Market theory - page 216

New comment
 
khorosh:
Are you suggesting that market theory is a physical science?
No doubt about it. It is a physical-mathematical science, as they call it in Russia, stressing that physics begins where mathematics begins, and this is an inseparable duality. More precisely, it is customary to call it by different words in the spirit of "economophysics", "econometrics" specifically in relation to markets, but the mathematics of the phenomenon itself does not apply to markets at all. You can predict time series with a very different physical meaning.
 
Mikhael Isakov:
No doubt about it. Physics and mathematics, as they call it in Russia, stressing that physics begins where mathematics begins, and this is an inseparable duality.
Well, if physicists deal with economics and finance, then what will economists and financiers do? They will probably be left with physics).
 
khorosh:
Well, if physicists get into economics and finance, then what will economists and financiers do? They will probably be left with physics).
For your information, Wall Street as you know it was made by physicists and mathematicians who started to move there en masse from universities back in the early 1970s when it became clear that nothing comparable to the atomic project would be financed by the US Government.
 
Mikhael Isakov:
For your information, Wall Street as you know it was made by physicists and mathematicians who started to move there en masse from universities back in the early 1970s when it became clear that nothing comparable to the atomic project would be funded by the US Government.
Well, that's understandable: - money attracts people with all sorts of specialties. If you were to cite a survey of what professions people who trade in forex have, there would be the widest range represented. Well, physicists and mathematicians have profound mathematical background and along with financiers, economists and econometricians it is easier for them to learn to swim in the turbulent river named Forex compared to other specialists.
 
khorosh:
... and them along with financiers, economists and econometricians.
I wouldn't get too excited about "along with". And Wall Street has very little to do with Forex.
 
Mikhael Isakov:
I wouldn't get too excited about "along with". And Wall Street has very little to do with Forex.
I think it is no more indirect than market theory has to do with the physical sciences.
 
khorosh:
No more indirect than market theory to the physical sciences, I think.
Much more indirect than that. Wall Street is primarily a stock market in its classical, normal sense. The transformation of stocks into casinos, the detachment of their value from a share of profits from the real economic activity of the company, and the beginning of the life of the stock value with a life of its own, completely ignoring reality, came later. Still later came the realisation that in the parasitic paradigm the best commodity is money, and the reformulation of the Marxian scheme "commodity-money-commodity" into "money-money-money". And it will soon fade into oblivion, for it is no longer possible to go on.
 
Mikhael Isakov:
Much more indirectly. Wall Street is primarily a stock market in its classic, normal sense. The transformation of stocks into casinos, the detachment of their value from a share of profits from the real economic activity of the company, and the beginning of the life of the stock value with its own life, completely ignoring reality, came later. Still later came the realisation that in the parasitic paradigm the best commodity is money, and the reformulation of the Marxian scheme "commodity-money-commodity" into "money-money-money". It will soon fade into oblivion, for it is no longer possible to continue.
Does this mean that market theory is closer to physics than to economics? After all, the original disagreement was about this and that is what we are here to find out.
 
khorosh:
And what - does this show that market theory is closer to physics than to economics? After all, the original disagreement was about that and that's what we're figuring out here.
It was about the phrase "I think it's no more indirect than". As it is, yes. The task of building a robust trading system = the task of building a digital filter with outstanding performance = the task of prediction = no matter the market, or missile targeting, or hydroacoustics or electromagnetic noise - the maths is the same for applications in all areas of science and technology. Pure physics.
 
Mikhael Isakov:
It was about the phrase "I think no more indirect than". But otherwise - yes. The task of building a robust trading system = the task of building a digital filter with outstanding characteristics = no matter the market or missile targeting, or hydroacoustics or electromagnetic noise - mathematics is the same for applications in all areas of science and technology. Pure physics.

You are too narrowing the field of possible options for building a profitable trading system, reducing it only to the option of a digital filter, there are plenty of other opportunities for profit. For example, accounting of macroeconomic indicators in trading on financial and commodity markets says directly that there is a job for economists, and God forbid for financiers to deal with financial markets. You must be a physicist to advocate for them. I understand that physicists and astrophysicists solve the questions of the universe. For example, I am a radio engineer by profession (close to physicists), nevertheless I try to evaluate objectively the importance and necessity of all specialties (though at our students they used to joke that the radio department was the superior race).

1...209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223...288
New comment
Reason: