Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Dwain Wilder's avatar

I have a couple of recommendations, though without knowing you except here they may be redundant. But I'm willing to risk redundancy.

1. Regarding "I wonder what is lurking in the plumbing of the financial system that we really haven’t considered," I would recommend

a. Al Bartlett's classic lecture, given thousands of times during his career, "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" - YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8

b. The financial system seems to use GDP as a standard of national financial well-being. But there is missing any concept of NDP. Net Domestic Product would account for the cost of domestic production. And if we go full-tilt-boogie toward fiscal reality, "net cost" would include costs now deemed by economists as "external," i.e. those we foist onto other peoples and ecologies which we can 'afford' to ignore entirely. And despite that lateral arabesque, the harm is done, and we pay for it individually and collectively, as in the consequences of the degradation of the Amazon forest.

2. Regarding "I view the environment and the outlook as favoring risk management, but I have a fully deployed portfolio of diversified and, to the extent possible, minimally correlated assets and strategies…"

Risk management began as a way to assign fire codes, and is not really up to the job of assessing most other risks. Insurance companies, for instance, never speak of risk analysis. They are centrally interested in the cost of consequences. This is embodied in the "precautionary principle." Businesses may well profit from risk analysis, but that must be accompanied by actuarial science to avoid great harm. See for instance the railway disaster at Palestine, Ohio, and its causes.

No posts

Ready for more?