Sunday, August 31, 2008

Managing Political Volatility



(Click title above.)
.
Uber-Nomenklatura (International Pirates of Opportunity):
For "Ultimate Play On Volatility" (to consolidate rule of Uber-Nomenklatura), see http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/bidens_generated_crisis.html.
.

Managing Political Volatility

Masters of Piracy and Change:

Volatility --- in power, politics, society, business, and profiteering --- can be managed with religion, assassinations, threats, intimidation, servility, insanity, facades, luck, bad luck, drugs, or integrity. When your ship comes in is no time to rest on laurels for currency manipulation and volatility.


George Soros, like other professional pirates, knows full well that he cannot very well pillage disproportionate profits out of proportionate smoothness. Rather, as any Chicago player can tell you, to leverage enough “change” to service extreme payoffs necessitates inducing extreme changes in volatility.

But, the U.S., as a bulwark of stability and smooth transition, calms opportunities that otherwise would present based on global volatility. So, those competing to parlay skills in games of volatility tend to breed near weak points for targeting American defenses. Obviously, it well serves purposes of ilk such as Reverend Wright to incite hatred for America.

Unfortunately, the half of the electorate that is below average in intelligence tends to be disproportionately naïve or weak in evaluating practical executive experience.

Unfortunately, purveyors of volatility (or anarchism or nihilism) find such persons to be easy marks, to be duped by usefully-conditioned idiots (such as leftist media and their educators), who easily lead in confusing self esteem and book learning about abstractions with merit, smartness, and civilizing competency, and who easily lead in confusing collectivist pillaging with individual virtue.

Unfortunately, disloyal opportunists easily become skilled to recruit ever more opportunists, teaching them to discard appreciation or loyalty to any broad philosophy that values human freedom and dignity over collectivist pillaging.

Unfortunately, once human freedom and dignity perish, such virtues become quite difficult to recover.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuTEAjO6YXg;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0D-ai59EQHw;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI6e0MWqtQA; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW9RtfIiMog; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJXzohdF-MA;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T45MsH6pwM4.

Appreciate this: It is hardly racist to prefer to elect as President someone who has actual executive experience to go along with his book learning, especially when his philosophy is evidently more oriented in respect of human freedom and dignity than to collectivist pillaging.

Appreciate this: It is hardly
racist to prefer to elect as Vice President a woman who is at least as capable and experienced as her opposing candidate for President.

Note to MSNBC Staffers For Leftists: Get a grip. And grow up!


****

BTW: To what part of the American ideal is Obama loyal or patriotic? Is his loyalty to the ideal of opportunity to pursue individual freedom and dignity, or is his loyalty to payoffs, paybacks, and payola availed by inciting collectivist pillaging and co-dependency? On what basis should we judge him, in respect of his deeds, successes, personal relationships, or examples of character shown in facing up to hardships?

****

MANUFACTURING VOLATILITY FOR PLAYING POLITICAL POWER AND MARKET WEALTH:

Supposedly, ethical playing of stock and commodities markets “on a level playing field” consists in placing buys based on skilled predictions of future needs and volatility, but without illegally acquiring or using “inside information.”

Of course, few things, including rules about inside information, are amenable of being made perfectly clear. Rather, one skilled in speculating and betting beyond “objective conditions” may bluff, feint, persuade, or cheat other players in order to instill and convert their perceptions to one’s own purposes, especially upon acquiring or leveraging enough resources to demand attention to one’s tactics.

One may attract attention among co-conspirators for engaging such tactics
:

(1) legally, with mind games,

(2) illegally, by resorting to direct manufacturing of inside information, or

(3) ambiguously, by navigating a gray area between legality and illegality, between conspiracy and law making.

One may train, time, tip, shove, leverage, or manufacture inside information, rumors, or deceptions about market volatility concerning human needs and interests in shortages, overages, obsoletes, novelties, bottlenecks, or cornerings in any number of ways.

Examples: One may conspire to exploit swells and opportunities in media disinformation, agricultural clothing and food crops, medical pharmaceuticals, glamorizing of fashions, fads, and products, entertaining, mesmerizing, seducing, persuading, deceptively misdirecting, destabilizing, tracking, spying, infecting, intimidating, blackmailing, threatening, assassinating, regulating, innovating, patenting, monopolizing, hoarding, dumping, exploiting of natural disasters, artificial disasters, wars, accessorizing, computerizing, communicating, encoding, or exploiting of money markets.

All a conjuring conniver needs is a stake or sponsor for parlaying skill for predicting or manipulating asymmetrical connections among emerging volatilities.

