Seeking Alpha

Patrick Schotanus

 
View as an RSS Feed
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Economic Equality And Conscience: A Multi-Layered Imbalance [View article]
    You basically repeat Lawrence's argument and, like him, get mine wrong, i.e. commit a fallacy (you can look up which one).

    All I state is that an altered system, a market that is not free, shows there are fundamental problems. Therefore, the argument that "free markets have failed" cannot be ascertained.

    I agree for reform and I provided arguments for why free markets are likely to be better, centred on interference in discovery in current markets as the cause for "fundamental problems". I can also think of problems that free markets can cause. But that is different from discussing the fundamental problems of current markets, supposedly caused by their "freedom".

    Whether free markets in the true sense will work is worth testing but is unlikely to be achieved (for reasons I mentioned and ones you can add yourself). I admit that that is the real weakness in my case.

    Finally, your point in the final paragraph doesn't hold. Just for argument's sake (no pun intended), why would someone (again, not me!) who did believe your argument (in 2nd paragraph) "have to believe" it too if applied to another system which, in light of exactly the arguments given, is obviously a "worse case" in terms of "working"? For example, why would somebody who argues for quantum computing (i.e. a quantum computer of which we cannot ascertain fundamental problems [yet]) believe that a parallel computer works for his purposes? Absurd!
    Oct 18 04:22 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Economic Equality And Conscience: A Multi-Layered Imbalance [View article]
    Lawrence,

    Thank you for your comment. I know this sounds like a lame excuse to you, but I wish you would have read my profile as well as some of my other stuff (e.g. on Financial Sense) to get a clearer view of where I come from and what disciplines I draw from.

    Specifically re your comments:
    a) 2nd paragraph

    What is crucial is:
    1) The essence of discovery as an experience. In my thesis I explain that it is not "what we do with prices" but "what prices do to us".
    2) The origin of (or who/what does) the interfering, your stickyness. Specifically, whose "need"?

    b) 3rd paragraph

    I don't ignore game theory. In fact, I argue that the tension between forces that make&sustain any CAS originate from competition AND cooperation. Also, as I admitted in the article, free markets are unlikely.

    c) 4th paragraph

    Not sure if you implied this but I'm not a Randian, if only because objectivism is so limited. My articles are informed from my research in complex psychology. This should tell you enough, but I guess you're probably going to accuse me now of being a Jungian. Anyway, I see a role of government, particularly in safeguarding the independence of the judiciary and the central bank, for example. As well as the transparency of markets, of course.

    Finally, sorry to read that you think my article is a "lame attempt". "Dosage" is indeed close to the concept of "balance" I attempted to explain.
    Oct 17 11:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Economic Equality And Conscience: A Multi-Layered Imbalance [View article]
    1) The Fed only needs a small excuse to postpone/change/reverse the taper.
    2) The Fed won't do anything to hurt its paymasters, i.e. Treasury and the private banks.

    See particularly here: http://bit.ly/19LHr5U
    Oct 17 07:18 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Economic Equality And Conscience: A Multi-Layered Imbalance [View article]
    Thx. And yes, that is the unfortunate type of "compensation" that is inevitable when you view the markets, as I do, from a mind-body perspective: there is no therapist to help you. It's just us and the market is not there when "nobody is looking".
    Oct 17 07:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Economic Equality And Conscience: A Multi-Layered Imbalance [View article]
    Good points, sleek. Re social mobility more broadly, for example, elsewhere I have referred to the generational "beggar thy children" as a bigger problem than the international "beggar thy neighbour".

    Still, I guess we have to agree to disagree re the process by which to achieve your "fine balance".
    Oct 17 07:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lehman's Lesson: Market ≠ Machine [View article]
    Glad I could clarify this somewhat. Re your last point, I don't want to say too much about it here, except that:

    1) I refer you to my paper (expected before YE) which contains more details;
    2) We are developing software for this purpose. It is a tangible tool, but one aimed at the "other-than-analytical" capabilities of the mind, e.g. your z-scale but not in the same chart. And although it includes considerations re personality types (a Jungian = complex psychology concept), it is NOT software like this: http://on.ft.com/1dVNCXT

    Finally, this all may sound vague/wishy washy but, apart from "knowing" what I refer to because you've experienced it, please read (again?) references to this dimension in books from Schwager (Wizzards), Koppel, Steenbager, etc. (Apart from numerous academic papers which I will not bore you with). Please remember, what I talk about is complementary to analysis, not replacing it.
    Oct 2 07:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lehman's Lesson: Market ≠ Machine [View article]
    Thank you for your feedback. Not to be too defensive, but rather to clarify:
    1) Did you read my profile? Specifically, I've used TA in my work for decades coding away in Amibroker (and, like Constance, I'm a CMT) so I know about CS, RSI, and the whole Fibo/Gann/EW/etc. arsenal.
    2) Did you read the article properly? Specifically, I'm not only critical of the EMH, but also of behavioural finance in its "exclusively cognitive" version.

    Again, thx for your comments and good luck with your approach.
    Oct 1 04:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lehman's Lesson: Market ≠ Machine [View article]
    Thank you for the feedback, John. I'll take it on board, although I'm not sure I can meet this "translation" challenge. In fact, although SA invited me to contribute as an "Expert" it may not be the right platform for my work. I need to think about it. Specifically, I had hoped that posting under "Expert Insights" would somehow self-select my audience, e.g. is "the public" the audience I want?

    FYI, the article is actually based on a forthcoming paper, so I already have tried to translate it in non-technical terms.
    Sep 24 04:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
8 Comments
1 Like