</p><p>This latest fiasco is a perfect demonstration of that principle. Investors (wealthy individuals, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc.) demanded a supply of high return, zero risk paper. Investment banks produced things like mortgage-backed securities, where the risk could be stripped out of one class of investments and lumped into the lower classes. Then it was up to the industry to find a way to peddle the lower class (high risk) paper to suckers. Bond rating agencies, insurance schemes (like AIG's CDS products) were created to move the junk. Models were tweaked to convince investors that the bottom slices of mortgage securities were just as good as the good stuff (which wasn't for sale to common investors).
</p><p>We went after Bernie Madoff's early investors for the money they cashed out of his Ponzi scheme in order to make good some of the losses suffered by later participants. But I see no such attempts to round up all the CDO paper (the good stuff, that is) and disassemble what was essentially a Ponzi scheme of risk. I'm skeptical of any attempts to "fix" models as yet another explanation of why we will have to shoulder down side that wealthy investors don't want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wall Street , or more accurately , the financial business , is n't a science .
Its about selling product .
The models provide what a friend of mine in the biz calls " a compelling story " used to move the product .
This latest fiasco is a perfect demonstration of that principle .
Investors ( wealthy individuals , pension funds , sovereign wealth funds , etc .
) demanded a supply of high return , zero risk paper .
Investment banks produced things like mortgage-backed securities , where the risk could be stripped out of one class of investments and lumped into the lower classes .
Then it was up to the industry to find a way to peddle the lower class ( high risk ) paper to suckers .
Bond rating agencies , insurance schemes ( like AIG 's CDS products ) were created to move the junk .
Models were tweaked to convince investors that the bottom slices of mortgage securities were just as good as the good stuff ( which was n't for sale to common investors ) .
We went after Bernie Madoff 's early investors for the money they cashed out of his Ponzi scheme in order to make good some of the losses suffered by later participants .
But I see no such attempts to round up all the CDO paper ( the good stuff , that is ) and disassemble what was essentially a Ponzi scheme of risk .
I 'm skeptical of any attempts to " fix " models as yet another explanation of why we will have to shoulder down side that wealthy investors do n't want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wall Street, or more accurately, the financial business, isn't a science.
Its about selling product.
The models provide what a friend of mine in the biz calls "a compelling story" used to move the product.
This latest fiasco is a perfect demonstration of that principle.
Investors (wealthy individuals, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, etc.
) demanded a supply of high return, zero risk paper.
Investment banks produced things like mortgage-backed securities, where the risk could be stripped out of one class of investments and lumped into the lower classes.
Then it was up to the industry to find a way to peddle the lower class (high risk) paper to suckers.
Bond rating agencies, insurance schemes (like AIG's CDS products) were created to move the junk.
Models were tweaked to convince investors that the bottom slices of mortgage securities were just as good as the good stuff (which wasn't for sale to common investors).
We went after Bernie Madoff's early investors for the money they cashed out of his Ponzi scheme in order to make good some of the losses suffered by later participants.
But I see no such attempts to round up all the CDO paper (the good stuff, that is) and disassemble what was essentially a Ponzi scheme of risk.
I'm skeptical of any attempts to "fix" models as yet another explanation of why we will have to shoulder down side that wealthy investors don't want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158029</id>
	<title>the formula which distroyed wall street</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mathematical models always only work in a certain range
As Newtonian mechanics well for smaller velocities and macroscopic
bodies it has to be replaced for large velocities or in smaller scales.
Exponential growth laws have to be replaced by logistic growth. etc
Models are especially popular in probability theory. The text mentions
Gaussian Copula function, the "rocket fuel" for collateralized debt obligation,
which is cited as one of the reasons for the finance disaster.
See <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp\_quant?currentPage=all" title="wired.com">"The formula
that killed Wall street"</a> [wired.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mathematical models always only work in a certain range As Newtonian mechanics well for smaller velocities and macroscopic bodies it has to be replaced for large velocities or in smaller scales .
Exponential growth laws have to be replaced by logistic growth .
etc Models are especially popular in probability theory .
The text mentions Gaussian Copula function , the " rocket fuel " for collateralized debt obligation , which is cited as one of the reasons for the finance disaster .
See " The formula that killed Wall street " [ wired.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mathematical models always only work in a certain range
As Newtonian mechanics well for smaller velocities and macroscopic
bodies it has to be replaced for large velocities or in smaller scales.
Exponential growth laws have to be replaced by logistic growth.
etc
Models are especially popular in probability theory.
The text mentions
Gaussian Copula function, the "rocket fuel" for collateralized debt obligation,
which is cited as one of the reasons for the finance disaster.
See "The formula
that killed Wall street" [wired.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425</id>
	<title>You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>tjstork</author>
	<datestamp>1243776360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Quants only produce models that act in the way that traders expect, and traders do not want bad news.  I've done a small bit of modelling before and you always reach a point where there's this one number that is completely made up, and you kinda set things up so the trader makes the call.  In this sense, all these models that everyone talks about are not so much as analysis tools as they are communications tools - you sorta  code the insight of the trader as to how he or she thinks the market will move.  It's a very human business, not one of a bunch of computers run amok.  Quants that say otherwise are just full of themselves...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Quants only produce models that act in the way that traders expect , and traders do not want bad news .
I 've done a small bit of modelling before and you always reach a point where there 's this one number that is completely made up , and you kinda set things up so the trader makes the call .
In this sense , all these models that everyone talks about are not so much as analysis tools as they are communications tools - you sorta code the insight of the trader as to how he or she thinks the market will move .
It 's a very human business , not one of a bunch of computers run amok .
Quants that say otherwise are just full of themselves.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quants only produce models that act in the way that traders expect, and traders do not want bad news.
I've done a small bit of modelling before and you always reach a point where there's this one number that is completely made up, and you kinda set things up so the trader makes the call.
In this sense, all these models that everyone talks about are not so much as analysis tools as they are communications tools - you sorta  code the insight of the trader as to how he or she thinks the market will move.
It's a very human business, not one of a bunch of computers run amok.
Quants that say otherwise are just full of themselves...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28166845</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>Walkingshark</author>
	<datestamp>1243865640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is thinking like yours that got us into this mess in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is thinking like yours that got us into this mess in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is thinking like yours that got us into this mess in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158065</id>
	<title>Re:how about reforming pay?</title>
	<author>N1AK</author>
	<datestamp>1243783380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty?</p></div></blockquote><p>How about you put your money where your mouth is an only invest in funds with managers paid only on that basis? Personally, I am going to continue to invest where I expect the best returns, regardless of fund manager wages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others ( engineers and scientists ) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty ? How about you put your money where your mouth is an only invest in funds with managers paid only on that basis ?
Personally , I am going to continue to invest where I expect the best returns , regardless of fund manager wages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty?How about you put your money where your mouth is an only invest in funds with managers paid only on that basis?
Personally, I am going to continue to invest where I expect the best returns, regardless of fund manager wages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158501</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1243787220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here is the second page:</p><p>"There is nothing that would persuade me to remain in a partnership with someone as stupid, duplicitous and untrustworthy as you have proved yourself to be. As we discussed, I shall make arrangements for your exit from this firm at the earliest convenient opportunity." </p><p> <strong>Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley, July 20, 2004 </strong> </p><p>"How like a game of chess this is. Except you are toying, not with wooden pieces, but with people's lives. And you are about to discover in this game it is I who am the grandmaster." </p><p> <strong>Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley, July 25, 2004 </strong> </p><p>"White's attack has been successfully put down. Black sacrifices the terminally weakened pawn in order to open lines for the coming counter-attack. Meanwhile, the white knight has been neutralised and lies isolated and vulnerable at the edge of the board, waiting to be picked off by the black forces at their leisure." </p><p> <strong>Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley and Paul Wilmott, August 15, 2004</strong> </p><p> <strong>THE BRAIN'S WHO FELL OUT</strong> </p><p> <strong>JONATHAN KINLAY</strong> </p><p>The chief executive of Investment Analytics, a mathematical research firm that develops software programmes to exploit volatile stock markets. </p><p>He started his career at NatWest in the early 1980s but had left long before the investment bank found an &pound;80 million black hole in its options trading book. </p><p>After a spell at Chase Manhattan, he joined the proprietary trading desk of EMC International, a European hedge fund, specialising in privately negotiated derivatives contracts. He is well known on the lecture circuit and has taught financial engineering at Carnegie Mellon in New York and at Oxford and Cambridge. </p><p> <strong>RON HENLEY</strong> </p><p>Few people span the diverse worlds of chess and high finance, and fewer rise to the top of both. Ron Henley is a chess grandmaster, but he is best known for training Anatoly Karpov, the former chess world champion. His interest in derivatives dates back to 1985, when he became a member of the American Stock Exchange.</p><p>He soon earned himself a reputation as a derivatives whizz kid, rising to become a specialist options trader for Cohen, Duffy &amp; McGowan, one of the top options markets makers on the exchange floor. He is a regular chess commentator and runs an internet site that raises funds to sponsor young US players, including Irena Krush. </p><p> <strong>JONATHAN KINLAY</strong> </p><p>The chief executive of Investment Analytics, a mathematical research firm that develops software programmes to exploit volatile stock markets. </p><p>He started his career at NatWest in the early 1980s but had left long before the investment bank found an &pound;80 million black hole in its options trading book. </p><p>After a spell at Chase Manhattan, he joined the proprietary trading desk of EMC International, a European hedge fund, specialising in privately negotiated derivatives contracts. He is well known on the lecture circuit and has taught financial engineering at Carnegie Mellon in New York and at Oxford and Cambridge.</p><div><p>

Page 2 of 2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here is the second page : " There is nothing that would persuade me to remain in a partnership with someone as stupid , duplicitous and untrustworthy as you have proved yourself to be .
As we discussed , I shall make arrangements for your exit from this firm at the earliest convenient opportunity .
" Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley , July 20 , 2004 " How like a game of chess this is .
Except you are toying , not with wooden pieces , but with people 's lives .
And you are about to discover in this game it is I who am the grandmaster .
" Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley , July 25 , 2004 " White 's attack has been successfully put down .
Black sacrifices the terminally weakened pawn in order to open lines for the coming counter-attack .
Meanwhile , the white knight has been neutralised and lies isolated and vulnerable at the edge of the board , waiting to be picked off by the black forces at their leisure .
" Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley and Paul Wilmott , August 15 , 2004 THE BRAIN 'S WHO FELL OUT JONATHAN KINLAY The chief executive of Investment Analytics , a mathematical research firm that develops software programmes to exploit volatile stock markets .
He started his career at NatWest in the early 1980s but had left long before the investment bank found an   80 million black hole in its options trading book .
After a spell at Chase Manhattan , he joined the proprietary trading desk of EMC International , a European hedge fund , specialising in privately negotiated derivatives contracts .
He is well known on the lecture circuit and has taught financial engineering at Carnegie Mellon in New York and at Oxford and Cambridge .
RON HENLEY Few people span the diverse worlds of chess and high finance , and fewer rise to the top of both .
Ron Henley is a chess grandmaster , but he is best known for training Anatoly Karpov , the former chess world champion .
His interest in derivatives dates back to 1985 , when he became a member of the American Stock Exchange.He soon earned himself a reputation as a derivatives whizz kid , rising to become a specialist options trader for Cohen , Duffy &amp; McGowan , one of the top options markets makers on the exchange floor .
He is a regular chess commentator and runs an internet site that raises funds to sponsor young US players , including Irena Krush .
JONATHAN KINLAY The chief executive of Investment Analytics , a mathematical research firm that develops software programmes to exploit volatile stock markets .
He started his career at NatWest in the early 1980s but had left long before the investment bank found an   80 million black hole in its options trading book .
After a spell at Chase Manhattan , he joined the proprietary trading desk of EMC International , a European hedge fund , specialising in privately negotiated derivatives contracts .
He is well known on the lecture circuit and has taught financial engineering at Carnegie Mellon in New York and at Oxford and Cambridge .
Page 2 of 2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here is the second page:"There is nothing that would persuade me to remain in a partnership with someone as stupid, duplicitous and untrustworthy as you have proved yourself to be.
As we discussed, I shall make arrangements for your exit from this firm at the earliest convenient opportunity.
"  Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley, July 20, 2004  "How like a game of chess this is.
Except you are toying, not with wooden pieces, but with people's lives.
And you are about to discover in this game it is I who am the grandmaster.
"  Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley, July 25, 2004  "White's attack has been successfully put down.
Black sacrifices the terminally weakened pawn in order to open lines for the coming counter-attack.
Meanwhile, the white knight has been neutralised and lies isolated and vulnerable at the edge of the board, waiting to be picked off by the black forces at their leisure.
