In a recent blog, Martin Wolfe says "We still have that sinking feeling." and then goes on to reiterate much heterodox economic commentary from the last 70 years, without acknowledging a single source that preceded him.
Apparently, Wolfe has no idea how ironic his statement is. It almost retraces the fractal history of expanding irony!
Why are group policy adjustments so tortuous? Watching public policy adapt is like watching 300 million people slowly aligning to push a long train, while a few dozen idiots stationed in the locomotive keep engaging the brake! The idiots are afraid of losing control? Control of what? I've heard of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, but I'd never before considered a whole nation where none knew what the others were up to.
Why are group policy adjustments so tortuous? Watching public policy adapt is like watching 300 million people slowly aligning to push a long train, while a few dozen idiots stationed in the locomotive keep engaging the brake! The idiots are afraid of losing control? Control of what? I've heard of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing, but I'd never before considered a whole nation where none knew what the others were up to.
Forget Clonal Selection, it's too slow. What we now see is fractal competition & selection of the fitter fractal layer. :) Can you clone fractal mutation rates? Can we tally & manage the rate of fracking? :) Diversive stuff, certainly, but we can do it, and must. We started off relying upon sexual recombination to drive diversification rates in small aggregates. Now we depend upon virtual fractal recombination in order to pursue the exploding number of options available to our aggregates of aggregates. Yet most students - let alone policy staff - don't even get exposed to that concept. In fact, we're told that diversity = subversity. So be it. If we're going to invent nonsense as a prelude to policy, let's make "Proversity" the goal and insist that "heterozygoality" is better than "homozygoality!" :) Let the selection begin. Gentlepeople, start your virtual engines.
We can't allow class-endowed Luddites to opine about & advise on our future without sharing what they presumptuously advise for us - especially when it's plagiarizing our own, decades old advice, now trotted out as au courant. If we're even going to bother harboring such parasites, then we must save them from themselves, or suffer the rash. National policy agility - just like tribal policy agility - requires rapid dissemination of emerging perspectives. Call it open discussion.
As surely as we ended the restrictive gold-standard currency process, we must end the restrictive closed-data policy process. It's strangling our national initiative and agility. We can't run circles around our competition when 99% of the country isn't told which circles we're running, why, when or how. We're smarter than this. We should just Openly admit it, & get on with it. Randomly running around straw men is a game for kids, or idiots. If HP is ever to know what HP knows, the method will involve fiat communication, where every idea is disseminated as an automatic policy stabilizer, not CopyWronged & barred from effective group utilization.
Do you ever wonder why policy staff so stubbornly refuse to read widely enough, and why academics & media staff also refuse to acknowledge operations literature outside their own country club?
Expanding peer review, peer credit & open access is what drives the research world, the scientific method and the past 500 years of the Renaissance. Journalists & electorates should try it. After all, that's what defines evolution.
Yet it seems neither reality nor Martin Wolfe have received permission from the Queen to exist. How else would you explain UK fiscal policy?
Expanding peer review, peer credit & open access is what drives the research world, the scientific method and the past 500 years of the Renaissance. Journalists & electorates should try it. After all, that's what defines evolution.
Yet it seems neither reality nor Martin Wolfe have received permission from the Queen to exist. How else would you explain UK fiscal policy?
While speaking out so weakly, Wolfe himself is part of the problem. He apparently accepts that people like Marriner Eccles, Vickrey, Mosler, Godley, Goodhart, Mitchell & Wray etc don't deserve his permission to exist either. Perhaps not until he gets the Queen's consent? :(
Then, the courtiers have the gall to insist that you pay money to read Mr. Wolfe's Financial Times blog! Timely delivery of plagiarism costs money, after all. Finally, - to add insult to injury - the plagiarism backlog is effectively pegged to our Output Gap! (If you're willing to wait a decade or two, you may one day see the following headline: "Plagiarism Backlog Pegged to Output Gap," read by the last Luddite still reading owned journalists.)
We can actually retrace the fractal history of plagiarized operations insights. When it's traced, it always reveals the stifling drag of having to engineer consent ... from the lords of Luddite.
Then, the courtiers have the gall to insist that you pay money to read Mr. Wolfe's Financial Times blog! Timely delivery of plagiarism costs money, after all. Finally, - to add insult to injury - the plagiarism backlog is effectively pegged to our Output Gap! (If you're willing to wait a decade or two, you may one day see the following headline: "Plagiarism Backlog Pegged to Output Gap," read by the last Luddite still reading owned journalists.)
We can actually retrace the fractal history of plagiarized operations insights. When it's traced, it always reveals the stifling drag of having to engineer consent ... from the lords of Luddite.
And the Queen wonders how economists could fail so badly? She should try listening to more of them, more often, and also allowing them to listen to more of their own peers. Heck, just have the population listen to one another? Ending the distinction of unproductive class is the common solution. You have to wonder what's stuffed under that hat collection. Just another straw man that they weren't supposed to keep for more than a one day demo.
This is yet another example of why we need to make OpenSource news a policy.
This is yet another example of why we need to make OpenSource news a policy.
We can't allow class-endowed Luddites to opine about & advise on our future without sharing what they presumptuously advise for us - especially when it's plagiarizing our own, decades old advice, now trotted out as au courant. If we're even going to bother harboring such parasites, then we must save them from themselves, or suffer the rash. National policy agility - just like tribal policy agility - requires rapid dissemination of emerging perspectives. Call it open discussion.
As surely as we ended the restrictive gold-standard currency process, we must end the restrictive closed-data policy process. It's strangling our national initiative and agility. We can't run circles around our competition when 99% of the country isn't told which circles we're running, why, when or how. We're smarter than this. We should just Openly admit it, & get on with it. Randomly running around straw men is a game for kids, or idiots. If HP is ever to know what HP knows, the method will involve fiat communication, where every idea is disseminated as an automatic policy stabilizer, not CopyWronged & barred from effective group utilization.
Who knew that fractal sex-drugs-rock&roll really was the answer? :) If higher rates of sexual recombination supplied past physical diversity, then better/faster/wider fractal policy recombination is what we need now. It's called OpenSource. Once you try it, it's addictive. Face it, the scientific method is sexy. We need to scale it up exponentially, not avoid it like some venereal disease. All our virtual gods want us to go forth & multiply our virtual fractals.
Let us pray together. "Oh Lords, let us be more virtually promiscuous, and yes, let it begin now."
