4 ms·

I've been following the housing bust. In 2009, I remember reading a resignation later by a guy who made his "F* you money" betting for a housing collapse. He b

by sudonim 15y ago

I've been following the housing bust. In 2009, I remember reading a resignation later by a guy who made his "F* you money" betting for a housing collapse. He blasted the big banks, ivy leaguers, and old boys network. I bought complex derivatives (SRS, SKF) but lost betting against the market. I read http://calculatedriskblog.com http://calculatedriskblog.com for a while and educated myself about the macro factors in the markets. Through "calculated risk", I learned of Jim the Realtor http://www.bubbleinfo.com/ http://www.bubbleinfo.com/ who videos (vacant) casualties of the housing collapse. Seeing it made it real for me. Over time, I've realized that the further from reality that decisions are being made, the more likely we are to make destructive decisions. When soldiers kill people with drone aircraft in video game-like conditions, it removes the reality from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands. In our wonderfully complex world, we sow complexity, and reap disaster. Im not sure what the answer is, but there is something terribly wrong when destruction is more profitable than creation.

alecco 15y ago
> I remember reading a resignation later by a guy [...] http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/17/17194/andrew-lahde-bows-out-in-style/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/17/17194/andrew-lahd... A very good read. Andrew Lahde bet against the "too big to fail" financial institutions. He was an outsider. And he only closed his operations because he considered those institutions wouldn't be able to pay back [further] bets.
- sudonim 15y ago
  Thanks! I tried to find it without much success.
  - alecco 15y ago
    More context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lahde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lahde > Andrew Lahde (born 1971) was a California-based hedge fund manager > who in 2007 earned some fame for achieving return rates in the vicinity > of 1000% with his Lahde Capital, based in Santa Monica, > California. The fund speculated on increases of U.S. subprime > mortgage defaults.
DanI-S 15y ago
Although I agree with your sentiment, it has been reported that drone pilots flying remote missions from the US exhibit similar problems with post-traumatic stress as those flying in-theater: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26078087/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26078087/
- zootar 15y ago
  The comparison isn't necessarily between remote operation of a drone and flying a plane. As I recall from On Killing [1], air crews have lower rates of PTSD than infantry. I would expect killing someone through a drone's video feed and from a plane's cockpit would have similar psychological costs. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315158944&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-So...
nazgulnarsil 15y ago
destruction is never more profitable than creation. It just means the profits are being internalized and the losses externalized.
jakarta 15y ago
Not to quibble, but I would say that using SRS and SKF doesn't really qualify as using "complex derivatives" to bet against the market. For most investors there really wasn't an optimal way to do this, using ultra-short ETFs carried a lot of drawbacks. The best way (which I found and put 50% of my PA into) was to go long a Canadian insurer which had a ton of credit default swaps on most of the levered investment banks. The other thing I would say is that, unless you are somehow exacerbating a problem (e.g.: somehow creating rumors to cause bank runs) then picking up cheap insurance isn't the same as being the guy controlling the predator drone in a strike. You'd instead be simply offsetting someone else's risk.
Splines 15y ago
... from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands. The military acknowledges how traumatizing this could be. From section 7.4 in this doc (http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM21_150/CH7.PDF http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM21_150...): Killing a sentry is completely different than killing an enemy soldier while engaged in a firefight. It is a cold and calculated attack on a specific target. After observing a sentry for hours, watching him eat or look at his wife’s photo, an attachment is made between the stalker and the sentry. Nonetheless, the stalker must accomplish his task efficiently and brutally. At such close quarters, the soldier literally feels the sentry fight for his life. The sights, sounds, and smells of this act are imprinted in the soldier’s mind; it is an intensely personal experience. A soldier who has removed a sentry should be observed for signs of unusual behavior for four to seven days after the act.
- erydo 15y ago
  I hope that's not a genuine field manual. It's poorly written and quite superstitious: > However, it is important not to stare at the enemy > because he may sense the stalker's presence > through a sixth sense.
  - atsaloli 15y ago
    Really? You've never felt somebody looking at you? You can try an experiment, look at somebody intently for a while -- see if they don't look back at you.
    - karolist 15y ago
      This does happen, but I think it's more likely with our mind scanning our vision feed 24/7 for eye contact, the whole of it, unfocused areas. Determining if "someone is looking at me" was rather important for survival. I'd love more information on that myself.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    fm21-150 is the rather notorious 'Hand to hand combatives' handbook that was in use from around WWII until, IIRC, the late 1950's. Much of the research is not very sound, as evidenced by the low amount of detail and general amateurishness in the description of the techniques (for example, the suggestion to knock a sentry KO by taking his helmet and hitting him over the head with it) It was replaced by research from Applegate and the likes (based on experiences in WWII and subsequent wars like Korea) in the 1960's and 1970's, which in turn was replaced with the MACP (Modern Army Combatives Program) in the 1990's. So yes, it's poorly written and superstitious (although the 'sixth sense' thing isn't completely bogus - although there's nothing mystical about it, it's more about the state of mind of the attacker and the avoidance of tunnel vision than a true sixth sense in the mark). But also remember that field manuals have to be written in a way to be easy to teach, to the lowest common denominator (soldiers, aka cannon fodder) who usually, and especially at that time, came from lower socio-economic backgrounds and had little critical thinking or analytical skills.
anrope 15y ago
"When soldiers kill people with drone aircraft in video game-like conditions, it removes the reality from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands." This type of physical disconnect is discussed in a radiolab episode on morality (http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/ http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/). They discuss two scenarios: (these versions are a bit different, copypasta'd from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) Scenario 1: A trolley (i.e. in British English a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing? Scenario 2: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? In short, more people will flip the switch in scenario 1, but will not push the man off the bridge in the second scenario. From this result, they (researchers) hypothesize that an entirely different part of the brain handles more abstract (i.e. non-physical) decisions; while the more basic, physical decisions may be made elsewhere. Really cool thought experiment, and a good listen overall. Then again, that's par for the course when it comes to radiolab.