"  Jonathan Kinlay to Ron Henley and Paul Wilmott, August 15, 2004  THE BRAIN'S WHO FELL OUT  JONATHAN KINLAY The chief executive of Investment Analytics, a mathematical research firm that develops software programmes to exploit volatile stock markets.
He started his career at NatWest in the early 1980s but had left long before the investment bank found an £80 million black hole in its options trading book.
After a spell at Chase Manhattan, he joined the proprietary trading desk of EMC International, a European hedge fund, specialising in privately negotiated derivatives contracts.
He is well known on the lecture circuit and has taught financial engineering at Carnegie Mellon in New York and at Oxford and Cambridge.
RON HENLEY Few people span the diverse worlds of chess and high finance, and fewer rise to the top of both.
Ron Henley is a chess grandmaster, but he is best known for training Anatoly Karpov, the former chess world champion.
His interest in derivatives dates back to 1985, when he became a member of the American Stock Exchange.He soon earned himself a reputation as a derivatives whizz kid, rising to become a specialist options trader for Cohen, Duffy &amp; McGowan, one of the top options markets makers on the exchange floor.
He is a regular chess commentator and runs an internet site that raises funds to sponsor young US players, including Irena Krush.
JONATHAN KINLAY The chief executive of Investment Analytics, a mathematical research firm that develops software programmes to exploit volatile stock markets.
He started his career at NatWest in the early 1980s but had left long before the investment bank found an £80 million black hole in its options trading book.
After a spell at Chase Manhattan, he joined the proprietary trading desk of EMC International, a European hedge fund, specialising in privately negotiated derivatives contracts.
He is well known on the lecture circuit and has taught financial engineering at Carnegie Mellon in New York and at Oxford and Cambridge.
Page 2 of 2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160903</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>bagsc</author>
	<datestamp>1243761960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>***Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but aren't exactly sure, rectangular if you really have no idea. A rectangular distribution says "I have no idea, the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range."</p></div><p>Here you have exactly why the quants got things so wrong. If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance, then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition. That's what most educated people know.</p><p>The problem is: the odds of an arbitrary distribution with no bounds having a finite variance is zero. In finance and economics, we know this, and we make up so many excuses to use Gaussians instead of more general LLN collection families. Gaussians are so tractable and easy to use, and so consistently used in theory that its second nature for us to use them. And since Gaussians are MLEs with relatively few restrictions, they tend to minimize measures of entropy. And since this is economics, everything ultimately has a bound... somewhere... unless its derivatives.</p><p>Not even most economists, financiers, or quants want to have to apply Levy-stable distributions all the time to variables, because working in complex spaces with integrals that never seem to converge when you want them to is a giant mathematical pain in the ass.  But that's what real risk management is - your models need to be robust to whether that "variance" number your data indicates is real or bullshit or infinite.</p><p>Quants who knew better willfully ignored this, because "risk" (and "volatility" and "variance") makes "return," and they like big paychecks when things are going well. And when things aren't going well, well, who else could understand this stuff? Your average banker with an MBA might fire them, but doesn't have a chance at understanding, so he'll hire the average economist with a PhD who has a small chance, but recommends a mathematician who will say he doesn't understand the interpretation, and will refer you to a quant.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but are n't exactly sure , rectangular if you really have no idea .
A rectangular distribution says " I have no idea , the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range .
" Here you have exactly why the quants got things so wrong .
If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance , then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition .
That 's what most educated people know.The problem is : the odds of an arbitrary distribution with no bounds having a finite variance is zero .
In finance and economics , we know this , and we make up so many excuses to use Gaussians instead of more general LLN collection families .
Gaussians are so tractable and easy to use , and so consistently used in theory that its second nature for us to use them .
And since Gaussians are MLEs with relatively few restrictions , they tend to minimize measures of entropy .
And since this is economics , everything ultimately has a bound... somewhere... unless its derivatives.Not even most economists , financiers , or quants want to have to apply Levy-stable distributions all the time to variables , because working in complex spaces with integrals that never seem to converge when you want them to is a giant mathematical pain in the ass .
But that 's what real risk management is - your models need to be robust to whether that " variance " number your data indicates is real or bullshit or infinite.Quants who knew better willfully ignored this , because " risk " ( and " volatility " and " variance " ) makes " return , " and they like big paychecks when things are going well .
And when things are n't going well , well , who else could understand this stuff ?
Your average banker with an MBA might fire them , but does n't have a chance at understanding , so he 'll hire the average economist with a PhD who has a small chance , but recommends a mathematician who will say he does n't understand the interpretation , and will refer you to a quant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but aren't exactly sure, rectangular if you really have no idea.
A rectangular distribution says "I have no idea, the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range.
"Here you have exactly why the quants got things so wrong.
If you have an arbitrary random variable with a finite variance, then a law of large numbers will tell you that it converges to a Guassian under repetition.
That's what most educated people know.The problem is: the odds of an arbitrary distribution with no bounds having a finite variance is zero.
In finance and economics, we know this, and we make up so many excuses to use Gaussians instead of more general LLN collection families.
Gaussians are so tractable and easy to use, and so consistently used in theory that its second nature for us to use them.
And since Gaussians are MLEs with relatively few restrictions, they tend to minimize measures of entropy.
And since this is economics, everything ultimately has a bound... somewhere... unless its derivatives.Not even most economists, financiers, or quants want to have to apply Levy-stable distributions all the time to variables, because working in complex spaces with integrals that never seem to converge when you want them to is a giant mathematical pain in the ass.
But that's what real risk management is - your models need to be robust to whether that "variance" number your data indicates is real or bullshit or infinite.Quants who knew better willfully ignored this, because "risk" (and "volatility" and "variance") makes "return," and they like big paychecks when things are going well.
And when things aren't going well, well, who else could understand this stuff?
Your average banker with an MBA might fire them, but doesn't have a chance at understanding, so he'll hire the average economist with a PhD who has a small chance, but recommends a mathematician who will say he doesn't understand the interpretation, and will refer you to a quant.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28163993</id>
	<title>You can't have significant stats here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243788900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I call BS. You can't test hypotheses with historical data and moreover you are almost certainly dealing with a chaotic system with plenty of feedback into itself. This isn't science, it's model making of the worst kind, just more of what he's complaining about really.</p><p>
&nbsp; Sure, traditional "economics" is, was and always will be total and complete BS, but so is saying that you're going to get "empirical" with historical data- the behavior of the market in the past.</p><p>Read the Black Swan. Certainly this guy has. Too bad he didn't take away from it the lessons the author was trying to convey- economics is BS and quants are totally FOS, but for a reason- you can't do science on economic "data" or "behavior" at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I call BS .
You ca n't test hypotheses with historical data and moreover you are almost certainly dealing with a chaotic system with plenty of feedback into itself .
This is n't science , it 's model making of the worst kind , just more of what he 's complaining about really .
  Sure , traditional " economics " is , was and always will be total and complete BS , but so is saying that you 're going to get " empirical " with historical data- the behavior of the market in the past.Read the Black Swan .
Certainly this guy has .
Too bad he did n't take away from it the lessons the author was trying to convey- economics is BS and quants are totally FOS , but for a reason- you ca n't do science on economic " data " or " behavior " at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I call BS.
You can't test hypotheses with historical data and moreover you are almost certainly dealing with a chaotic system with plenty of feedback into itself.
This isn't science, it's model making of the worst kind, just more of what he's complaining about really.
  Sure, traditional "economics" is, was and always will be total and complete BS, but so is saying that you're going to get "empirical" with historical data- the behavior of the market in the past.Read the Black Swan.
Certainly this guy has.
Too bad he didn't take away from it the lessons the author was trying to convey- economics is BS and quants are totally FOS, but for a reason- you can't do science on economic "data" or "behavior" at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160039</id>
	<title>Models should be used for insight</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1243799040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rather than prediction. All models are both true and false to a greater or lesser extent and must be used with care. All models must be parametrized and those parameters are often uncertain.</p><p>In his classic work "Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers" Richard W. Hamming put it this way: "The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers."</p><p>And if you don't know who he is, shame on you.</p><p>If you believe your models, you're fooling yourself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rather than prediction .
All models are both true and false to a greater or lesser extent and must be used with care .
All models must be parametrized and those parameters are often uncertain.In his classic work " Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers " Richard W. Hamming put it this way : " The purpose of computing is insight , not numbers .
" And if you do n't know who he is , shame on you.If you believe your models , you 're fooling yourself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rather than prediction.
All models are both true and false to a greater or lesser extent and must be used with care.
All models must be parametrized and those parameters are often uncertain.In his classic work "Numerical Methods for Scientists and Engineers" Richard W. Hamming put it this way: "The purpose of computing is insight, not numbers.
"And if you don't know who he is, shame on you.If you believe your models, you're fooling yourself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158249</id>
	<title>Just Gamble ... That works...</title>
	<author>3seas</author>
	<datestamp>1243785180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/stockmarket/" title="pbs.org">Trillion dollar bet</a> [pbs.org] now why did the world trade center get attacked, not once but twice...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trillion dollar bet [ pbs.org ] now why did the world trade center get attacked , not once but twice.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trillion dollar bet [pbs.org] now why did the world trade center get attacked, not once but twice...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164551</id>
	<title>Re:Theocracy of Quants</title>
	<author>jensend</author>
	<datestamp>1243794120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that you can eliminate tyranny by providing a laundry list of rights is ridiculous in any case. The real way the Constitution was to protect against the tyranny of the majority was giving the federal government limited and separated powers while guaranteeing autonomy to the states. The Bill of Rights was tacked on because people were (rightfully) worried that the government would exceed these limits without going through the rigorous amendment process, which requires a real nationwide consensus rather than a simple majority (or the whims of Congress or an activist judiciary or the executive, all of which will if unchecked usurp power to further their own agenda). So they enshrined a few basic rights as a safety barrier (which have since been vastly misinterpreted). This has little to do with slogans about the tyranny of the majority which are bandied about today.</p><p>The ideal of liberty which the left touts no longer makes sense- liberty to do what? One person argues it's their "right" to have their sexual relationship with their same-sex partner or their sister or their sheep declared a marriage ("love is all that matters right?") and given the government's sanction, blessing, and benefits. There is no way to grant this person this "right" without making a society into a place which is hostile to any and all standards of morality which denounce these things. That person's "right" conflicts with everyone else's liberty to raise their children in an environment they would term "moral." How do you decide between these liberties?</p><p>The left would force the entire world against their will to choose the first because that's "progressive." Progress towards what? These and other similar steps are only progress towards a worldwide leveled-down society of irresponsibility and debauchery which will be perfectly miserable in its perfect lack of culture and morals. This is the real tyranny of the majority- where no one can choose to live in a different kind of society because society is a worldwide homogenized Hades.</p><p>The alternative is to allow for local autonomy and let small groups of people decide what kind of society they want to become and which liberties are important to them. This is what the Constitution provided for, in the "laboratory of the states" the GP referred to. Different societal ideals and standards could be tried in different states and communities. People could choose the kind of society they want to live in. If it's done right, then communities are responsible for their own survival, which provides a selection pressure which eliminates the worst societal ideas and hopefully helps the world make progress. [I think that if you took a group of messed-up criminals and put them in a situation where they had to form their own society and their own laws and become self-sufficient to be able to survive, most of them would turn out ok and in the long run the crime rate in their society would not be too different from that in the society from which the first criminals were exiled.]</p><p>To some extent the experiment happened naturally in previous ages of the world. Societies would rise to power when their energy, ideas, and ideals were fresh and would crumble under their own weight of degeneracy, decadence, hyperlitigiousness, and corruption as they decayed, making room for other societies and ideals to step in. The American experiment promised that this process could be streamlined by making the upheavals less bloody and violent and more democratic i.e. maximizing people's ability to choose what kind of society to live in. But the decline of local autonomy in favor of national and international government is ending that experiment. When this global society unravels under the pressure of its decadence, who will be left to pick up the pieces? Who will provide an alternative? Even if there is one, the upheaval will be enormously painful and cataclysmic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that you can eliminate tyranny by providing a laundry list of rights is ridiculous in any case .
The real way the Constitution was to protect against the tyranny of the majority was giving the federal government limited and separated powers while guaranteeing autonomy to the states .
The Bill of Rights was tacked on because people were ( rightfully ) worried that the government would exceed these limits without going through the rigorous amendment process , which requires a real nationwide consensus rather than a simple majority ( or the whims of Congress or an activist judiciary or the executive , all of which will if unchecked usurp power to further their own agenda ) .
So they enshrined a few basic rights as a safety barrier ( which have since been vastly misinterpreted ) .
This has little to do with slogans about the tyranny of the majority which are bandied about today.The ideal of liberty which the left touts no longer makes sense- liberty to do what ?
