(1) The strategy by the world's economic elites of imposing an extremely neoliberal economic regime on communities they control, using some form of shock: a natural disaster, a coup d'etat, a war, a financial crisis, etc. Once the community has been crippled by this first shock, the economic "reforms" are imposed suddenly, creating a secondary blow. Then, as the community begins to recover and fight back, the authorities use torture and police brutality to (literally) shock the community a third time.
(2) title of a book by Naomi Klein describing def. 1
(Please see disaster capitalism.)
(2) title of a book by Naomi Klein describing def. 1
(Please see disaster capitalism.)
Ms. Klein's 2007 book described the rise of disaster capitalism in mostly poor countries: Chile (after 1973), Argentina (after 1989), Poland (after 1993), and Sri Lanka (after 2004). But in 2009, the super rich were able to inflict the shock doctrine on the richest countries of the world, including Germany, France, and Italy.
The 2008 financial crisis was entirely a product of the richest 1% of the human race; but soon after, national governments scrambled to punish the remaining 99% for the crisis instead, by slashing public services and imposing austerity programs.
The 2008 financial crisis was entirely a product of the richest 1% of the human race; but soon after, national governments scrambled to punish the remaining 99% for the crisis instead, by slashing public services and imposing austerity programs.
by Abu Yahya July 10, 2010
(VERB) to ignore the fact that a particular action was a crime, and focus instead on possible problems it may cause for the perpetrator. Named for Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838), who famously remarked of Napoleon's murder of the Duc d'Enghein, "It was worse than a crime... It was a blunder."
Sometimes this is misspelled "tallyranding." It's not certain that Talleyrand ever said it; it was probably attributed by his many enemies.
WHY IT'S BAD
In March 1804, when Napoleon Bonaparte was consul of the French Republic, he became aware of the fact that a leader of the royalist opposition was hiding out across the border of France. Napoleon had him kidnapped, brought back to Strasbourg, "tried," and put to death. The unfortunate young man was never accused of doing anything illegal; he had not violated the laws of the French Republic because he was not in France, and when he had been, he was serving the previous government.
Whoever actually said "...worse than a crime...a blunder" was ignoring the fact that it was a crime to murder an innocent person, and focusing instead on the fact that it was DUMB. In some cases, such as this one, it's a reasonable thing to do; but if it becomes a habit then moral judgment is deliberately suspended.
It's the asshole's substitute for moral fiber.
Sometimes this is misspelled "tallyranding." It's not certain that Talleyrand ever said it; it was probably attributed by his many enemies.
WHY IT'S BAD
In March 1804, when Napoleon Bonaparte was consul of the French Republic, he became aware of the fact that a leader of the royalist opposition was hiding out across the border of France. Napoleon had him kidnapped, brought back to Strasbourg, "tried," and put to death. The unfortunate young man was never accused of doing anything illegal; he had not violated the laws of the French Republic because he was not in France, and when he had been, he was serving the previous government.
Whoever actually said "...worse than a crime...a blunder" was ignoring the fact that it was a crime to murder an innocent person, and focusing instead on the fact that it was DUMB. In some cases, such as this one, it's a reasonable thing to do; but if it becomes a habit then moral judgment is deliberately suspended.
It's the asshole's substitute for moral fiber.
There is altogether too much Talleyranding going on. This wasn’t a blunder; it was a crime.
(Taken from the comments of Jim Henley's blog, *Unqualified Offerings*, "I Already Shot You"--May 31, 2010)
(Taken from the comments of Jim Henley's blog, *Unqualified Offerings*, "I Already Shot You"--May 31, 2010)
by Abu Yahya June 03, 2010
(FINANCE) for a financial instrument, the person/institution who takes the opposite position. For example, in a credit default swap (CDS), the buyer is someone who needs insurance against the possibility that a borrower will default on a loan. In that case, the counterparty is whoever receives the CDS premiums, and pays out in the event of default.
The purpose of financial options is to minimize risk to the buyer; therefore, it creates potentially lucrative opportunities for the counterparty, because the counterparty takes on so much risk.
by Abu Yahya April 05, 2010
The belief efforts to protect people from calamity will only lead to them being more careless, and bringing on more calamity.
This is a fallacy because it (a) assumes people can adjust personal risk to replicate an incomparable situation, and (b) it confusing risk-taking and risky behavior. "Risk-taking" is a neutral term that includes anything that increases risk in some way, such as operating a machine at a higher speed. This usually is done to get some other benefit. "Risky behavior" is foolish, feckless, or sloppy behavior that has no intrinsic utility to the person engaging in it.
This is a fallacy because it (a) assumes people can adjust personal risk to replicate an incomparable situation, and (b) it confusing risk-taking and risky behavior. "Risk-taking" is a neutral term that includes anything that increases risk in some way, such as operating a machine at a higher speed. This usually is done to get some other benefit. "Risky behavior" is foolish, feckless, or sloppy behavior that has no intrinsic utility to the person engaging in it.
An example of the curmudgeon's fallacy is the erroneous claim that safer cars make for careless drivers.
by Abu Yahya September 01, 2008
The idea that, if you mitigate the consequences of a particular type of accident, then that type of accident will necessarily occur much more frequently, more than negating the initial benefit.
The CF assumes that human nature is perverse and seeks to equalize consequences. Hence, improved automotive technologies such as air bags, ABS, space frames, etc. will be offset (or more than offset) by careless driving, leading to increased highway fatalities.
