Wiki Contributions

Comments

The S&P 500 Will Drop Below 3029 Before July 16 (65 percent confidence)

Again, as I mentioned in my earlier response, ideals don't have anything to do with the claim. The claim is that countries that call themselves communist make large policy errors more frequently due to heavy-handed policies. The thing you label yourself with provides some information. That information might be contrary to what you want to portray (as in the case of countries with "democratic" in their name), but it's valid Bayesian information nevertheless.

Changing policy based on different circumstances is certainly part of granularity. It's granularity with respect to time and circumstance.

Ah well, hoped to bring you over, but I'll agree to disagree.

The S&P 500 Will Drop Below 3029 Before July 16 (65 percent confidence)

For the CCP to declare themselves as “Communist” means they are likely to disregard much granularity that good policy must have

I think this claim has aged pretty well. Do you still disagree with this statement?

Why hasn't deep learning generated significant economic value yet?

In my experience, not enough people on here publically realise their errors and thank the corrector. Nice to see it happen here.

The Cage of the Language

I think private messages are more appropriate for notifying someone about their typos. Cleaning up typos is helpful, but posting it publicly clutters up the comment section.

Replacing Karma with Good Heart Tokens (Worth $1!)

I don't think this experiment could prove anything other than "it doesn't work". It's too gameable. Even if it works in the short term, that's only true for the current population. You'd change the people who join the community in the long run towards people who are willing to game the system.

Anecdotes Can Be Strong Evidence and Bayes Theorem Proves It

Sorry, I wrote this out in an hour, so it could have been a bit clearer. The data alone does not imply causality.

Data that supports hypothesis & causal hypothesis & no competing hypothesis => causality.

The causal hypothesis doesn’t need to be a detailed mechanistic hypothesis (it might just be “vinegar will remove the smell”). As long as nothing else could have caused it, then you know what the cause is, even if you’re unsure of the underlying mechanics.

So for an example where I have the same(ish) data but wouldn’t be highly confident of causality (because I have more than one hypothesis), let’s say I have a light headache, and someone gives me an unspecified pill for it. I take it, and five minutes later, my headache is gone. That is some evidence that the pill worked, but I’m not highly confident because of competing hypotheses: For example, the placebo effect, or maybe the headache would’ve gone away on its own.

Let me know if this makes sense, and I’ll update the post.

Two ominous charts on the financial markets

I wrote something up a few months ago, predicting with 65% confidence that the S&P 500 will drop below 3029 before July 16, 2022. I’m not a professional investor, so take it with a grain of salt.

Whole Brain Emulation: No Progress on C. elgans After 10 Years

Maybe someone should ask the people who were working on it what their main issues were.

The S&P 500 Will Drop Below 3029 Before July 16 (65 percent confidence)

If we were to see inflation going back to levels expected by the Fed (2-3% I suppose?) how would that change your forecast?

Great question. So my view is that there could be a few potential triggers for a sell-off cascade (via some combination of margin calls and panic selling), leading to a large drop. There’s also a few triggers for increasing interest rates, not just inflation: The Fed doesn’t have a monopoly on rates. When they buy fewer bonds, they shift the demand curve left, decreasing the price, leading to higher effective interest rates. I’m kind of baffled that they speak about “tapering” as if it’s possible to do so without increasing interest rates.

The particular problem with persistent inflation is that the Fed is less able to increase the cash supply in the event of a large crash. So while I think that inflation isn’t necessary for a 30 percent drop (I’d say it’s over half of my credence), I expect it to magnify the downside if it is higher than normal right before a crash.

Interestingly, the Fed itself was (and probably still is) concerned about the current high valuations.

When you wrote “The main thing I’m worried about is increased savings” did you mean what you described in the previous paragraph (e.g. zero-NPV assets investing and alike), or was it something else?

When I say zero-NPV assets, I mean anything that doesn’t pay out future cash flows to investors, like gold, silver, bitcoin, and NTFs. Certain stocks are being traded as if they were these assets too (AMC, GameStop). I think investment in these things is indicative of mania.

I’m worried that the Fed has flooded the market with so much cash that the new normal for the CAPE ratio and PS ratio are close to what they are now. If it is, then margin-debt-to-GDP isn’t the relevant ratio anymore, margin-debt-to-total-market-cap is, which is not at as high of a level as margin-to-GDP. Basically, supposing we have a smooth exponential curve for the S&P 500, I’m worried about a one-off discontinuity in the graph. I’m also worried about people investing more of their income and net worth, which would have the same effect.

The S&P 500 Will Drop Below 3029 Before July 16 (65 percent confidence)

Exactly, which is why I looked further into it:

When you have a government that identifies as Communist, that’s a threat that needs to be taken seriously. The evidence I’ve looked at this threat to evaluate this threat is anecdotal…

It’s a perfectly reasonable jumping off point to get into the specifics. I agree that if you have a more specific reference class, you should use it (I’ve made that point myself before, “holding your IQ test results in your hand and refusing to read it because ‘The average is 100, so I probably got 100’”).

Load More