One person argues it 's their " right " to have their sexual relationship with their same-sex partner or their sister or their sheep declared a marriage ( " love is all that matters right ?
" ) and given the government 's sanction , blessing , and benefits .
There is no way to grant this person this " right " without making a society into a place which is hostile to any and all standards of morality which denounce these things .
That person 's " right " conflicts with everyone else 's liberty to raise their children in an environment they would term " moral .
" How do you decide between these liberties ? The left would force the entire world against their will to choose the first because that 's " progressive .
" Progress towards what ?
These and other similar steps are only progress towards a worldwide leveled-down society of irresponsibility and debauchery which will be perfectly miserable in its perfect lack of culture and morals .
This is the real tyranny of the majority- where no one can choose to live in a different kind of society because society is a worldwide homogenized Hades.The alternative is to allow for local autonomy and let small groups of people decide what kind of society they want to become and which liberties are important to them .
This is what the Constitution provided for , in the " laboratory of the states " the GP referred to .
Different societal ideals and standards could be tried in different states and communities .
People could choose the kind of society they want to live in .
If it 's done right , then communities are responsible for their own survival , which provides a selection pressure which eliminates the worst societal ideas and hopefully helps the world make progress .
[ I think that if you took a group of messed-up criminals and put them in a situation where they had to form their own society and their own laws and become self-sufficient to be able to survive , most of them would turn out ok and in the long run the crime rate in their society would not be too different from that in the society from which the first criminals were exiled .
] To some extent the experiment happened naturally in previous ages of the world .
Societies would rise to power when their energy , ideas , and ideals were fresh and would crumble under their own weight of degeneracy , decadence , hyperlitigiousness , and corruption as they decayed , making room for other societies and ideals to step in .
The American experiment promised that this process could be streamlined by making the upheavals less bloody and violent and more democratic i.e .
maximizing people 's ability to choose what kind of society to live in .
But the decline of local autonomy in favor of national and international government is ending that experiment .
When this global society unravels under the pressure of its decadence , who will be left to pick up the pieces ?
Who will provide an alternative ?
Even if there is one , the upheaval will be enormously painful and cataclysmic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that you can eliminate tyranny by providing a laundry list of rights is ridiculous in any case.
The real way the Constitution was to protect against the tyranny of the majority was giving the federal government limited and separated powers while guaranteeing autonomy to the states.
The Bill of Rights was tacked on because people were (rightfully) worried that the government would exceed these limits without going through the rigorous amendment process, which requires a real nationwide consensus rather than a simple majority (or the whims of Congress or an activist judiciary or the executive, all of which will if unchecked usurp power to further their own agenda).
So they enshrined a few basic rights as a safety barrier (which have since been vastly misinterpreted).
This has little to do with slogans about the tyranny of the majority which are bandied about today.The ideal of liberty which the left touts no longer makes sense- liberty to do what?
One person argues it's their "right" to have their sexual relationship with their same-sex partner or their sister or their sheep declared a marriage ("love is all that matters right?
") and given the government's sanction, blessing, and benefits.
There is no way to grant this person this "right" without making a society into a place which is hostile to any and all standards of morality which denounce these things.
That person's "right" conflicts with everyone else's liberty to raise their children in an environment they would term "moral.
" How do you decide between these liberties?The left would force the entire world against their will to choose the first because that's "progressive.
" Progress towards what?
These and other similar steps are only progress towards a worldwide leveled-down society of irresponsibility and debauchery which will be perfectly miserable in its perfect lack of culture and morals.
This is the real tyranny of the majority- where no one can choose to live in a different kind of society because society is a worldwide homogenized Hades.The alternative is to allow for local autonomy and let small groups of people decide what kind of society they want to become and which liberties are important to them.
This is what the Constitution provided for, in the "laboratory of the states" the GP referred to.
Different societal ideals and standards could be tried in different states and communities.
People could choose the kind of society they want to live in.
If it's done right, then communities are responsible for their own survival, which provides a selection pressure which eliminates the worst societal ideas and hopefully helps the world make progress.
[I think that if you took a group of messed-up criminals and put them in a situation where they had to form their own society and their own laws and become self-sufficient to be able to survive, most of them would turn out ok and in the long run the crime rate in their society would not be too different from that in the society from which the first criminals were exiled.
]To some extent the experiment happened naturally in previous ages of the world.
Societies would rise to power when their energy, ideas, and ideals were fresh and would crumble under their own weight of degeneracy, decadence, hyperlitigiousness, and corruption as they decayed, making room for other societies and ideals to step in.
The American experiment promised that this process could be streamlined by making the upheavals less bloody and violent and more democratic i.e.
maximizing people's ability to choose what kind of society to live in.
But the decline of local autonomy in favor of national and international government is ending that experiment.
When this global society unravels under the pressure of its decadence, who will be left to pick up the pieces?
Who will provide an alternative?
Even if there is one, the upheaval will be enormously painful and cataclysmic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158317</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160065</id>
	<title>Re:Wall Street</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1243799220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would argue that the tax should be graduated, by how long you held the investment.  The question in my mind is should it be a tax on the profits, or on the total investment.  I lean towards a tax on the profits.</p><p>Say a tax on the profit of 40/sqrt(t) percent where t is measured in days.  And any profits don't count as income for the purpose of income tax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would argue that the tax should be graduated , by how long you held the investment .
The question in my mind is should it be a tax on the profits , or on the total investment .
I lean towards a tax on the profits.Say a tax on the profit of 40/sqrt ( t ) percent where t is measured in days .
And any profits do n't count as income for the purpose of income tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would argue that the tax should be graduated, by how long you held the investment.
The question in my mind is should it be a tax on the profits, or on the total investment.
I lean towards a tax on the profits.Say a tax on the profit of 40/sqrt(t) percent where t is measured in days.
And any profits don't count as income for the purpose of income tax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157857</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A mathematician using a Markov model for a very obvious non-Markov process is called a "retard".</p><p>But at least there were some well-paid retards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A mathematician using a Markov model for a very obvious non-Markov process is called a " retard " .But at least there were some well-paid retards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A mathematician using a Markov model for a very obvious non-Markov process is called a "retard".But at least there were some well-paid retards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162635</id>
	<title>Re:Picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1243777680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I think of it... I think the most effective way to avoid a similar crisis in future is to limit the security value of an asset to say 9 years of its earning potential. Eg a bank should only be able to loan an amount equal to 9 years of rent on a property, putting a ceiling on any housing asset bubble.</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I think of it... I think the most effective way to avoid a similar crisis in future is to limit the security value of an asset to say 9 years of its earning potential .
Eg a bank should only be able to loan an amount equal to 9 years of rent on a property , putting a ceiling on any housing asset bubble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I think of it... I think the most effective way to avoid a similar crisis in future is to limit the security value of an asset to say 9 years of its earning potential.
Eg a bank should only be able to loan an amount equal to 9 years of rent on a property, putting a ceiling on any housing asset bubble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158967</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243791060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Financial analysis software already does all the things you mention. People usually do many thousands of runs with a given range for each parameter. It's the given range that is sometimes made up or just a hunch/guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Financial analysis software already does all the things you mention .
People usually do many thousands of runs with a given range for each parameter .
It 's the given range that is sometimes made up or just a hunch/guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Financial analysis software already does all the things you mention.
People usually do many thousands of runs with a given range for each parameter.
It's the given range that is sometimes made up or just a hunch/guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158363</id>
	<title>Execute these fsckers!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243786140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>every one, no exceptions</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>every one , no exceptions</tokentext>
<sentencetext>every one, no exceptions</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157745</id>
	<title>TESTING models?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243780440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean being scientific about it?  And strictly controlling the inputs so that it isn't just garbage in/garbage out?  Crazy talk.</p><p>Based on recent experience, Wall Street *WANTS* a big black box that they can crank numbers through and give the answer they desire.  They don't want reality or common sense.  I mean, how else to explain what they did?</p><p>Good luck with it, but excuse me for being so cynical to think that Wall Street won't be interested in something if it interferes with profits and greed.  That includes anything based on actual reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean being scientific about it ?
And strictly controlling the inputs so that it is n't just garbage in/garbage out ?
Crazy talk.Based on recent experience , Wall Street * WANTS * a big black box that they can crank numbers through and give the answer they desire .
They do n't want reality or common sense .
I mean , how else to explain what they did ? Good luck with it , but excuse me for being so cynical to think that Wall Street wo n't be interested in something if it interferes with profits and greed .
That includes anything based on actual reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean being scientific about it?
And strictly controlling the inputs so that it isn't just garbage in/garbage out?
Crazy talk.Based on recent experience, Wall Street *WANTS* a big black box that they can crank numbers through and give the answer they desire.
They don't want reality or common sense.
I mean, how else to explain what they did?Good luck with it, but excuse me for being so cynical to think that Wall Street won't be interested in something if it interferes with profits and greed.
That includes anything based on actual reality.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160939</id>
	<title>Re:Theocracy of Quants</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1243762200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has very little to do with social science vs "real" science. Most studies cannot use controlled laboratory experiments to extract meaningful information. The problem is almost always the same: once you bring the everyday scenario that you care about into the lab, it's no longer the everyday scenario you care about. To suggest that the "real" sciences don't have this problem too shows a significant lack of understanding of the "real" sciences.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has very little to do with social science vs " real " science .
Most studies can not use controlled laboratory experiments to extract meaningful information .
The problem is almost always the same : once you bring the everyday scenario that you care about into the lab , it 's no longer the everyday scenario you care about .
To suggest that the " real " sciences do n't have this problem too shows a significant lack of understanding of the " real " sciences .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has very little to do with social science vs "real" science.
Most studies cannot use controlled laboratory experiments to extract meaningful information.
The problem is almost always the same: once you bring the everyday scenario that you care about into the lab, it's no longer the everyday scenario you care about.
To suggest that the "real" sciences don't have this problem too shows a significant lack of understanding of the "real" sciences.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159899</id>
	<title>Re:Theocracy of Quants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243798140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>with the resulting Amendment from Hell, the 14th, in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when "social science" sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s.</i></p><p>And what does the 14th Amendment prohibit?</p><blockquote><div><p>No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.</p></div></blockquote><p>It also prohibits states from repaying Confederate war bonds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>with the resulting Amendment from Hell , the 14th , in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when " social science " sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s.And what does the 14th Amendment prohibit ? No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ; nor shall any State deprive any person of life , liberty , or property , without due process of law ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.It also prohibits states from repaying Confederate war bonds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with the resulting Amendment from Hell, the 14th, in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when "social science" sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s.And what does the 14th Amendment prohibit?No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.It also prohibits states from repaying Confederate war bonds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157921</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1243782240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is already a lot of information out there about business models HR concepts and the like. Heck many MBA programs encourage students to use them and experiment with them to find the best model.  But real life makes it much harder. Long term growth is difficult for people. (are you really putting enough money away for retirement).  The same thing with business, are you willing to invest your money in testing new models, which will overall have a better effect or put money what seems to get the best investment at the time.  Unfortunately people are naturally short sided and will go for the short term benefit.  Secondarily we get the problems of running such tests in an HR view point.</p><p>What happens if your theory fails? Do you get fired? if so the risk of failure is high so you will take safer methods. Thus hindering the overall effect of experimentation.<br>If you don't get fired, what is the limit do you just pay people a lot of money to try and try stupid ideas and tests,   that will never work.</p><p>OK say you found a way to fix the HR problem. Now how about if the Theory fails? Sometimes a business model will not work for a while then make a big boom later on.   Lets use the old Time Sharing Computing model, It was big until the 80's as computers were so big and expensive time sharing offered excellent value. During the 90's everyone had their own computers even remote hosting was limited.  Then the 2000 decade SaaS which is in essence Time Sharing again and Remote Hosting is big again, as business now realize that all this effort in maintaining their IT infrastructure was in essence a waist of money. As IT specialty companies can do it better and cheaper then they can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is already a lot of information out there about business models HR concepts and the like .
Heck many MBA programs encourage students to use them and experiment with them to find the best model .
But real life makes it much harder .
Long term growth is difficult for people .
( are you really putting enough money away for retirement ) .
The same thing with business , are you willing to invest your money in testing new models , which will overall have a better effect or put money what seems to get the best investment at the time .
Unfortunately people are naturally short sided and will go for the short term benefit .
Secondarily we get the problems of running such tests in an HR view point.What happens if your theory fails ?
Do you get fired ?
if so the risk of failure is high so you will take safer methods .
Thus hindering the overall effect of experimentation.If you do n't get fired , what is the limit do you just pay people a lot of money to try and try stupid ideas and tests , that will never work.OK say you found a way to fix the HR problem .
Now how about if the Theory fails ?
