There is a fundamental distinction that we have forgotten in how we now think about the economy. It is the difference between work and speculation, which is, in quantum terms, the difference between what is real work and activity that is reversible.
Try reversing a specultion gone wrong and getting your money back.
Also, this from hte guy who insists that we face uncertainty, not just risk. The answer to uncertainty is speculation, of course. Well, if this happens then that – and we don’t know – then we could react by doing this other. We are speculating on what might happen.
Of course SpudMeister insists that we should react to the existence of uncertainty by planning.
Sigh.
Well, a reversible process extracts maximum work, so it seems he knows even less about thermodynamics than he does quantum mechanics.
Reversible processes also proceed infinitely slowly. Go any faster and entropy starts taking its cut.
You can’t win, you can’t break even, and you can’t get out of the game.
Planning is just slightly better educated guessing. No-one knows the future, nor every piece of information about the matter at hand, so every plan is a guess to a greater or lesser degree, and in effect a speculation. It might work, it might not. The odds might be in my favour, but thats no guarantee of success.
The big thing is understanding the area very well and applying as much detailed analysis as you can.
Which is why government is so bad at it. None of the people deciding to do HS2 had ever worked in railways and they didn’t even look at the stats being produced on season ticket sales, or they never would have done it.
One of the good things about leaving it to the market is that people get burned if they don’t do it properly. You make a stupid investment, you try and stop yourself doing it again. You get some wisdom. But government people don’t because it’s not their money. Ask the average politician they still think the Olympics was great, rather than a giant bonfire of people’s hard work.
“No plan survives contact with the enemy.”
Attributed to Helmuth von Moltke (“The Elder”), 1800-1891
“which is, in quantum terms …”
It’s sweet – as if an eight year old had decided that saying “quantum” occasionally would get him a reputation as an intellectual in his primary school.
‘Miss, miss, can I have a quantum of ice cream?’
He’s seen too many MCU films.
Sweet or pathetic…or sweetly pathetic…or pathetically sweet….I’d opt for simply pathetic.
“Speculation” is one of those irregular verbs:
I, we invest
He, she, they speculate
So at the end it, as always with the left (but this time very explicitly, boils down to intentions and not outcomes. Ergo there can be no clear definition which means that they can always move the goal posts.
You speculate, they gamble
I hope i’m getting paid for the hours i put in, but my employer might go bust and so not pay me.
Am i doing work or speculating every month?
>what is real work and activity that is reversible.
Wait till he hears about ‘reversible computation’ and puts that into the AI. We’ll start seeing garbage from him about how everything can be free through ‘reversible work’ where you recoup your costs and use them to fund other ‘reversible work’ or some shite.
A number of policy conclusions flow from this
Oh Joy. What odds they will involve you in a role with a sinecure? :
First, we must redefine our understanding of work and of what work is of value
Man who has never done anything useful I. His life sees fit to opine on what activity is ‘useful’
.
Second, we must redirect capital and political attention away from speculation and toward production and care, which are those activities that change the world irreversibly for the better.
This would mean the end of the diversity and environmentalist movements today. Both have been unmitigated disasters. Not sure this is what you had in mind of course, being ‘diverse’ as you are
Third, taxation should penalise reversible transactions that add no social value, such as much of financial speculation, short-term trading and rent extraction, while rewarding work that builds resilience and well-being.
Why not make taxation neutral or better still stop taxing to the degree you currently do?
Fourth, we need to redefine economic success, not in terms of how much money moves, but in terms of how much irreversible improvement is created, or, in other words, how much better the world has become.
The problem with that is who defines success. I’d argue success is near the precise opposite of what you as almost an exemplar of pure evil want? Who gets to decide?
What this does illustrate is the limitations, as Steve has often pointed out, of current AI models. All it’s done here is provide a serial fantasist with yet more ‘evidence’ that his insights are both unique and original when they’re staler than and as mouldy as three week old bread.
Taxation is reversible, so presumably its in the bin now then? Good to know.
There are neurons which connect to advance knowledge and there are neurons which lead to mashed potato-like confusions. This (surely AI-generated Spud-robot?) has neither the wit nor the ability to determine what’s going on, or offer useful advice. A sort of failed AI experimental bot, which should be terminated before some half-wit disastrously follows its suggestions.