The Proposed Iranian Oil Bourse

Quote from eusdaiki:

The jubilee year... great concept.


There´s a point you missed on the Cournot-Nash equilibrium. In that model, the first one to act against the cartel bleeds his competitors to death... taking around 75% of all profits and securing himself in a comfortable position for the following bertrand equilibrium {where ruthless competition between formerly friendly agents leads to prices below the perfectly competitive equilibrium; aka a price war}.
So is the case of the two prisioners game. {as describded by Nordhaus} Two guys are being charged for working some crime together. The cops are trying to get one of them to rat the other guy out. If none of them talks they both get five years, if one of them talks, he gets 2 years the other guy 9. If both of them talk they get 7 years each. Here´s where it gets interesting, if the guys are able to talk to each other and trust each other... they both keep quiet. if they are unable to comunicate all information to each other or they have reasons to mistrust each other... they´ll get 7 years a head.

How does this apply to finantial markets and our current discusion?
Some of the biggest holders of US dollars are asian central banks. These guys are facing a Cournot-Nash equilibrium and a bit of a paradox too. They´re holding such massive positions in the US dollar that their risk is no where near diversified. If they diversify they´ll lose millions as they start dumping dollars in the market and pushing the price down, along with the value of their remaining positions... if they dont then they might end up doing it at the worse possible time... during panic. So all of this guys are keeping a close eye on each other, just to make sure they know when one of them starts dumping dollars at the market.

So let´s make this game interesting. Let´s put another player, with plenty of money {from oil and gas mostly}... one who´s already diversified to Euros and other currencies... one who just paid out his foreign debt and it´s ready to play as a first class economy once again... and one that doesn´t really love the US... such as Russia... Ok.

Lets say hipotetically... that Russia starts to dump massive amounts of dollars {short}on the forex, against the EURO or her own Ruble... They don´t have to take the dollar down by themselve´s of course... they only need to dump enough for the asians to panic and start dumping their own dollars... {perhaps $250Bn could do the trick...}from there... it´s not a soft landing...
More...
just thought i'd draw your attention to the following, that you may find of interest http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72239

also, would be interested to hear your thoughts as to how the avent of the information age may or may not, to some extent, have reduced the potential for large scale surprises as far as economic events & developments (as opposed to political ones, which remain essentially unpredictable if only by nature of the 'game' / function?).

also, what would be the theoretical framework of reference from a game-theory standpoint, to describe panic-type scenarii in the case of a 'game' where all the key players / movers - in the sense that the outcome of any action by any other players in aggregate would still be immaterial / of negligible magnitude - have access to the exact same 'decisional' information at the exact same time?

any thoughts / help appreciated!
 
Quote from 2cents:

can i quote u on that mate? i actually AGREED with that way back in the thread, they ARE issues indeed, but not at all relevant with regard to "dangers of possible future hyperinflation"... is that what u saying?
More...

If you are going to quote me, you should not change my meaning by omitting words. I gave two sentences in a row. You quoted the first without the second. This changed the meaning. You should not do this. It is unethical (in case you don't already know).

My first sentence said that the primary issue, as far as public debt risking future dollar crisis or hyperinflation, is not the current level of public debt. My next sentence said that the primary issue is the rate of growth of public debt, as a percentage of gdp. You omitted the 2nd sentence, in order to create an entirely different meaning from my words.

This behavour, of distorting my meaning, has been a pattern in your behavour, throughout this thread. You have also done this by claiming that various documents to which you linked contained certain statements supporting your view, when in reality, those documents did not contain the statements you claimed.

This behavour is unfair, not only to me, but also to everybody else who would be interested in a mature, serious discussion. Your previous statement in this thread, that Weimar Germany's hyperinflation had nothing to do with public debt, is a totally ludicrous assertion, demonstrating complete ignorance on such topics as financial history and hyperinflation. I provided overwhelming proof, from many sources, that Weimar's hyperinflation was connected to Weimar's public debt. Your obstinate refusal, to admit you were wrong, demonstrates your total lack of interest in pursuing the truth, and that you are instead interfering with this thread based on anti-social and malicious motives.

Let me repeat my previous suggestion that you try to make a contribution regarding the thread topic, instead of playing games with my words and insulting and abusing others.
 
words jimmy, words... a lot of words devoid of any substance and thats your pattern....

Quote from jimrockford:

My effort, in this thread, has been to demonstrate the weakness and lack of expertise underlying arguments presented in this thread. Those weak arguments assert that recognition of the dangers of possible future dollar hyperinflation, panic, or collapse, are just as ridiculous as expectations that Earth will be invaded by space aliens.

I do not have a belief that a dollar crisis will occur. It is my belief, instead, that nobody can wisely ignore the danger.
More...

the reason you're failing is manyfold, i'll just give a few for you to reflect on in your spare time:

1. risks
. realize, when you're done touching your belly button, that this is a trader's site, nobody's ignorant of risks around this board
. a trader's approach to risks generally involves some attempt at quantification, and some measure of hedging on a worst-case basis as a prudential measure (e.g. buy some metals held in a gringotts acct in case of a muggles all-out nuclear war for instance)... u still with me?
. as far as risk quant, all i am saying from the beginning of this thread is that both risks, at this juncture, v.much seem to be in the lower epsilon ranges... same as superstitions if you will...