Sometimes a business model will not work for a while then make a big boom later on .
Lets use the old Time Sharing Computing model , It was big until the 80 's as computers were so big and expensive time sharing offered excellent value .
During the 90 's everyone had their own computers even remote hosting was limited .
Then the 2000 decade SaaS which is in essence Time Sharing again and Remote Hosting is big again , as business now realize that all this effort in maintaining their IT infrastructure was in essence a waist of money .
As IT specialty companies can do it better and cheaper then they can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is already a lot of information out there about business models HR concepts and the like.
Heck many MBA programs encourage students to use them and experiment with them to find the best model.
But real life makes it much harder.
Long term growth is difficult for people.
(are you really putting enough money away for retirement).
The same thing with business, are you willing to invest your money in testing new models, which will overall have a better effect or put money what seems to get the best investment at the time.
Unfortunately people are naturally short sided and will go for the short term benefit.
Secondarily we get the problems of running such tests in an HR view point.What happens if your theory fails?
Do you get fired?
if so the risk of failure is high so you will take safer methods.
Thus hindering the overall effect of experimentation.If you don't get fired, what is the limit do you just pay people a lot of money to try and try stupid ideas and tests,   that will never work.OK say you found a way to fix the HR problem.
Now how about if the Theory fails?
Sometimes a business model will not work for a while then make a big boom later on.
Lets use the old Time Sharing Computing model, It was big until the 80's as computers were so big and expensive time sharing offered excellent value.
During the 90's everyone had their own computers even remote hosting was limited.
Then the 2000 decade SaaS which is in essence Time Sharing again and Remote Hosting is big again, as business now realize that all this effort in maintaining their IT infrastructure was in essence a waist of money.
As IT specialty companies can do it better and cheaper then they can.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28173539</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1243850220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think that is a fair statement. There are certainly some financial instruments which have a rather dubious value, but it is hard to prove that a particular instrument has no value to any buyers or sellers. The name of the game is <i> <b>credit</b> </i> because without credit there is greatly diminished economic output and growth (since the people with the means and the people with the ability to use them productively are often not the same people in practice). The goal is to distribute just the right amount of credit to the people who can use it most productively by the most efficient means possible. The tools of finance enable us to do this, but like many tools created by man they can be used or abused depending upon who is using them and for what purpose.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think that is a fair statement .
There are certainly some financial instruments which have a rather dubious value , but it is hard to prove that a particular instrument has no value to any buyers or sellers .
The name of the game is credit because without credit there is greatly diminished economic output and growth ( since the people with the means and the people with the ability to use them productively are often not the same people in practice ) .
The goal is to distribute just the right amount of credit to the people who can use it most productively by the most efficient means possible .
The tools of finance enable us to do this , but like many tools created by man they can be used or abused depending upon who is using them and for what purpose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think that is a fair statement.
There are certainly some financial instruments which have a rather dubious value, but it is hard to prove that a particular instrument has no value to any buyers or sellers.
The name of the game is  credit  because without credit there is greatly diminished economic output and growth (since the people with the means and the people with the ability to use them productively are often not the same people in practice).
The goal is to distribute just the right amount of credit to the people who can use it most productively by the most efficient means possible.
The tools of finance enable us to do this, but like many tools created by man they can be used or abused depending upon who is using them and for what purpose.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157383</id>
	<title>Who appointed him god of quants?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243775760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No one owns math.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one owns math .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one owns math.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158897</id>
	<title>Re:Hang on...</title>
	<author>gordguide</author>
	<datestamp>1243790460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as I understand it, the core of the problem was simple greed: money-hungry mortgage and securities dealers deliberately feeding bad data into the system.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... So-called quants may be decidedly imperfect, but if someone's willing to game the system to make a buck, nothing the quant does can stop it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..."</p><p>Good point, but I think you may be attributing too much of what happened in '07 (in the US)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/08 (everywhere) to bad intentions, not that they don't exist. All my research about the mortgage crisis essentially boils down to there was a motive to sell to poor borrowers because most of the "good" borrowers already had their mortgages during the earlier part of the 21st century, if not before. You can't sell more homes than people need, at least to the financially prudent. So, there was incentive to <i>sell</i> bad mortgages to bad borrowers, because they could be packaged and re-sold as a form of derivative, eliminating the risk to the original mortgage lender from default.</p><p>Those derivatives were packaged in a way that the true nature of the underlying mortgages was obscured or totally hidden. Of course, like the insurance industry where every player buys some of every other player's risk while selling some of it's own, because each company is more solvent that way, some of these same lenders were buying other's derivatives, which were just as shaky, but somehow they managed to deceive themselves into thinking they were actually made up of sound mortgages.</p><p>There's the massive self-deception based on greed you may be alluding to, but I don't think it follows that everyone in the bank knew that there was any self-deception going on (ie those whose job it was to run the models). Certainly they were on the books as good, sound mortgage-backed paper; certainly the shareholders may have believed the deception; certainly there <i>was</i> a house of cards being built.</p><p>But, I don't think those who collect and feed the data were that much in the loop (to be as deliberate as you suggest); the problem being no-one, and I mean no-one, knew the scope or the actual value of these derivatives. Nobody, not banks, not the Fed, not Economists, could know the true nature of this wildcat, unregulated mortgage-backed security market (and thus this input). I believe that at the peak, the value of these derivatives exceeded one year's GNP of the US; in other words a huge unregulated market indeed.</p><p>The data had to be guessed at using "the best information available at the time" which is a fairly fundamental method of business transactions; you don't wait forever for perfect data because opportunity is lost if you do.</p><p>Ideally such a huge, unregulated market is reined in by regulators who do know that anything in the financial sector that is too big is going to run the risk of taking down markets, banks, investors, and economies. Greenspan has said out loud that he had too much faith in the banking and security industry and let it go too big for too long. Hindsight is 20:20, but a "Wild West" mentality in every aspect of a market is not necessarily best<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the very first corporations about 600 years ago eventually caused so much havoc that for a few hundred years the whole concept was made illegal. That was a result of too few corporations, but the essence of a huge unregulated market is found there, because the few that did exist <i>were</i> the market, and one had a disproportionate (in today's terms) effect on others.</p><p>That's the natural result of unregulated markets: a great creator of wealth was legislated out of existence when better controls would have allowed society to benefit for a long time had they been properly understood at the time. But that's another topic.</p><p>You are fundamentally correct and it's an insightful comment. It's my belief that whatever bad inputs in the model, regardless of the avarice and greed of the players, existed because no-one had good data to put in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... as I understand it , the core of the problem was simple greed : money-hungry mortgage and securities dealers deliberately feeding bad data into the system .
... So-called quants may be decidedly imperfect , but if someone 's willing to game the system to make a buck , nothing the quant does can stop it .
... " Good point , but I think you may be attributing too much of what happened in '07 ( in the US ) /08 ( everywhere ) to bad intentions , not that they do n't exist .
All my research about the mortgage crisis essentially boils down to there was a motive to sell to poor borrowers because most of the " good " borrowers already had their mortgages during the earlier part of the 21st century , if not before .
You ca n't sell more homes than people need , at least to the financially prudent .
So , there was incentive to sell bad mortgages to bad borrowers , because they could be packaged and re-sold as a form of derivative , eliminating the risk to the original mortgage lender from default.Those derivatives were packaged in a way that the true nature of the underlying mortgages was obscured or totally hidden .
Of course , like the insurance industry where every player buys some of every other player 's risk while selling some of it 's own , because each company is more solvent that way , some of these same lenders were buying other 's derivatives , which were just as shaky , but somehow they managed to deceive themselves into thinking they were actually made up of sound mortgages.There 's the massive self-deception based on greed you may be alluding to , but I do n't think it follows that everyone in the bank knew that there was any self-deception going on ( ie those whose job it was to run the models ) .
Certainly they were on the books as good , sound mortgage-backed paper ; certainly the shareholders may have believed the deception ; certainly there was a house of cards being built.But , I do n't think those who collect and feed the data were that much in the loop ( to be as deliberate as you suggest ) ; the problem being no-one , and I mean no-one , knew the scope or the actual value of these derivatives .
Nobody , not banks , not the Fed , not Economists , could know the true nature of this wildcat , unregulated mortgage-backed security market ( and thus this input ) .
I believe that at the peak , the value of these derivatives exceeded one year 's GNP of the US ; in other words a huge unregulated market indeed.The data had to be guessed at using " the best information available at the time " which is a fairly fundamental method of business transactions ; you do n't wait forever for perfect data because opportunity is lost if you do.Ideally such a huge , unregulated market is reined in by regulators who do know that anything in the financial sector that is too big is going to run the risk of taking down markets , banks , investors , and economies .
Greenspan has said out loud that he had too much faith in the banking and security industry and let it go too big for too long .
Hindsight is 20 : 20 , but a " Wild West " mentality in every aspect of a market is not necessarily best ... the very first corporations about 600 years ago eventually caused so much havoc that for a few hundred years the whole concept was made illegal .
That was a result of too few corporations , but the essence of a huge unregulated market is found there , because the few that did exist were the market , and one had a disproportionate ( in today 's terms ) effect on others.That 's the natural result of unregulated markets : a great creator of wealth was legislated out of existence when better controls would have allowed society to benefit for a long time had they been properly understood at the time .
But that 's another topic.You are fundamentally correct and it 's an insightful comment .
It 's my belief that whatever bad inputs in the model , regardless of the avarice and greed of the players , existed because no-one had good data to put in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" ... as I understand it, the core of the problem was simple greed: money-hungry mortgage and securities dealers deliberately feeding bad data into the system.
... So-called quants may be decidedly imperfect, but if someone's willing to game the system to make a buck, nothing the quant does can stop it.
..."Good point, but I think you may be attributing too much of what happened in '07 (in the US) /08 (everywhere) to bad intentions, not that they don't exist.
All my research about the mortgage crisis essentially boils down to there was a motive to sell to poor borrowers because most of the "good" borrowers already had their mortgages during the earlier part of the 21st century, if not before.
You can't sell more homes than people need, at least to the financially prudent.
So, there was incentive to sell bad mortgages to bad borrowers, because they could be packaged and re-sold as a form of derivative, eliminating the risk to the original mortgage lender from default.Those derivatives were packaged in a way that the true nature of the underlying mortgages was obscured or totally hidden.
Of course, like the insurance industry where every player buys some of every other player's risk while selling some of it's own, because each company is more solvent that way, some of these same lenders were buying other's derivatives, which were just as shaky, but somehow they managed to deceive themselves into thinking they were actually made up of sound mortgages.There's the massive self-deception based on greed you may be alluding to, but I don't think it follows that everyone in the bank knew that there was any self-deception going on (ie those whose job it was to run the models).
Certainly they were on the books as good, sound mortgage-backed paper; certainly the shareholders may have believed the deception; certainly there was a house of cards being built.But, I don't think those who collect and feed the data were that much in the loop (to be as deliberate as you suggest); the problem being no-one, and I mean no-one, knew the scope or the actual value of these derivatives.
Nobody, not banks, not the Fed, not Economists, could know the true nature of this wildcat, unregulated mortgage-backed security market (and thus this input).
I believe that at the peak, the value of these derivatives exceeded one year's GNP of the US; in other words a huge unregulated market indeed.The data had to be guessed at using "the best information available at the time" which is a fairly fundamental method of business transactions; you don't wait forever for perfect data because opportunity is lost if you do.Ideally such a huge, unregulated market is reined in by regulators who do know that anything in the financial sector that is too big is going to run the risk of taking down markets, banks, investors, and economies.
Greenspan has said out loud that he had too much faith in the banking and security industry and let it go too big for too long.
Hindsight is 20:20, but a "Wild West" mentality in every aspect of a market is not necessarily best ... the very first corporations about 600 years ago eventually caused so much havoc that for a few hundred years the whole concept was made illegal.
That was a result of too few corporations, but the essence of a huge unregulated market is found there, because the few that did exist were the market, and one had a disproportionate (in today's terms) effect on others.That's the natural result of unregulated markets: a great creator of wealth was legislated out of existence when better controls would have allowed society to benefit for a long time had they been properly understood at the time.
But that's another topic.You are fundamentally correct and it's an insightful comment.
It's my belief that whatever bad inputs in the model, regardless of the avarice and greed of the players, existed because no-one had good data to put in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157875</id>
	<title>Good to see "two sides" to the story</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good article showing there is a good side to quantitative finance (in addition to the now obvious bad side).  My take on this topic is here: http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2009/03/it-is-not-all-the-quants-fault/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good article showing there is a good side to quantitative finance ( in addition to the now obvious bad side ) .
My take on this topic is here : http : //www.win-vector.com/blog/2009/03/it-is-not-all-the-quants-fault/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good article showing there is a good side to quantitative finance (in addition to the now obvious bad side).