by sudonim 15y ago

alecco 15y ago

> I remember reading a resignation later by a guy [...] http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/17/17194/andrew-lahde-bows-out-in-style/ http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2008/10/17/17194/andrew-lahd... A very good read. Andrew Lahde bet against the "too big to fail" financial institutions. He was an outsider. And he only closed his operations because he considered those institutions wouldn't be able to pay back [further] bets.

sudonim 15y ago
Thanks! I tried to find it without much success.
- alecco 15y ago
  More context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lahde http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Lahde > Andrew Lahde (born 1971) was a California-based hedge fund manager > who in 2007 earned some fame for achieving return rates in the vicinity > of 1000% with his Lahde Capital, based in Santa Monica, > California. The fund speculated on increases of U.S. subprime > mortgage defaults.

DanI-S 15y ago

Although I agree with your sentiment, it has been reported that drone pilots flying remote missions from the US exhibit similar problems with post-traumatic stress as those flying in-theater: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26078087/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26078087/

zootar 15y ago
The comparison isn't necessarily between remote operation of a drone and flying a plane. As I recall from On Killing [1], air crews have lower rates of PTSD than infantry. I would expect killing someone through a drone's video feed and from a plane's cockpit would have similar psychological costs. [1] http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society/dp/0316040932/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315158944&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-So...

nazgulnarsil 15y ago

destruction is never more profitable than creation. It just means the profits are being internalized and the losses externalized.

jakarta 15y ago

Not to quibble, but I would say that using SRS and SKF doesn't really qualify as using "complex derivatives" to bet against the market. For most investors there really wasn't an optimal way to do this, using ultra-short ETFs carried a lot of drawbacks. The best way (which I found and put 50% of my PA into) was to go long a Canadian insurer which had a ton of credit default swaps on most of the levered investment banks. The other thing I would say is that, unless you are somehow exacerbating a problem (e.g.: somehow creating rumors to cause bank runs) then picking up cheap insurance isn't the same as being the guy controlling the predator drone in a strike. You'd instead be simply offsetting someone else's risk.

Splines 15y ago

... from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands. The military acknowledges how traumatizing this could be. From section 7.4 in this doc (http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM21_150/CH7.PDF http://library.enlisted.info/field-manuals/series-2/FM21_150...): Killing a sentry is completely different than killing an enemy soldier while engaged in a firefight. It is a cold and calculated attack on a specific target. After observing a sentry for hours, watching him eat or look at his wife’s photo, an attachment is made between the stalker and the sentry. Nonetheless, the stalker must accomplish his task efficiently and brutally. At such close quarters, the soldier literally feels the sentry fight for his life. The sights, sounds, and smells of this act are imprinted in the soldier’s mind; it is an intensely personal experience. A soldier who has removed a sentry should be observed for signs of unusual behavior for four to seven days after the act.

erydo 15y ago
I hope that's not a genuine field manual. It's poorly written and quite superstitious: > However, it is important not to stare at the enemy > because he may sense the stalker's presence > through a sixth sense.
- atsaloli 15y ago
  Really? You've never felt somebody looking at you? You can try an experiment, look at somebody intently for a while -- see if they don't look back at you.
  - karolist 15y ago
    This does happen, but I think it's more likely with our mind scanning our vision feed 24/7 for eye contact, the whole of it, unfocused areas. Determining if "someone is looking at me" was rather important for survival. I'd love more information on that myself.
- roel_v 15y ago
  fm21-150 is the rather notorious 'Hand to hand combatives' handbook that was in use from around WWII until, IIRC, the late 1950's. Much of the research is not very sound, as evidenced by the low amount of detail and general amateurishness in the description of the techniques (for example, the suggestion to knock a sentry KO by taking his helmet and hitting him over the head with it) It was replaced by research from Applegate and the likes (based on experiences in WWII and subsequent wars like Korea) in the 1960's and 1970's, which in turn was replaced with the MACP (Modern Army Combatives Program) in the 1990's. So yes, it's poorly written and superstitious (although the 'sixth sense' thing isn't completely bogus - although there's nothing mystical about it, it's more about the state of mind of the attacker and the avoidance of tunnel vision than a true sixth sense in the mark). But also remember that field manuals have to be written in a way to be easy to teach, to the lowest common denominator (soldiers, aka cannon fodder) who usually, and especially at that time, came from lower socio-economic backgrounds and had little critical thinking or analytical skills.

anrope 15y ago

"When soldiers kill people with drone aircraft in video game-like conditions, it removes the reality from something that would be extremely traumatizing when done with bare hands." This type of physical disconnect is discussed in a radiolab episode on morality (http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/ http://www.radiolab.org/2007/aug/13/). They discuss two scenarios: (these versions are a bit different, copypasta'd from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) Scenario 1: A trolley (i.e. in British English a train) is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing? Scenario 2: As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? In short, more people will flip the switch in scenario 1, but will not push the man off the bridge in the second scenario. From this result, they (researchers) hypothesize that an entirely different part of the brain handles more abstract (i.e. non-physical) decisions; while the more basic, physical decisions may be made elsewhere. Really cool thought experiment, and a good listen overall. Then again, that's par for the course when it comes to radiolab.