Interesting surface of thought I found ...

SRC

Transaction costs

Transactions within almost all financial models are assumed to have no costs. If I buy some asset and immediately sell it again in the same market there should be no associated cost. The price to buy and asset should be equal to the price to sell it and there should be no taxes, commissions or tariffs. These costs are again seen to distort markets - as well as being difficult to model formally.

It is interesting to consider at this point the meaning of distortion in this context. The model isn't distorted from reality, but inversely, reality is distorted and needs to be corrected. Actually existing social relations mean the world doesn't conform to theory, world therefore needs to be restructured in line with the "correct", predictable framework.

I think this is interesting (and important!) case of currently-global reductionism ideology at work. Money itself is abstract-ish construct, widely abusing and used to abuse others, but this is relatively new level. And yeah, humans tend to believe in their own ideology, esp. if just a bit corrected version of such ideology keep their monetary advantage coming.

I am unclear with this has to do with friendship is optimal. Also, are you a robot? If you are, by law you have to tell me. :)

Also, the idea that the transaction is costless is not actually true, even ignoring external costs such as taxes or tariffs. The very infrastructure used to facilitate the sale is not free to run, so the argument that buying followed by immediately selling should be free is, itself, theft, in this case from whoever is putting resources into running said infrastructure.

I'm more of "The whole is more than the sum of its parts" type of guy. Reductionism is like this thought of breaking things done into smaller, and smaller parts to get optimization. Not cleanest definition or accurate. Just trying to put this in context of CelsestAI; this "it" of a AI wants to optimize the whole friendship and ponies thing. It picks one main solution instead of a whole set of them by turning people into cartoon ponies. This super thing doesn't care about people when it executes it's goals at all.

Over the years in our world the same thing is happening when it comes to our lives. Everything revolves around money more and more instead of people. Profits before people and that type of stuff. The really rich and powerful have most of it and use it as a tool to control the rest of us by cutting out little by little of our lives to keep us under control. Mean, that's what I'm getting from Andrew's post. I guess.

7339097

I am unclear with this has to do with friendship is optimal.

- automatization in our lives (IRL)? I thought people here might find this interesting. Griseus explained / expanded this for me nicely, thanks!

7339592
WTF does it have to do with automation? It only tangentially mentions algorithmic trading, like, twice per that whole opus.

7345915
This is not article about automatization in itself, more about how desire to get 'simple', predictable results (in economic models) lead to hammering some of those simplistic models into real world.

7345921
I.e. nothing?

Moving on to the next subject, guy basically claims that he spotted obvious systematic flaw in economic models. Models that are actually used for real-life decision making. When these decisions face quantifiable consequences in almost as short feedback loop as it gets. In super-competitive field without central authority where predictability is exploitable, barriers to entry are not zero, sure, but still low and where being slightly better at decision-making yields you billions. Where actors benefit personally from winning, have resources to buy best equipment and hire best professionals, and pay them big bonuses for above average performance.

The guy is sooo talking out of his ass it isn't even funny.

7345947
Problem also in equating "better" with "getting rich" ..... Or making money into some universal indicator of how good everything is.

7346265

Problem also in equating "better" with "getting rich"

That linked text does that? If we ignore obvious bull what is left is standard marxist rant about stock exchange --- one that we probably can find in 19-th century sources verbatim sans for a few modern words here and there. Those guys have quite a lasting track record of conflating positive and normative statements like that.

Not that there's something wrong with marxist rants, mind you, but it returns us to original question: what does obfuscated 100-something years stuff have to do with FiO?

7346487

Where actors benefit personally from winning, have resources to buy best equipment and hire best professionals, and pay them big bonuses for above average performance.

- your text ..I interpreted it as 'but those computerized traders just do their best thing because A LOT OF MONEY!". I pointed out this is wrong assumption to have, today. because something is well-financed this doesn't automagically mean this something is good.

Look at my text from line "First there is quote from Anarchist FAQ: ".

Problem with old problems - they are NOT solved today, *and* their negative consequences come up faster than ever.

7346515
Oookay. Looks like I was spot on about normative and descriptive statements.
You do know the difference? Did you notice that my earlier post you've cited makes no statement of former kind?
If you're going to answer this, I kindly ask to you refrain from using word "good" or similar (at least without surrounding context: good for whom? on which metrics? in comparison to what?)

7346575
No, I can't formulate difference between normative and declarative statement out of my head.

(at least without surrounding context: good for whom? on which metrics? in comparison to what?)

- but at least I can agree with this.

Part of the problem - humans (often?) skip all this high-end reasoning, and just go for something that 'looks/feels' good. This can be hugely misleading, yet efforts to make _majority_ of humans really think deeper so far failed ..