My take on this topic is here: http://www.win-vector.com/blog/2009/03/it-is-not-all-the-quants-fault/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158769</id>
	<title>Just Change the Laws</title>
	<author>schrodingers\_rabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1243789500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>F=m$? I'd like to see that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>F = m $ ?
I 'd like to see that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>F=m$?
I'd like to see that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159865</id>
	<title>Re:The One True Law of Finance</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1243797840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You don't understand what a quant *is*.  A quant is an employee.  He doesn't make the decisions about policy.  He tries to guess what's going to happen.  His guesses are based on quantitative models, hence the term quant.</p><p>The quant probably cares deeply about robust models and statistical significance.  This doesn't mean that his manager does, or even understands what the terms mean.  The quant is, after all, basically a statistician.  (He's not the salesman.  That character has some different title.)</p><p>The quant probably isn't any more greedy than you are.  Of COURSE he prefers a higher paying job.  He's not a fool.  But that's not his drive.  OTOH, he's not in charge, either.  And he's almost certainly not trying to sell anyone anything...well, no more than a programmer is.  And he's probably no better at it than a programmer, either.</p><p>If you want to say "...The financial industry is completely amoral.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." are you including the janitors?  The secretaries?  If not, then why are you including the quants?  (If so, then you're just being ridiculous.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do n't understand what a quant * is * .
A quant is an employee .
He does n't make the decisions about policy .
He tries to guess what 's going to happen .
His guesses are based on quantitative models , hence the term quant.The quant probably cares deeply about robust models and statistical significance .
This does n't mean that his manager does , or even understands what the terms mean .
The quant is , after all , basically a statistician .
( He 's not the salesman .
That character has some different title .
) The quant probably is n't any more greedy than you are .
Of COURSE he prefers a higher paying job .
He 's not a fool .
But that 's not his drive .
OTOH , he 's not in charge , either .
And he 's almost certainly not trying to sell anyone anything...well , no more than a programmer is .
And he 's probably no better at it than a programmer , either.If you want to say " ...The financial industry is completely amoral .
... " are you including the janitors ?
The secretaries ?
If not , then why are you including the quants ?
( If so , then you 're just being ridiculous .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You don't understand what a quant *is*.
A quant is an employee.
He doesn't make the decisions about policy.
He tries to guess what's going to happen.
His guesses are based on quantitative models, hence the term quant.The quant probably cares deeply about robust models and statistical significance.
This doesn't mean that his manager does, or even understands what the terms mean.
The quant is, after all, basically a statistician.
(He's not the salesman.
That character has some different title.
)The quant probably isn't any more greedy than you are.
Of COURSE he prefers a higher paying job.
He's not a fool.
But that's not his drive.
OTOH, he's not in charge, either.
And he's almost certainly not trying to sell anyone anything...well, no more than a programmer is.
And he's probably no better at it than a programmer, either.If you want to say "...The financial industry is completely amoral.
..." are you including the janitors?
The secretaries?
If not, then why are you including the quants?
(If so, then you're just being ridiculous.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477</id>
	<title>how about reforming pay?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243777080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty? This is just a guess, but it would seem increased pay attracts people who want to make more money, not those that are genuinely interested in solving the problems in a field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others ( engineers and scientists ) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty ?
This is just a guess , but it would seem increased pay attracts people who want to make more money , not those that are genuinely interested in solving the problems in a field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about bringing their pay down in line with the pay of others (engineers and scientists) that do analysis of a similar level of difficulty?
This is just a guess, but it would seem increased pay attracts people who want to make more money, not those that are genuinely interested in solving the problems in a field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157819</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cash<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. that's a financial product</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cash .. that 's a financial product</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cash .. that's a financial product</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158395</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1243786500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, someone creates a financial instrument, say one which which gathers risk together and resells it - meaning the risk is no longer standing alone in disparate locations, and someone else thinks the purchase of that risk is a profitable endeavor, meaning the risk has been reduced for one party and assumed by another party<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and here's the kicker<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it's all voluntarily done<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and yet you see no benefit to the economy by someone willing to assume another's risk.  In your world, I guess a farmer, who may have little else, would need to bet the farm every time he planted a crop, because no one else, say someone with the financial means to do so, would be allowed to purchase some portion of his risk - and you believe that would be a benefit to the economy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , someone creates a financial instrument , say one which which gathers risk together and resells it - meaning the risk is no longer standing alone in disparate locations , and someone else thinks the purchase of that risk is a profitable endeavor , meaning the risk has been reduced for one party and assumed by another party ... and here 's the kicker ... it 's all voluntarily done ... and yet you see no benefit to the economy by someone willing to assume another 's risk .
In your world , I guess a farmer , who may have little else , would need to bet the farm every time he planted a crop , because no one else , say someone with the financial means to do so , would be allowed to purchase some portion of his risk - and you believe that would be a benefit to the economy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, someone creates a financial instrument, say one which which gathers risk together and resells it - meaning the risk is no longer standing alone in disparate locations, and someone else thinks the purchase of that risk is a profitable endeavor, meaning the risk has been reduced for one party and assumed by another party ... and here's the kicker ... it's all voluntarily done ... and yet you see no benefit to the economy by someone willing to assume another's risk.
In your world, I guess a farmer, who may have little else, would need to bet the farm every time he planted a crop, because no one else, say someone with the financial means to do so, would be allowed to purchase some portion of his risk - and you believe that would be a benefit to the economy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158099</id>
	<title>We did test the results...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243783620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It just cost us tens trillion dollars to figure out that 30 years of free trading investment oriented capitalism wrecks your manufacturing base, leaves your country hopelessly in debt, and all these so-called free enterprise guys bitching about the UAW making 40k a year are actually not so free enterprise after all, when it comes to bailing them out, or protecting their businesses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It just cost us tens trillion dollars to figure out that 30 years of free trading investment oriented capitalism wrecks your manufacturing base , leaves your country hopelessly in debt , and all these so-called free enterprise guys bitching about the UAW making 40k a year are actually not so free enterprise after all , when it comes to bailing them out , or protecting their businesses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It just cost us tens trillion dollars to figure out that 30 years of free trading investment oriented capitalism wrecks your manufacturing base, leaves your country hopelessly in debt, and all these so-called free enterprise guys bitching about the UAW making 40k a year are actually not so free enterprise after all, when it comes to bailing them out, or protecting their businesses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197</id>
	<title>Picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why the quants ignore Black Swan events is that they are not financially impacted by them to any real extent. They make their living from making small amounts of money using lots and lots of leverage. But I prefer Buffett's metaphor for this sort of practice: picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer.</p><p>As long as "quants" can pick up "nickels" in front of a bulldozer for a few years, they can retire and never have to work again, even if their parent companies (and the companies they borrow from) go bankrupt. Those "nickels" are many millions, their percentage of those "nickels" are still high enough to retire on. Of course, they risk billions in the process.</p><p>I suspect the only way to really curb the practice would be to either limit amounts of leverage or cause complete bankruptcy/imprisonment/physical harm somehow to those responsible when the bulldozer (the black swan) eventually comes along. Of course, these laws can't really be applied to those responsible for the GFC. Laws can and probably will be created, and then after a few generations those laws will be repealed as the creation of a few old fuddy duddies who didn't understand whatever "new economy" comes along, and the cycle will repeat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why the quants ignore Black Swan events is that they are not financially impacted by them to any real extent .
They make their living from making small amounts of money using lots and lots of leverage .
But I prefer Buffett 's metaphor for this sort of practice : picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer.As long as " quants " can pick up " nickels " in front of a bulldozer for a few years , they can retire and never have to work again , even if their parent companies ( and the companies they borrow from ) go bankrupt .
Those " nickels " are many millions , their percentage of those " nickels " are still high enough to retire on .
Of course , they risk billions in the process.I suspect the only way to really curb the practice would be to either limit amounts of leverage or cause complete bankruptcy/imprisonment/physical harm somehow to those responsible when the bulldozer ( the black swan ) eventually comes along .
Of course , these laws ca n't really be applied to those responsible for the GFC .
Laws can and probably will be created , and then after a few generations those laws will be repealed as the creation of a few old fuddy duddies who did n't understand whatever " new economy " comes along , and the cycle will repeat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why the quants ignore Black Swan events is that they are not financially impacted by them to any real extent.
They make their living from making small amounts of money using lots and lots of leverage.
But I prefer Buffett's metaphor for this sort of practice: picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer.As long as "quants" can pick up "nickels" in front of a bulldozer for a few years, they can retire and never have to work again, even if their parent companies (and the companies they borrow from) go bankrupt.
Those "nickels" are many millions, their percentage of those "nickels" are still high enough to retire on.
Of course, they risk billions in the process.I suspect the only way to really curb the practice would be to either limit amounts of leverage or cause complete bankruptcy/imprisonment/physical harm somehow to those responsible when the bulldozer (the black swan) eventually comes along.
Of course, these laws can't really be applied to those responsible for the GFC.
Laws can and probably will be created, and then after a few generations those laws will be repealed as the creation of a few old fuddy duddies who didn't understand whatever "new economy" comes along, and the cycle will repeat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157743</id>
	<title>The One True Law of Finance</title>
	<author>dplentini</author>
	<datestamp>1243780440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice idea, but Wilmot seems to have forgotten the most basic law of finance---nothing matters so long as you're making lots of money.  Does he really think that  the Quants on Wall Street and in London care about robust models and statistical significance?  No!  We're talking about used car salespersons in $5,000.00 suits.  The financial industry is completely amoral.  The only law is the law of the jungle.

You can't confuse greed with a lack of quality control.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice idea , but Wilmot seems to have forgotten the most basic law of finance---nothing matters so long as you 're making lots of money .
Does he really think that the Quants on Wall Street and in London care about robust models and statistical significance ?
No ! We 're talking about used car salespersons in $ 5,000.00 suits .
The financial industry is completely amoral .
The only law is the law of the jungle .
You ca n't confuse greed with a lack of quality control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice idea, but Wilmot seems to have forgotten the most basic law of finance---nothing matters so long as you're making lots of money.
Does he really think that  the Quants on Wall Street and in London care about robust models and statistical significance?
No!  We're talking about used car salespersons in $5,000.00 suits.
The financial industry is completely amoral.
The only law is the law of the jungle.
You can't confuse greed with a lack of quality control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158361</id>
	<title>Re:How about...</title>
	<author>stephanruby</author>
	<datestamp>1243786140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From 2001 to 2005 he ran a $170 million hedge fund that returned an average of 15 percent a year.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Nice <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/200015" title="newsweek.com">job</a> [newsweek.com] Newsweek (someone take a screenshot before the article gets pulled/corrected).


His hedge fund didn't even exist in <a href="http://www.caissacapitalltd.com/people.html" title="caissacapitalltd.com">2001</a> [caissacapitalltd.com]. And it's not a $170 million fund, it's roughly a 170 million <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/may/01/paul-wilmott-interview" title="guardian.co.uk">British Pounds</a> [guardian.co.uk] fund.
I would add more, but his hedge fund was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange in January 2005 right after this <a href="http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry\_sectors/banking\_and\_finance/article400793.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">fiasco</a> [timesonline.co.uk] (and it's funny, except for one cryptic <a href="http://www.caissacapitalltd.com/news.html" title="caissacapitalltd.com">note</a> [caissacapitalltd.com] about taking counsel in their official news section, one wouldn't know that the fund got liquidated and delisted four years ago for its shenanigans).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From 2001 to 2005 he ran a $ 170 million hedge fund that returned an average of 15 percent a year .
Nice job [ newsweek.com ] Newsweek ( someone take a screenshot before the article gets pulled/corrected ) .
His hedge fund did n't even exist in 2001 [ caissacapitalltd.com ] .
And it 's not a $ 170 million fund , it 's roughly a 170 million British Pounds [ guardian.co.uk ] fund .
I would add more , but his hedge fund was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange in January 2005 right after this fiasco [ timesonline.co.uk ] ( and it 's funny , except for one cryptic note [ caissacapitalltd.com ] about taking counsel in their official news section , one would n't know that the fund got liquidated and delisted four years ago for its shenanigans ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From 2001 to 2005 he ran a $170 million hedge fund that returned an average of 15 percent a year.
Nice job [newsweek.com] Newsweek (someone take a screenshot before the article gets pulled/corrected).
His hedge fund didn't even exist in 2001 [caissacapitalltd.com].
And it's not a $170 million fund, it's roughly a 170 million British Pounds [guardian.co.uk] fund.
