On Lady Luck, Investment Strategy and Election 2016. Let’s get this revolution started.
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion.
”I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.” Michel Foucault.
Lady luck you might say?
´´We built a posteriori management rule allowing us to eradicate the loss against stochastic uncertainty: the value of the portfolio is \always” larger or equal to the liabilities whatever the returns ranging over a \tychastic reservoir” in which returns appear unexpectedly. The problem is no longer to assess the probability of risky returns realizations, but to determine the subset in which they can emerge. Prediction models or extrapolation techniques no longer consist in determining trends and volatilities, but in the tychastic case, the lower bounds of risky returns denying the future tychastic reservoir.”
A variation on the notion that ”you have to be in it to win it´´ and the way to remain in the game is to eliminate risk from your portfolio so that you have a portfolio at all and trust to Lady Luck ( The Tychastic reservoir) ´´to generate your ”hits”.
So what to do when you´re waiting around and you have finished counting your money so many times it has become boring. For one don’t be a busy fool.
”And the fourth class: busy fool. The busy fool is very dangerous. They are so busy, but because they are fools, therefore they are creating problems. Lecture on SB 1.16.23 — Hawaii, January 19, 1974: We are all born foolish. So if we are not properly educated, then we remain fools and rascals, and the activities of fools and rascals, this is simply a waste of time. Because… What is called? Busy Rascals, busy rascal. If a rascal is busy, that means he’s simply spoiling the energy. Just like a monkey. Monkey is very busy. Of course, according to Mr Darwin, they are coming from the monkey. So monkey’s business is simply a waste of time. He’s very busy. You’ll find always busy. So the busy fool is dangerous. There are four classes of men: a lazy intelligent, busy intelligent, lazy fool and a busy fool. (laughter) So first-class man is lazy intelligent. Just like you’ll see the high-court judges. They’re very lazy and most intelligent. That is the first-class man. They are doing everything very soberly. And the next class: busy intelligent. Intelligence should be used very soberly. And the third class: lazy fool-lazy, at the same time, fool. And the fourth class: busy fool. The busy fool is very dangerous. So all these people, they’re busy. Even in this country, everywhere, all over the world, not this country or that country. They have discovered this horseless carriage—very busy. “Ons, ons,” (imitates cars’ noise) this way this way, this way. But actually, they are not intelligent. Busy fool. Therefore they are creating problems after problems. That’s a fact. They are so busy, but because they are fools, therefore they are creating problems. This is a fact. Even the animals, lower than the human beings, they have no problem”.
A busy fool is fitter, to be shut up than a downright madman. – George Lord Halifax
Warren Buffet once in his letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders opined that it would perhaps have been better staying home and watching Baseball rather than having made the calls he had made, it was around the time of all the Dot Com bubble criticism levelled at him, with a Tychastic reservoir of Buffet proportions he was as usual probably right. Dot Com Bubble or not.
What does this mean?
I would define the episteme retrospectively as the strategic apparatus which permits of separating out from among all the statements which are possible those that will be acceptable within, I won’t say a scientific theory, but a field of scientificity, and which it is possible to say are true or false. The episteme is the ‘apparatus’ which makes possible the separation, not of the true from the false, but of what may from what may not be characterised as scientific.Michel Foucault.
Or in Short. ´´Think Outside the Box ´´, Look before you leap and a Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush. Oh and take the time to Smell the Roses.
I would amend Foucault’s statement above adding the word political instead of scientific.
And add this from Paulo Freire to all the intellectual nose holding fence-sitters.
“[T]he more radical the person is, the more fully he or she enters into reality so that, knowing it better, he or she can transform it. This individual is not afraid to confront, to listen, to see the world unveiled. This person is not afraid to meet the people or to enter into a dialogue with them. This person does not consider himself or herself the proprietor of history or of all people, or the liberator of the oppressed; but he or she does commit himself or herself, within history, to fight at their side.”
So the assumptions which the ´´Progressive Intellectuals´´ and Media radicals make about Trump are made without entering into a dialogue with him. President Putin would dialogue with whoever is chosen by the American People, it is the peoples choice which should determine who they wish to conduct international relations on their behalf. The problem with the past half a century and probably forever is that international relations as with domestic policy is carried out by Elites for Elites in a form that sits within the bounded assumptions Elites operate within. Elites have a failure of imagination, they do not innovate but merely conserve their own cultural monopoly consistent with their own superior estimation of their own cultural realities. Outside of their terms, the rest is vulgar.
This is the background to my comment on Yannis Varafoukis and Noam Chomsky´s nose holding comments, we see the limits of their own prejudices, have they tried to dialogue with Mr Trump?
Surely this argument is based upon the notion that Trump is a demagogue? It seems also that much of the analysis around Brexit from Yannis also revolves around the spectre of Fascist Demagoguery. The US has form is supporting fascism outside of its own borders, in fact, that is part of Hilary Clinton’s known form. For change to happen change has to start, Frankly, the USA became fascist with the patriot act post-2001. I respect Yannis and Noam more than I can express on the demagogue card I have to say I think you are both wrong. As with Brexit being worth the risk for the British people so it is with the American people Trump is worth the Risk, he has the potential to become a Republican JFK. Clinton has disqualified herself her crimes and misdemeanours far exceed anything Trump could achieve in a single presidency. Believing Rhetoric is my other point, Hilary´s should not be Believed that would be silly based on her track record, Obama has also proved to be untrustworthy. Trump’s rhetoric is equally likely to be misleading, he is a Conservative due to his privileged background as indeed are you Yannis.
Yanis recently appeared on BBC Question Time with Conrad Black here are their answers on the Brexit and the Hilary/Donald question.
Conrad Blacks Article in Real Clear Politics.