Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Quants, again

Moral: Wherein, we are reminded, well, that Ben, saver sacker that he is, is getting his job extension. So, we'll have several more posts on this theme of the quants.

---

Why? Well, it stinks. Tell me. How does coming into finance with an indoctrination in the physical sciences and mathematics add to our knowledge? On what basis do these quants make their applications (scientism?) or is it just pure mathematical flim-flam to fool the populace?

Oh, those quants have to admit that they would be lost without computing.

Let's put it this way. The only motivation may be that fat cats have paid for the work since some of this type of modeling and computing does fill pockets. Oh, boy, does it ever. And, that is sufficient from a certain viewpoint since the status quo seems to be moving large amounts from the majority to the minority.

Oh, you see high-frequency trading as a level field for all of us? Ever notice how things like the 'flash' seem to be a natural consequence?

Also, the fact of near-zero says, hey wait a minute!!

One argument that you hear from the quant's view is that people are not like objects with which physics entertains itself. Oh, so this makes it difficult to predict the future. Yes, we are very hard to pin down with modeling as that thing called volition, and more, comes into play.

Hey, that the reality folks. If you would just read the insights from Vienna, then we could discuss what undecidable means in this context. But, that is not necessarily scary.

The view over here, this side of the pond, is that mathematics has the answers. That one thing is what we need to talk about.

The politicos (they who salivate when the buck is passed under their noses), management (the clueless, essentially), the hapless (hey, always getting screwed, even when the Democrats are in charge), and others need to hear about these issues so that we can all be better informed and dampen those crazies who are (you know who you are) pushing casino capitalism.

The world needs us to get our act in order.

Remarks:

03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded.

10/24/2012 -- Goldman skimming via Quants and their creative finance.

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben).

03/17/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/02/2009 -- Such as, undecidability.

08/27/2009 -- Let's start talking computational issues and how they contribute to systemic risk.

08/26/2009 -- Some statements here deal with the Philosophy of Science (here's another nice little rundown), in particular as it applies to one issue contended by mainstream economics against the Vienna school: Critics of the Austrian school contend that by rejecting mathematics and econometrics, it has failed to contribute significantly to modern economics. Additionally, they contend that its methods currently consist of post-hoc analysis and do not generate testable implications; therefore, they fail the test of falsifiability.[5] Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions.

Ah, falsificationism, but what does that have with making oodles of money by the best-and-brightest (see Goldman's Town Hall)?

Modified: 03/03/2014

No comments:

Post a Comment