I would add more, but his hedge fund was delisted from the New York Stock Exchange and the London Stock Exchange in January 2005 right after this fiasco [timesonline.co.uk] (and it's funny, except for one cryptic note [caissacapitalltd.com] about taking counsel in their official news section, one wouldn't know that the fund got liquidated and delisted four years ago for its shenanigans).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159387</id>
	<title>Re:The elephant in the room</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1243794360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.</p></div><p>Fine so far.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Equations, and new software isn't going to change that. What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest. It's really that simple, and also, unfortunately, that difficult.</p></div><p>So what are we supposed to do in the meantime? My view is that this is just more snake oil. The whole point of markets is to reduce the problems from dishonesty and lack of morals. M view is that the problem is already solved. The phrase is "trust but verify". Auditing, accounting, etc serve the role of making sure people who handle our investments do what we want with them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.Fine so far.Equations , and new software is n't going to change that .
What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest .
It 's really that simple , and also , unfortunately , that difficult.So what are we supposed to do in the meantime ?
My view is that this is just more snake oil .
The whole point of markets is to reduce the problems from dishonesty and lack of morals .
M view is that the problem is already solved .
The phrase is " trust but verify " .
Auditing , accounting , etc serve the role of making sure people who handle our investments do what we want with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.Fine so far.Equations, and new software isn't going to change that.
What you need to do is ensure that the people operating systems and processes are ethical and honest.
It's really that simple, and also, unfortunately, that difficult.So what are we supposed to do in the meantime?
My view is that this is just more snake oil.
The whole point of markets is to reduce the problems from dishonesty and lack of morals.
M view is that the problem is already solved.
The phrase is "trust but verify".
Auditing, accounting, etc serve the role of making sure people who handle our investments do what we want with them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28161681</id>
	<title>silly</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243768920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I make millions every year in the market.  I don't do anything more complex than watch charts, read some news letters from technical analysists, and read blogs from people who use common sense, emotional control and the balls to go against the grain.</p><p>All these formulas are for pussies.  Stick to your spread sheets and leave the money making to real men.</p><p>Or don't.  Cause the more of you there are, the more money I'll make.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I make millions every year in the market .
I do n't do anything more complex than watch charts , read some news letters from technical analysists , and read blogs from people who use common sense , emotional control and the balls to go against the grain.All these formulas are for pussies .
Stick to your spread sheets and leave the money making to real men.Or do n't .
Cause the more of you there are , the more money I 'll make .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I make millions every year in the market.
I don't do anything more complex than watch charts, read some news letters from technical analysists, and read blogs from people who use common sense, emotional control and the balls to go against the grain.All these formulas are for pussies.
Stick to your spread sheets and leave the money making to real men.Or don't.
Cause the more of you there are, the more money I'll make.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158629</id>
	<title>How about this:</title>
	<author>WheelDweller</author>
	<datestamp>1243788300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's get the federal government out of Wall Street and see how much better it runs? If there was an all-consuming, incompetent master of complexity, it'd be the federal government.</p><p>- It causes college tuitions to go up, backing college loans.  Each year the deans just ask for a little more.</p><p>- It crashes hospitals because the poor show up needing a cardiologist, and Medicare pays $38 or so for his (more expensive) care.</p><p>- It crashed the automobile industry with it's myriad laws, smog, mileage, and other restrictions, making new cars even more expensive. Last August Toyota and GM sold about the same number of cars. Toyota PROFITED by $8b, GM LOST $27B.</p><p>- It crashes the mortgage industry (taking many banks with them) by the Community Reinvestment Act that says if a dark-skinned person askes for a loan, even if he's homeless, he MUST be given a loan. No need to be negro- I think any arguable ethnic group will do: the Fed is racist.  If they don't get the loan, all they have to do is complain, and the Fed shuts them down.</p><p>- Now that Obama has spent in three months what took Bush 8 YEARS with TWO WARS, and not one penny of the money was aimed at improving the economy, everyone's 401k is crushed as well.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; And the congress and/or the president will appear, claiming to not be a part of the crushing, citing "Capitalism has been tried: we must now be socialist to save the day (with trillions more, imaginary money)".</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; We're done, guys.  Sell off your posessions and wait for the depression.  There's nothing we can do; most people don't know it's here, yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's get the federal government out of Wall Street and see how much better it runs ?
If there was an all-consuming , incompetent master of complexity , it 'd be the federal government.- It causes college tuitions to go up , backing college loans .
Each year the deans just ask for a little more.- It crashes hospitals because the poor show up needing a cardiologist , and Medicare pays $ 38 or so for his ( more expensive ) care.- It crashed the automobile industry with it 's myriad laws , smog , mileage , and other restrictions , making new cars even more expensive .
Last August Toyota and GM sold about the same number of cars .
Toyota PROFITED by $ 8b , GM LOST $ 27B.- It crashes the mortgage industry ( taking many banks with them ) by the Community Reinvestment Act that says if a dark-skinned person askes for a loan , even if he 's homeless , he MUST be given a loan .
No need to be negro- I think any arguable ethnic group will do : the Fed is racist .
If they do n't get the loan , all they have to do is complain , and the Fed shuts them down.- Now that Obama has spent in three months what took Bush 8 YEARS with TWO WARS , and not one penny of the money was aimed at improving the economy , everyone 's 401k is crushed as well .
        And the congress and/or the president will appear , claiming to not be a part of the crushing , citing " Capitalism has been tried : we must now be socialist to save the day ( with trillions more , imaginary money ) " .
        We 're done , guys .
Sell off your posessions and wait for the depression .
There 's nothing we can do ; most people do n't know it 's here , yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's get the federal government out of Wall Street and see how much better it runs?
If there was an all-consuming, incompetent master of complexity, it'd be the federal government.- It causes college tuitions to go up, backing college loans.
Each year the deans just ask for a little more.- It crashes hospitals because the poor show up needing a cardiologist, and Medicare pays $38 or so for his (more expensive) care.- It crashed the automobile industry with it's myriad laws, smog, mileage, and other restrictions, making new cars even more expensive.
Last August Toyota and GM sold about the same number of cars.
Toyota PROFITED by $8b, GM LOST $27B.- It crashes the mortgage industry (taking many banks with them) by the Community Reinvestment Act that says if a dark-skinned person askes for a loan, even if he's homeless, he MUST be given a loan.
No need to be negro- I think any arguable ethnic group will do: the Fed is racist.
If they don't get the loan, all they have to do is complain, and the Fed shuts them down.- Now that Obama has spent in three months what took Bush 8 YEARS with TWO WARS, and not one penny of the money was aimed at improving the economy, everyone's 401k is crushed as well.
        And the congress and/or the president will appear, claiming to not be a part of the crushing, citing "Capitalism has been tried: we must now be socialist to save the day (with trillions more, imaginary money)".
        We're done, guys.
Sell off your posessions and wait for the depression.
There's nothing we can do; most people don't know it's here, yet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157723</id>
	<title>Re:Hang on...</title>
	<author>smallfries</author>
	<datestamp>1243780140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a correction, can you really have missed all of media noise around the <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/17-03/wp\_quant?currentPage=all" title="wired.com">equation that brought down Wall Street</a> [wired.com]? That's a pretty big example of a broken model that directly led to a lot of the current chaos, rather than people feeding garbage into a good model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a correction , can you really have missed all of media noise around the equation that brought down Wall Street [ wired.com ] ?
That 's a pretty big example of a broken model that directly led to a lot of the current chaos , rather than people feeding garbage into a good model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a correction, can you really have missed all of media noise around the equation that brought down Wall Street [wired.com]?
That's a pretty big example of a broken model that directly led to a lot of the current chaos, rather than people feeding garbage into a good model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158323</id>
	<title>Doh!</title>
	<author>elgol</author>
	<datestamp>1243785840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As an engineer with a healthy skepticism of models even on things that are relatively well understood, all I have to say is "No shit, Sherlock!"

<p>

John</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an engineer with a healthy skepticism of models even on things that are relatively well understood , all I have to say is " No shit , Sherlock !
" John</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an engineer with a healthy skepticism of models even on things that are relatively well understood, all I have to say is "No shit, Sherlock!
"



John</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158427</id>
	<title>Re:how about reforming pay?</title>
	<author>thrillseeker</author>
	<datestamp>1243786740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Dude - they get paid exactly what they are able to demand to be paid.  If "other engineers" are just as competent, then they are free in the US (at least for the moment, but for how long would make a good bet) to pursue their own definition of success.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude - they get paid exactly what they are able to demand to be paid .
If " other engineers " are just as competent , then they are free in the US ( at least for the moment , but for how long would make a good bet ) to pursue their own definition of success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude - they get paid exactly what they are able to demand to be paid.
If "other engineers" are just as competent, then they are free in the US (at least for the moment, but for how long would make a good bet) to pursue their own definition of success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158849</id>
	<title>It's not whether you have the right model</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1243790100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's if having a model is right. There's no reason to assume that prior market data contains information that can accurately predict the market in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's if having a model is right .
There 's no reason to assume that prior market data contains information that can accurately predict the market in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's if having a model is right.
There's no reason to assume that prior market data contains information that can accurately predict the market in the future.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164755</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with economics is</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1243796700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I concur.
<ul>
<li>Stock markets != Economy</li><li>Mutual Funds = Casino Players</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I concur .
Stock markets ! = EconomyMutual Funds = Casino Players</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I concur.
Stock markets != EconomyMutual Funds = Casino Players</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159031</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>hoytak</author>
	<datestamp>1243791540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>...you always reach a point where there's this one number that is completely made up...</p></div><p>This is true, but your proposed methods do not eliminate this.  Yes, a sensitivity analysis can help.  But the only advantage of prior distributions over parameters is that they encourage one to put all their assumptions on the table, whereas frequentist statistical methods (fixing parameters) tend to hide things.  Other than that, you will always be subject to your modeling assumptions.  <br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>***Try a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo techniques. That sounds hard but it isn't.</p></div><p>Yes, it's easy to just "do"; doing it correctly in a way that never gives you false information or gives you accurate confidence bounds can be extremely difficult.  Not that it doesn't work a lot of the time, but there are dozens of gotchas that can cause the answer to be complete rubbish and no one would know without a lot of very careful math and analysis.  Yes, it can be better than other methods, but only if used properly. <br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Take the parameter that you have doubts about and give it a distribution (Gaussian or rectangular or something) with the mean at your best guess and the std deviation chosen to be big enough to cover the range it might reasonably vary over.</p></div><p>Um, yes, and those parameters have a big influence on your results...  For example, if you center your prior on the parameter you think it is, it is generally NOT true that the mean you get out will be even close to the value when just plugging in that parameter.   Most real data in industry and finance is not subject to the natural processes that seem to turn most things Gaussian. <br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>***Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but aren't exactly sure, rectangular if you really have no idea. A rectangular distribution says "I have no idea, the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range."</p></div><p>HaHAHAHA.  Can I quote that next time I teach?  A bounded uniform prior, when done with Monte Carlo, often denotes MUCH stronger assumptions than does a Gaussian or t-distribution.  It is basically say, "there is no chance whatsoever the parameter can be out of this range."  So, you say, make your rectangle large enough.  Well, that only works for undergrad stats courses, not in most of the models I've worked with or dealt with.  It also breaks down phenomenally fast in higher dimensions.  It may work as a hack, but I would NEVER trust such results unless there is good reason to use a bounded uniform.  <br>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>****Monte Carlo is great for those of us who don't care to learn the arcane minutiae of stat math. If you have a working model it takes an hour or two to extend it so you get stochastic results. Note that it's no harder to give a distribution to all your input parameters not just one. In which case you will be doing the kind of work that people who make 500 grand a year do.</p></div><p>If you don't go through the math and simply treat it as a black box, you WILL MESS monte carlo up and give false results.  We need more people in that sector who really know statistics, which means mastering statistical math (and I'm curious why you think it's arcane), not just think they do and plow blindly through minefields of gotchas you never learn in undergrad stats courses. Yes, MC is a great tool; it may be a step up, but I would never trust it without having good theoretical justification that it works.  On the models in the financial industry, this is much more difficult than you might think.  </p><p>See sig!!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...you always reach a point where there 's this one number that is completely made up...This is true , but your proposed methods do not eliminate this .
Yes , a sensitivity analysis can help .
But the only advantage of prior distributions over parameters is that they encourage one to put all their assumptions on the table , whereas frequentist statistical methods ( fixing parameters ) tend to hide things .
Other than that , you will always be subject to your modeling assumptions .
  * * * Try a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo techniques .
That sounds hard but it is n't.Yes , it 's easy to just " do " ; doing it correctly in a way that never gives you false information or gives you accurate confidence bounds can be extremely difficult .
Not that it does n't work a lot of the time , but there are dozens of gotchas that can cause the answer to be complete rubbish and no one would know without a lot of very careful math and analysis .