No politician can compete in big time markets without insinuations by sponsors. Among sponsors, which factions are sponsoring Obama and which are sponsoring McCain?

In what ways are major sponsors united in an unholy alliance, for which Red Ass Moderates are obliged to be clear sighted?

Those Illuminati pulling the most influential strings for serious political parties are bent to an unholy alliance for promoting globalism, no matter how high the resulting volatility. Many seem unfazed by much concern for fellow empathy. Their globalistic agenda is not primarily driven either by patriotism or by humanitarianism, but by practiced love for gaming volatility.

Red Ass Moderates (and Mavericks) must be diligently alert and not buy into globalists' protestations of patriotism! Man the fire hoses!





3 comments:

Anonymous said...

See http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/obama_sutton_saudi/2008/09/03/127490.html?s=al&promo_code=692E-1.

Anonymous said...

http://moneynews.newsmax.com/headlines/forbes_economy_crisis/2008/09/29/135732.html?s=al&promo_code=6BE0-1:

“The government had a big role in this,” Forbes said. “Yes, there was bad behavior on Wall Street. But by golly it couldn’t have reached the disastrous proportion it has without the crazy policies of Washington, the Federal Reserve, Congress, and I must say the White House.”


COMMENT: B.S.!!! Who believes Congress does anything to conflict with what its topmost tiers of Big Swinging D***’s and business and money puppeteers requires! The puppeteers actively promoted all this volatility and divisiveness, greased it, took advantage of it, and now complains that the government it greases gave it what it asked for! Chutzpah!

Anonymous said...

SIMULATING, UNDERSTANDING, AND PLAYING OFF VOLATILITY:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/01/opinion/01buchanan.html?th&emc=th:

Certainly, markets have internal dynamics. They’re self-propelling systems driven in large part by what investors believe other investors believe; participants trade on rumors and gossip, on fears and expectations, and traders speak for good reason of the market’s optimism or pessimism. It’s these internal dynamics that make it possible for billions to evaporate from portfolios in a few short months just because people suddenly begin remembering that housing values do not always go up.
Really understanding what’s going on means going beyond equilibrium thinking and getting some insight into the underlying ecology of beliefs and expectations, perceptions and misperceptions, that drive market swings.
The idea is to populate virtual markets with artificially intelligent agents who trade and interact and compete with one another much like real people. These “agent based” models do not simply proclaim the truth of market equilibrium, as the standard theory complacently does, but let market behavior emerge naturally from the actions of the interacting participants, which may include individuals, banks, hedge funds and other players, even regulators. What comes out may be a quiet equilibrium, or it may be something else.
....

In the model, market participants, especially hedge funds, do what they do in real life — seeking profits by aiming for ever higher leverage, borrowing money to amplify the potential gains from their investments. More leverage tends to tie market actors into tight chains of financial interdependence, and the simulations show how this effect can push the market toward instability by making it more likely that trouble in one place — the failure of one investor to cover a position — will spread more easily elsewhere.

....

That’s not really surprising, of course. But the model also shows something that is not at all obvious. The instability doesn’t grow in the market gradually, but arrives suddenly. Beyond a certain threshold the virtual market abruptly loses its stability in a “phase transition” akin to the way ice abruptly melts into liquid water. Beyond this point, collective financial meltdown becomes effectively certain. This is the kind of possibility that equilibrium thinking cannot even entertain.

....

Financial crises may emerge naturally from the very makeup of markets, as competition between investment enterprises sets up a race for higher leverage, driving markets toward a precipice that we cannot recognize even as we approach it. The model offers a potential explanation of why we have another crisis narrative every few years, with only the names and details changed. And why we’re not likely to avoid future crises with a little fiddling of the regulations, but only by exerting broader control over the leverage that we allow to develop.

....

Another example is a model explored by the German economist Frank Westerhoff. A contentious idea in economics is that levying very small taxes on transactions in foreign exchange markets, might help to reduce market volatility. (Such volatility has proved disastrous to countries dependent on foreign investment, as huge volumes of outside investment can flow out almost overnight.) A tax of 0.1 percent of the transaction volume, for example, would deter rapid-fire speculation, while preserving currency exchange linked more directly to productive economic purposes.

....

With simulations, we can discover relationships that the unaided human mind, or even the human mind aided with the best mathematical analysis, would never grasp.
Better market models alone will not prevent crises, but they may give regulators better ways for assessing market dynamics, and more important, techniques for detecting early signs of trouble.