wrt to psmith pants-mongering (hip trendy rascal Archer slid panty?), I always figured that if short squeezes are billionaire's poker (4 years being the longest hand of which I'm aware), betting against a major central bank would be trillionaire's poker.
For most people, it's not a question of if* they know what they're doing, but if you can stay solvent (pace "in the long run") long enough for the tide to go out.
(I don't know about you, but if I ever attempted to attack THB, my net worth would a.a. meet an absorbing barrier at 0)
* if I were a central bank, and someone asked me if I knew what I was doing, I would be tempted to reply "we do not have a single theory, but rather a cluster of models and results".
Did you mean 421? It’s embarrassingly peripheral for now to say that this empirical index (as well as _lambda) is related to “entropy”, or even more shamefully, “sophistication”. Why india not perm, as romer says, population size <-/-> human capital, uk has veto o’er hollywood (only a brit can order hollywood to GTFO) & hollywood has the mandate o heaven, bollywood not (yet) a substitute.
For we need a workable modern definition of lion & fox (the 2 forms of human capital) to cover all the cases. we agree that designori are humans who can switch modes or engage both simultaneously?
[Pants were intended to be a gadget to help foxes adopt a (intellectual) lion mode, or vice versa]
Agreed on designori[0], but as they stand the animals are slightly problematic, for, as proposed, the sly fox seeks truth, and the brave lion camouflages its actions instead of roaring magnificently.
(prowess is all over the medi lit for bellatores; I think it's a more recent development that we may speak of le preux Souabe. Did Aramis play the designori?)
How about:
Leopard:
embraces externalities
loyal to (direct) superiors
values camouflage
respects (brute) strength
Crow:
rationalises externalities
loyal to truth (an abstraction)
values legibility
respects (book) smarts
Unlike the popular conception[1] of lions, leopards are known to hide and ambush (they have the spots, after all!); unlike the fox, who's easiest to encounter at dusk and dawn, crows do their thing right out in the open, in the middle of the day, and they don't care who's watching.
For most people, it's not a question of if* they know what they're doing, but if you can stay solvent (pace "in the long run") long enough for the tide to go out.
(I don't know about you, but if I ever attempted to attack THB, my net worth would a.a. meet an absorbing barrier at 0)
* if I were a central bank, and someone asked me if I knew what I was doing, I would be tempted to reply "we do not have a single theory, but rather a cluster of models and results".