2. weak arguments and lack of expertise... yes... precisely...
. financial history essentially is just that: history... see, 2006 is not just a 100 years after 1906, notably after many failed attempts we have finally managed to shed the gold standard system(s), a simple darwinian evolution of 'money'... central banking today simply bears no comparison with what people referred to as 'an equivalent' in the early 1900s... but hey, we do have to go by 'equivalent' type concepts to an extent otherwise how are we to make any sort of potentially meaningful historical parallels? however my point here was and is that the parallels drawn by the austrian school in general (u in particular in this discussion) are 'no longer valid', to say it gently... try and read that calmly, perhaps have a read of the other threads i have started in the Economics section, they have expert informative value... don't dismiss them too hastily
. the link to a definition of 'formal and informal fallacies' you have kindly provided - there are additional categorizations of course e.g. ones that identify / define 'retroductive' type fallacies, just a variant of the concept http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Retroductive_Fallacy http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/gamblers.asp - to the careful reader your argumentation is simply fraught with them to a point of no-repair...
. and similar to another major flaw of the armchair intellectual austrian school, which you seem to be an adept of judging by your links to mises.org and your very austrian school-type behaviour all along, you simply haven't researched, then when provided with them, have brushed off, relevant and best-of-kind (in a reliability sense) readily available econometric-type data... if you disagree with that, as i on numerous occasions invited you to do, PROVIDE YOUR DATA and your sources! and then perhaps we can discuss...

3. opinion vs fact
. just by virtue of including a few facts doesn't make the OP's article factual. most of the article, and all of the conclusions, are pure opinion pieces, with no attempt at supporting them with any more than 'more opinions'. try and contrast it with this perhaps http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72239 in your abundant spare time of 'careful learning'... but basically, i fail to understand on what grounds you can find it 'worrying' that nobody should even attempt to provide counterarguments against such an obviously weak piece of austrian school prop
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115489#post1115489

. now, with this THREAD FINALLY MOVED TO 'Chit Chat' where it belongs right from the OP's post, humour me, show us how you would go about providing the counterargument to THIS assertion:

"similar to politics, praxeology is grounded, for the most part, in opinion, not fact"

and by the way, we can tell you've enjoyed the slapping but i don't participate in Chit Chat... life's just too short... therefore you can say what you want about who and what you want from this point, you're on your own, with your natural audience



:p :p :p
 
Quote from 2cents:

words jimmy, words... a lot of words devoid of any substance and thats your pattern....



the reason you're failing is manyfold, i'll just give a few for you to reflect on in your spare time:

1. risks
. realize, when you're done touching your belly button, that this is a trader's site, nobody's ignorant of risks around this board
. a trader's approach to risks generally involves some attempt at quantification, and some measure of hedging on a worst-case basis as a prudential measure (e.g. buy some metals held in a gringotts acct in case of a muggles all-out nuclear war for instance)... u still with me?
. as far as risk quant, all i am saying from the beginning of this thread is that both risks, at this juncture, v.much seem to be in the lower epsilon ranges... same as superstitions if you will...

2. weak arguments and lack of expertise... yes... precisely...
. financial history essentially is just that: history... see, 2006 is not just a 100 years after 1906, notably after many failed attempts we have finally managed to shed the gold standard system(s), a simple darwinian evolution of 'money'... central banking today simply bears no comparison with what people referred to as 'an equivalent' in the early 1900s... but hey, we do have to go by 'equivalent' type concepts to an extent otherwise how are we to make any sort of potentially meaningful historical parallels? however my point here was and is that the parallels drawn by the austrian school in general (u in particular in this discussion) are 'no longer valid', to say it gently... try and read that calmly, perhaps have a read of the other threads i have started in the Economics section, they have expert informative value... don't dismiss them too hastily
. the link to a definition of 'formal and informal fallacies' you have kindly provided - there are additional categorizations of course e.g. ones that identify / define 'retroductive' type fallacies, just a variant of the concept http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Retroductive_Fallacy http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/gamblers.asp - to the careful reader your argumentation is simply fraught with them to a point of no-repair...
. and similar to another major flaw of the armchair intellectual austrian school, which you seem to be an adept of judging by your links to mises.org and your very austrian school-type behaviour all along, you simply haven't researched, then when provided with them, have brushed off, relevant and best-of-kind (in a reliability sense) readily available econometric-type data... if you disagree with that, as i on numerous occasions invited you to do, PROVIDE YOUR DATA and your sources! and then perhaps we can discuss...

3. opinion vs fact
. just by virtue of including a few facts doesn't make the OP's article factual. most of the article, and all of the conclusions, are pure opinion pieces, with no attempt at supporting them with any more than 'more opinions'. try and contrast it with this perhaps http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72239 in your abundant spare time of 'careful learning'... but basically, i fail to understand on what grounds you can find it 'worrying' that nobody should even attempt to provide counterarguments against such an obviously weak piece of austrian school prop
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1115489#post1115489

. now, with this THREAD FINALLY MOVED TO 'Chit Chat' where it belongs right from the OP's post, humour me, show us how you would go about providing the counterargument to THIS assertion:

"similar to politics, praxeology is grounded, for the most part, in opinion, not fact"

and by the way, we can tell you've enjoyed the slapping but i don't participate in Chit Chat... life's just too short... therefore you can say what you want about who and what you want from this point, you're on your own, with your natural audience



:p :p :p
More...

Anyone who reads the thread can verify that this posting, by 2cents, is filled with false information. They can verify that my postings were not lacking substance, and that I did succeed in proving my case, and that Austrian economics theories had nothing to do with my argument, and that I did not ignore or "brush off" data, and that I did provide extensive research and data supporting my argument, and that I did not enjoy what he calls his "slapping". 2cents was blowing smoke on all these points. Anyone who reads the thread will recognize that 2cents has, throughout much of the thread, indulged his malicious motives by falsely describing my own statements.

I'm willing to set the record straight, as to all this false info about what I previously said, but I'm not willing to make any further effort to contribute to this thread, now that it has been moved to Chit-Chat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top