Yes , it can be better than other methods , but only if used properly .
  Take the parameter that you have doubts about and give it a distribution ( Gaussian or rectangular or something ) with the mean at your best guess and the std deviation chosen to be big enough to cover the range it might reasonably vary over.Um , yes , and those parameters have a big influence on your results... For example , if you center your prior on the parameter you think it is , it is generally NOT true that the mean you get out will be even close to the value when just plugging in that parameter .
Most real data in industry and finance is not subject to the natural processes that seem to turn most things Gaussian .
  * * * Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but are n't exactly sure , rectangular if you really have no idea .
A rectangular distribution says " I have no idea , the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range. " HaHAHAHA .
Can I quote that next time I teach ?
A bounded uniform prior , when done with Monte Carlo , often denotes MUCH stronger assumptions than does a Gaussian or t-distribution .
It is basically say , " there is no chance whatsoever the parameter can be out of this range .
" So , you say , make your rectangle large enough .
Well , that only works for undergrad stats courses , not in most of the models I 've worked with or dealt with .
It also breaks down phenomenally fast in higher dimensions .
It may work as a hack , but I would NEVER trust such results unless there is good reason to use a bounded uniform .
  * * * * Monte Carlo is great for those of us who do n't care to learn the arcane minutiae of stat math .
If you have a working model it takes an hour or two to extend it so you get stochastic results .
Note that it 's no harder to give a distribution to all your input parameters not just one .
In which case you will be doing the kind of work that people who make 500 grand a year do.If you do n't go through the math and simply treat it as a black box , you WILL MESS monte carlo up and give false results .
We need more people in that sector who really know statistics , which means mastering statistical math ( and I 'm curious why you think it 's arcane ) , not just think they do and plow blindly through minefields of gotchas you never learn in undergrad stats courses .
Yes , MC is a great tool ; it may be a step up , but I would never trust it without having good theoretical justification that it works .
On the models in the financial industry , this is much more difficult than you might think .
See sig ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you always reach a point where there's this one number that is completely made up...This is true, but your proposed methods do not eliminate this.
Yes, a sensitivity analysis can help.
But the only advantage of prior distributions over parameters is that they encourage one to put all their assumptions on the table, whereas frequentist statistical methods (fixing parameters) tend to hide things.
Other than that, you will always be subject to your modeling assumptions.
  ***Try a sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo techniques.
That sounds hard but it isn't.Yes, it's easy to just "do"; doing it correctly in a way that never gives you false information or gives you accurate confidence bounds can be extremely difficult.
Not that it doesn't work a lot of the time, but there are dozens of gotchas that can cause the answer to be complete rubbish and no one would know without a lot of very careful math and analysis.
Yes, it can be better than other methods, but only if used properly.
  Take the parameter that you have doubts about and give it a distribution (Gaussian or rectangular or something) with the mean at your best guess and the std deviation chosen to be big enough to cover the range it might reasonably vary over.Um, yes, and those parameters have a big influence on your results...  For example, if you center your prior on the parameter you think it is, it is generally NOT true that the mean you get out will be even close to the value when just plugging in that parameter.
Most real data in industry and finance is not subject to the natural processes that seem to turn most things Gaussian.
  ***Use Gaussian if you have an idea of what the parameter probably is but aren't exactly sure, rectangular if you really have no idea.
A rectangular distribution says "I have no idea, the parameter could be anywhere within this particular range."HaHAHAHA.
Can I quote that next time I teach?
A bounded uniform prior, when done with Monte Carlo, often denotes MUCH stronger assumptions than does a Gaussian or t-distribution.
It is basically say, "there is no chance whatsoever the parameter can be out of this range.
"  So, you say, make your rectangle large enough.
Well, that only works for undergrad stats courses, not in most of the models I've worked with or dealt with.
It also breaks down phenomenally fast in higher dimensions.
It may work as a hack, but I would NEVER trust such results unless there is good reason to use a bounded uniform.
  ****Monte Carlo is great for those of us who don't care to learn the arcane minutiae of stat math.
If you have a working model it takes an hour or two to extend it so you get stochastic results.
Note that it's no harder to give a distribution to all your input parameters not just one.
In which case you will be doing the kind of work that people who make 500 grand a year do.If you don't go through the math and simply treat it as a black box, you WILL MESS monte carlo up and give false results.
We need more people in that sector who really know statistics, which means mastering statistical math (and I'm curious why you think it's arcane), not just think they do and plow blindly through minefields of gotchas you never learn in undergrad stats courses.
Yes, MC is a great tool; it may be a step up, but I would never trust it without having good theoretical justification that it works.
On the models in the financial industry, this is much more difficult than you might think.
See sig!!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164231</id>
	<title>Re:You can't blame it all on the qunats.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243790940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Name a single quant who had authorization to commit a really substantial amount to a trade or deal during this latest fiasco. I spent 10+ years on Wall Street and never met a single one. That authority, and those decisions, are reserved for traders and structurers and higher management (mostly MBAs and lawyers). Quants are paid help who provide an enabling technology. When it serves the interest of the decision makers to listen to quants, they do. When it doesn&#226;(TM)t, they don&#226;(TM)t. No matter what classes a quant takes that won&#226;(TM)t change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Name a single quant who had authorization to commit a really substantial amount to a trade or deal during this latest fiasco .
I spent 10 + years on Wall Street and never met a single one .
That authority , and those decisions , are reserved for traders and structurers and higher management ( mostly MBAs and lawyers ) .
Quants are paid help who provide an enabling technology .
When it serves the interest of the decision makers to listen to quants , they do .
When it doesn   ( TM ) t , they don   ( TM ) t. No matter what classes a quant takes that won   ( TM ) t change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Name a single quant who had authorization to commit a really substantial amount to a trade or deal during this latest fiasco.
I spent 10+ years on Wall Street and never met a single one.
That authority, and those decisions, are reserved for traders and structurers and higher management (mostly MBAs and lawyers).
Quants are paid help who provide an enabling technology.
When it serves the interest of the decision makers to listen to quants, they do.
When it doesnâ(TM)t, they donâ(TM)t. No matter what classes a quant takes that wonâ(TM)t change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799</id>
	<title>Theocracy of Quants</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243781100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wilmott suffers from the same thing that plagues all social scientists:  They can't run <i>controlled experiments</i> to extract <i>causation</i>, yet they influence public policy as though they could.
<p>
In another time, this would have been called what it is:  theocracy, rule by theory.
</p><p>
Oh sure, they can try to be inductive, but there is always that old "correlation doesn't imply causation" <i>gotcha</i> isn't there?
</p><p>
The real solution to this problem with the social sciences was <i>almost</i> addressed by the Protestant culture that founded the US -- the Laboratory of the States -- but the incorporation of the slave states in the 1700s, with the resulting Amendment from Hell, the 14th, in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when "social science" sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s.
</p><p>
"The Union" means <i>everyone</i> is a slave to the theocrats posing as theoreticians.
</p><p>
So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wilmott suffers from the same thing that plagues all social scientists : They ca n't run controlled experiments to extract causation , yet they influence public policy as though they could .
In another time , this would have been called what it is : theocracy , rule by theory .
Oh sure , they can try to be inductive , but there is always that old " correlation does n't imply causation " gotcha is n't there ?
The real solution to this problem with the social sciences was almost addressed by the Protestant culture that founded the US -- the Laboratory of the States -- but the incorporation of the slave states in the 1700s , with the resulting Amendment from Hell , the 14th , in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when " social science " sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s .
" The Union " means everyone is a slave to the theocrats posing as theoreticians .
So now we 're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of " public policy " of " liberal democracy " -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wilmott suffers from the same thing that plagues all social scientists:  They can't run controlled experiments to extract causation, yet they influence public policy as though they could.
In another time, this would have been called what it is:  theocracy, rule by theory.
Oh sure, they can try to be inductive, but there is always that old "correlation doesn't imply causation" gotcha isn't there?
The real solution to this problem with the social sciences was almost addressed by the Protestant culture that founded the US -- the Laboratory of the States -- but the incorporation of the slave states in the 1700s, with the resulting Amendment from Hell, the 14th, in the 1800s killed off that option entirely when "social science" sunk its fangs into the body politc in the 1900s.
"The Union" means everyone is a slave to the theocrats posing as theoreticians.
So now we're running uncontrolled experiments on nonconsenting human subjects in the guise of "public policy" of "liberal democracy" -- tyranny of the majority limited only by a vague laundry list of selectively enforced human rights.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158333</id>
	<title>Re:The elephant in the room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243785960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly! The situation in the economy, AIG, failing companies, the layoffs, outsourcing etc. is caused mostly if not entirely by corporate psychopaths which have a natural tendency to angle themselves into leadership position (they are very charismatic and manipulative) from which they can achieve the greatest benefit FOR THEMSELVES at the expense of others. Their total lack of "conscience" makes it so that any damage from their actions for them is unimportant. Even if it affects hundreds of millions of people. Even if the profit is tiny.</p><p>Check out <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721" title="amazon.com">Snakes in suits</a> [amazon.com]</p><p>In case you have not been suspecting something already, that is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
The situation in the economy , AIG , failing companies , the layoffs , outsourcing etc .
is caused mostly if not entirely by corporate psychopaths which have a natural tendency to angle themselves into leadership position ( they are very charismatic and manipulative ) from which they can achieve the greatest benefit FOR THEMSELVES at the expense of others .
Their total lack of " conscience " makes it so that any damage from their actions for them is unimportant .
Even if it affects hundreds of millions of people .
Even if the profit is tiny.Check out Snakes in suits [ amazon.com ] In case you have not been suspecting something already , that is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
The situation in the economy, AIG, failing companies, the layoffs, outsourcing etc.
is caused mostly if not entirely by corporate psychopaths which have a natural tendency to angle themselves into leadership position (they are very charismatic and manipulative) from which they can achieve the greatest benefit FOR THEMSELVES at the expense of others.
Their total lack of "conscience" makes it so that any damage from their actions for them is unimportant.
Even if it affects hundreds of millions of people.
Even if the profit is tiny.Check out Snakes in suits [amazon.com]In case you have not been suspecting something already, that is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157989</id>
	<title>It is misapplication of statistics, not just slopp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243782840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The intrinsic softness of social science is that their hypotheses tend to be used for explaining why, not for experimental testing.</p><p>The problem with the quants is different.  They use statistics to come up with codifiable procedures to generate "magic numbers" that are used to simplify valuation of financial instruments.  Statistically derived magic numbers should always come with some kind of "goodness" measure, such as a confidence interval, which tells you the liklihood that your magic number is being usefully descriptive or predictive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The intrinsic softness of social science is that their hypotheses tend to be used for explaining why , not for experimental testing.The problem with the quants is different .
They use statistics to come up with codifiable procedures to generate " magic numbers " that are used to simplify valuation of financial instruments .
Statistically derived magic numbers should always come with some kind of " goodness " measure , such as a confidence interval , which tells you the liklihood that your magic number is being usefully descriptive or predictive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The intrinsic softness of social science is that their hypotheses tend to be used for explaining why, not for experimental testing.The problem with the quants is different.
They use statistics to come up with codifiable procedures to generate "magic numbers" that are used to simplify valuation of financial instruments.