FALSIFICATION: Empirical evidence shows that, while reducing consequences increases risky behavior, overall safety/health outcomes are better. Insurance companies with a stake in reducing claims verify this.
More generally, the CF confuses all forms of risk-taking, such as faster highway speeds, with fecklessness. Increased speed and convenience (for motorists) has utility; and there is no principle in welfare economics that says risk-taking will increase by an amount sufficient to offset the safety measures.
The CF assumes that human nature is perverse and seeks to equalize consequences. Hence, improved automotive technologies such as air bags, ABS, space frames, etc. will be offset (or more than offset) by careless driving, leading to increased highway fatalities.
FALSIFICATION: Empirical evidence shows that, while reducing consequences increases risky behavior, overall safety/health outcomes are better. Insurance companies with a stake in reducing claims verify this.
More generally, the CF confuses all forms of risk-taking, such as faster highway speeds, with fecklessness. Increased speed and convenience (for motorists) has utility; and there is no principle in welfare economics that says risk-taking will increase by an amount sufficient to offset the safety measures.
The massively overrated book *Freakanomics* (Dubner & Leavitt) includes many examples of the curmudgeon's fallacy.
by Abu Yahya August 22, 2008
(FINANCE) a situation in which an investor stands to gain if a particular investment instrument (stocks, bonds, gold, real estate) goes up in value. One "takes a long position" with respect to a particular item.
There are several ways of taking a long position; an obvious way to go long is to actually own the thing itself. Supposing you are taking a long position on Intel common stock (NASDAQ:INTC), here are some other ways:
* Buy a call option for INTC, especially with a strike price higher than the current spot price.
* Write a put option for INTC, committing yourself to buy more INTC stock if the price goes down over the near term
* Buy a futures contract for INTC at spot (or more).
CAVEAT LECTOR: there are many _potential_ definitions of long position; I have given the broadest one available.
There are several ways of taking a long position; an obvious way to go long is to actually own the thing itself. Supposing you are taking a long position on Intel common stock (NASDAQ:INTC), here are some other ways:
* Buy a call option for INTC, especially with a strike price higher than the current spot price.
* Write a put option for INTC, committing yourself to buy more INTC stock if the price goes down over the near term
* Buy a futures contract for INTC at spot (or more).
CAVEAT LECTOR: there are many _potential_ definitions of long position; I have given the broadest one available.
MICHAEL: I want to flatten my long position on T-bills.
ANNA: I would recommend buying a covered interest swap with another major currency, like yen.
ANNA: I would recommend buying a covered interest swap with another major currency, like yen.
by Abu Yahya April 10, 2010
(FINANCE) a type of financial derivative; a certificate that gives the owner the right to buy (or sell) a fixed amount of a specific thing for a specific price (the strike price).
An option to buy something else is called a call option; an option to sell something else is called a put option. An option has a strike price, which is the price at which you are entitled to buy (or sell) the underlying commodity, or stock, or foreign currency, or whatever.
Options allow the owner to speculate in the possibility that market prices will change in a certain direction, without actually spending the value of the underlying item. For example, suppose WTI crude is $85.75/bbl. In order to make $1000 off of a $0.25 increase in the price, you ordinarily would need to own 4000 bbls of crude, which you can't afford. So, instead, you buy a call option for 4000 bbls with a strike price of $85.75/bbl (i.e., exactly what it is now). This option will cost a tiny amount of money. If the price goes up to $86.00/bbl, you don't own the oil, but your options are now worth $1000 to somebody who wants to buy that oil.
An option with intrinsic value (for example,a call option whose strike price is less than the spot price) is "in the money." An option with no intrinsic value is "out of the money."
An option to buy something else is called a call option; an option to sell something else is called a put option. An option has a strike price, which is the price at which you are entitled to buy (or sell) the underlying commodity, or stock, or foreign currency, or whatever.
Options allow the owner to speculate in the possibility that market prices will change in a certain direction, without actually spending the value of the underlying item. For example, suppose WTI crude is $85.75/bbl. In order to make $1000 off of a $0.25 increase in the price, you ordinarily would need to own 4000 bbls of crude, which you can't afford. So, instead, you buy a call option for 4000 bbls with a strike price of $85.75/bbl (i.e., exactly what it is now). This option will cost a tiny amount of money. If the price goes up to $86.00/bbl, you don't own the oil, but your options are now worth $1000 to somebody who wants to buy that oil.
An option with intrinsic value (for example,a call option whose strike price is less than the spot price) is "in the money." An option with no intrinsic value is "out of the money."
BILL: So, options are just like gambling, am I right?
ANNA: For most people. But if you're already in the business of buying or selling a particular thing, an option can protect you against a bad price movement.
BILL: But options on stocks? I mean, unless a company wants to reward its own executives, or something?
ANNA: Well, you might need options on stocks to hedge risk, if you're a fund manager. That way you can focus on long-run investing.
ANNA: For most people. But if you're already in the business of buying or selling a particular thing, an option can protect you against a bad price movement.
BILL: But options on stocks? I mean, unless a company wants to reward its own executives, or something?
ANNA: Well, you might need options on stocks to hedge risk, if you're a fund manager. That way you can focus on long-run investing.
by Abu Yahya April 05, 2010