Statistically derived magic numbers should always come with some kind of "goodness" measure, such as a confidence interval, which tells you the liklihood that your magic number is being usefully descriptive or predictive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162777</id>
	<title>DEATH PENALTY</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243779060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you really want to make finance honest? If so, the penalties for gaming the system must be severe.</p><p>Since we have a federal death penalty in the US, the question is why do we not use it for large scale financial crime? I am certain that if someone commits a crime that wipes out a billion or more dollars, some person will die as a result. Suicide, homelessness, no medical care, emotional stress, heart attacks, stroke.  This can be proven using mortality statistics.</p><p>In fact, the death penalty is not a legal option for this kind of crime. I talked to someone about it, and they pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled that child rape does not warrant a death sentence,  so it would not be justified for financial crime. And I personalty am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances. There is far to great a chance that an innocent person will be killed since the system is imperfect.</p><p>I raise execution as an example to show how ineffective the current penalties are. So a major Wall Street player makes half or a third of a billion dollars and runs their business into the ground because they were cheating everyone, and suddenly the have a net worth of only $100 million. Do you think that they will end up sleeping in a cardboard box or have to stop taking vital medications or not be able to send their kids to college? If they are fined by the SEC, they don't have to pay the fine themselves, it is covered by insurance that their business paid for. It's like fines in sports, the team picks up the freight.</p><p>Actually, tax payers pick up the tab one way or another, because it all becomes a tax write off. The insurance against fines is a tax deduction. This is why it is so difficult to limit executive compensation. In current practice, a company buys a huge life insurance policy on the officers, with the company as the beneficiary.  They pay huge bonuses, and they know that when the execs die they will get a lot of that money back. And everyone else subsidies this, because it all is tax deduction for the company.</p><p>So fines are meaningless, and even financial ruin leaves the top bracket as multimillionaires. Should anyone be surprised that corrupt self serving practices are the norm? And lets face it, there is no meaningful criminal prosecution. Sure, they'll go after Madoff and Stanford, who are obvious crooks, but they will never file criminal charges against anyone who's company didn't go belly up. So they go after Mozilo from Countrywide Financial, and they might get him for giving favorable loans to congress members, or taking profit out of his company when he knew it was going down the tubes. He might get off. If he does get convicted, it will be because he didn't follow the rules that keep Wall Street crooks rich no matter how inept and corrupt they behave.</p><p>Insiders who follow the rules will never be criminally charged no matter what they do. No one at Solomon will be charged, or B. of A. or Citi Bank. No one at the rating agencies (Standard and Poore, Moodies, etc.) will have to pay for their mistakes. The ratings agencies were paid whores. They gave AAA ratings to virtually every piece of toxic sludge out there and they made a ton of money doing it, and as far as I know there are no criminal or civil SEC investigations going on at all. When ther CEOs appeared before Congress, they gave a set of meaningless apologies and pale excuses, and then talked about how they were going to improve their procedures so it wouldn't happen next time.  Why are these people still in charge and why are these companies still in business?  How come the FBI didn't seize their records and charge them with criminal conspiracy?  They are a massive case of pure fail, and they are getting away with it. Yes, there are class action lawsuits, but those will take 5 or 10 years and the only people who will get anything are the lawyers.</p><p>So there is no downside to business corruption unless you are a stupid crook. A person with mid level intelligence can steal a fortune and retire rich. Is it any surprise that we face financial ruin?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really want to make finance honest ?
If so , the penalties for gaming the system must be severe.Since we have a federal death penalty in the US , the question is why do we not use it for large scale financial crime ?
I am certain that if someone commits a crime that wipes out a billion or more dollars , some person will die as a result .
Suicide , homelessness , no medical care , emotional stress , heart attacks , stroke .
This can be proven using mortality statistics.In fact , the death penalty is not a legal option for this kind of crime .
I talked to someone about it , and they pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled that child rape does not warrant a death sentence , so it would not be justified for financial crime .
And I personalty am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances .
There is far to great a chance that an innocent person will be killed since the system is imperfect.I raise execution as an example to show how ineffective the current penalties are .
So a major Wall Street player makes half or a third of a billion dollars and runs their business into the ground because they were cheating everyone , and suddenly the have a net worth of only $ 100 million .
Do you think that they will end up sleeping in a cardboard box or have to stop taking vital medications or not be able to send their kids to college ?
If they are fined by the SEC , they do n't have to pay the fine themselves , it is covered by insurance that their business paid for .
It 's like fines in sports , the team picks up the freight.Actually , tax payers pick up the tab one way or another , because it all becomes a tax write off .
The insurance against fines is a tax deduction .
This is why it is so difficult to limit executive compensation .
In current practice , a company buys a huge life insurance policy on the officers , with the company as the beneficiary .
They pay huge bonuses , and they know that when the execs die they will get a lot of that money back .
And everyone else subsidies this , because it all is tax deduction for the company.So fines are meaningless , and even financial ruin leaves the top bracket as multimillionaires .
Should anyone be surprised that corrupt self serving practices are the norm ?
And lets face it , there is no meaningful criminal prosecution .
Sure , they 'll go after Madoff and Stanford , who are obvious crooks , but they will never file criminal charges against anyone who 's company did n't go belly up .
So they go after Mozilo from Countrywide Financial , and they might get him for giving favorable loans to congress members , or taking profit out of his company when he knew it was going down the tubes .
He might get off .
If he does get convicted , it will be because he did n't follow the rules that keep Wall Street crooks rich no matter how inept and corrupt they behave.Insiders who follow the rules will never be criminally charged no matter what they do .
No one at Solomon will be charged , or B. of A. or Citi Bank .
No one at the rating agencies ( Standard and Poore , Moodies , etc .
) will have to pay for their mistakes .
The ratings agencies were paid whores .
They gave AAA ratings to virtually every piece of toxic sludge out there and they made a ton of money doing it , and as far as I know there are no criminal or civil SEC investigations going on at all .
When ther CEOs appeared before Congress , they gave a set of meaningless apologies and pale excuses , and then talked about how they were going to improve their procedures so it would n't happen next time .
Why are these people still in charge and why are these companies still in business ?
How come the FBI did n't seize their records and charge them with criminal conspiracy ?
They are a massive case of pure fail , and they are getting away with it .
Yes , there are class action lawsuits , but those will take 5 or 10 years and the only people who will get anything are the lawyers.So there is no downside to business corruption unless you are a stupid crook .
A person with mid level intelligence can steal a fortune and retire rich .
Is it any surprise that we face financial ruin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really want to make finance honest?
If so, the penalties for gaming the system must be severe.Since we have a federal death penalty in the US, the question is why do we not use it for large scale financial crime?
I am certain that if someone commits a crime that wipes out a billion or more dollars, some person will die as a result.
Suicide, homelessness, no medical care, emotional stress, heart attacks, stroke.
This can be proven using mortality statistics.In fact, the death penalty is not a legal option for this kind of crime.
I talked to someone about it, and they pointed out that the Supreme Court ruled that child rape does not warrant a death sentence,  so it would not be justified for financial crime.
And I personalty am opposed to the death penalty under any circumstances.
There is far to great a chance that an innocent person will be killed since the system is imperfect.I raise execution as an example to show how ineffective the current penalties are.
So a major Wall Street player makes half or a third of a billion dollars and runs their business into the ground because they were cheating everyone, and suddenly the have a net worth of only $100 million.
Do you think that they will end up sleeping in a cardboard box or have to stop taking vital medications or not be able to send their kids to college?
If they are fined by the SEC, they don't have to pay the fine themselves, it is covered by insurance that their business paid for.
It's like fines in sports, the team picks up the freight.Actually, tax payers pick up the tab one way or another, because it all becomes a tax write off.
The insurance against fines is a tax deduction.
This is why it is so difficult to limit executive compensation.
In current practice, a company buys a huge life insurance policy on the officers, with the company as the beneficiary.
They pay huge bonuses, and they know that when the execs die they will get a lot of that money back.
And everyone else subsidies this, because it all is tax deduction for the company.So fines are meaningless, and even financial ruin leaves the top bracket as multimillionaires.
Should anyone be surprised that corrupt self serving practices are the norm?
And lets face it, there is no meaningful criminal prosecution.
Sure, they'll go after Madoff and Stanford, who are obvious crooks, but they will never file criminal charges against anyone who's company didn't go belly up.
So they go after Mozilo from Countrywide Financial, and they might get him for giving favorable loans to congress members, or taking profit out of his company when he knew it was going down the tubes.
He might get off.
If he does get convicted, it will be because he didn't follow the rules that keep Wall Street crooks rich no matter how inept and corrupt they behave.Insiders who follow the rules will never be criminally charged no matter what they do.
No one at Solomon will be charged, or B. of A. or Citi Bank.
No one at the rating agencies (Standard and Poore, Moodies, etc.
) will have to pay for their mistakes.
The ratings agencies were paid whores.
They gave AAA ratings to virtually every piece of toxic sludge out there and they made a ton of money doing it, and as far as I know there are no criminal or civil SEC investigations going on at all.
When ther CEOs appeared before Congress, they gave a set of meaningless apologies and pale excuses, and then talked about how they were going to improve their procedures so it wouldn't happen next time.
Why are these people still in charge and why are these companies still in business?
How come the FBI didn't seize their records and charge them with criminal conspiracy?
They are a massive case of pure fail, and they are getting away with it.
Yes, there are class action lawsuits, but those will take 5 or 10 years and the only people who will get anything are the lawyers.So there is no downside to business corruption unless you are a stupid crook.
A person with mid level intelligence can steal a fortune and retire rich.
Is it any surprise that we face financial ruin?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162481</id>
	<title>Re:Picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer</title>
	<author>complete loony</author>
	<datestamp>1243775940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's only a <a href="http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/02/16/out-of-touch-for-a-few-daysblack-swans/" title="debtdeflation.com">"black swan"</a> [debtdeflation.com] if you ignore debt levels. Anyone who's been watching the growth of debt in western economies <a href="http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2008/12/10/i-do-not-know-anyone-who-predicted-this-course-of-events/" title="debtdeflation.com">could see this crisis coming</a> [debtdeflation.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's only a " black swan " [ debtdeflation.com ] if you ignore debt levels .
Anyone who 's been watching the growth of debt in western economies could see this crisis coming [ debtdeflation.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's only a "black swan" [debtdeflation.com] if you ignore debt levels.
Anyone who's been watching the growth of debt in western economies could see this crisis coming [debtdeflation.com].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157941</id>
	<title>Re:The elephant in the room</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243782420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.</p></div><p>Agreed. But 50\% of that problem is that people have absolutely no idea what money is. It makes taking it away from them dead simple.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.Agreed .
But 50 \ % of that problem is that people have absolutely no idea what money is .
It makes taking it away from them dead simple .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why we have economic problems is the same old one from the beginning of time -- good old fashioned human greed.Agreed.
But 50\% of that problem is that people have absolutely no idea what money is.
It makes taking it away from them dead simple.
 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157395</id>
	<title>Here's my plan...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243775940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Take the executives and accountants and other management types involved.  Shoot every 10th one.   If we're feeling really nasty, we can make the rest do it.</p><p>Afterwards, we put them to work doing something nasty.</p><p>Then we take the politicians involved.  We shoot half of them.  Then we hang the other half.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Take the executives and accountants and other management types involved .
Shoot every 10th one .
If we 're feeling really nasty , we can make the rest do it.Afterwards , we put them to work doing something nasty.Then we take the politicians involved .
We shoot half of them .
Then we hang the other half .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take the executives and accountants and other management types involved.
Shoot every 10th one.
If we're feeling really nasty, we can make the rest do it.Afterwards, we put them to work doing something nasty.Then we take the politicians involved.
We shoot half of them.
Then we hang the other half.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158185</id>
	<title>Re:Wow!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243784340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What a concept! Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model. That's incredible!</p></div><p>I dunno.</p><p>That methodology sure seems to make global warming alarmists cream their jeans.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What a concept !
Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model .
That 's incredible ! I dunno.That methodology sure seems to make global warming alarmists cream their jeans .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What a concept!
Basing conclusions on experimental evidence from testing via trial and error rather than warping reality to fit your business model.
That's incredible!I dunno.That methodology sure seems to make global warming alarmists cream their jeans.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160911</id>
	<title>Re:The problem with economics is</title>
	<author>mattwarden</author>
	<datestamp>1243762020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm always amazed when non-economists make glaringly obvious comments as if they criticize the field of economic study altogether. It's as if PhDs around the globe never realized that we common folk have always known.</p><p>Or perhaps you don't know enough about economics to realize that these things you point out as criticisms are already handled in economics. Psychology is a huge driver in markets and, not surprisingly, it is central to the study of economics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm always amazed when non-economists make glaringly obvious comments as if they criticize the field of economic study altogether .
It 's as if PhDs around the globe never realized that we common folk have always known.Or perhaps you do n't know enough about economics to realize that these things you point out as criticisms are already handled in economics .
Psychology is a huge driver in markets and , not surprisingly , it is central to the study of economics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm always amazed when non-economists make glaringly obvious comments as if they criticize the field of economic study altogether.
It's as if PhDs around the globe never realized that we common folk have always known.Or perhaps you don't know enough about economics to realize that these things you point out as criticisms are already handled in economics.
Psychology is a huge driver in markets and, not surprisingly, it is central to the study of economics.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157753
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164231
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28173685
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157921
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157723
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164755
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164551
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158317
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159387
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160939
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159927
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158897
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157989
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162481
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158321
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28161095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157857
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158333
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160911
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158395
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157941
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157749
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158671
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28165513
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28168739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159899
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157611
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158967
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158501
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28166845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159635
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159865
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28173539
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162777
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157719
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157819
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_05_31_098218_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158045
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157383
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157799
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160939
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158317
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159899
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28168739
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157851
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157921
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157857
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28161095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157679
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159031
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160903
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28173685
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158967
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158321
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28166845
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158671
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158897
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158197
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162777
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28162635
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28165513
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158029
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158249
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157411
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28173539
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160721
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158361
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158395
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159927
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157941
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158099
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157773
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158065
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157753
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28158309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159337
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157745
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_05_31_098218.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28159635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28160911
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28164755
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_05_31_098218.28157989
</commentlist>
</conversation>
