Would u have any use for a theoretician?
I'm working on my own projects but it's going kind of slow.
So, everything you see around you is ... Imagery. I mean, it's all Matter. Your mind is tuned to see certain patterns in matter. There are also patterns in matter your mind is not tuned to see. Your mind is tuned to see ... to look ... out. I have just made this strange discovery: you need to detune your mind, reset it, to look ... in. This is actually the solution to all problems, but it's paradoxical because when you look in you see into greater and greater expanses, and when you look out you see more and more restricted spaces. Well, that's a theory. It's something that has been reported. There is, however, a logic to that theory. It's not pure observation. It looks to you like pure observation, and if you look at it what you see is people observing things and then forming a theory around that, but it's not the same theory you form when you look at things, in fact in some very prominent way it directly contradicts your theory. That, however, is why you need the services of a Theoretician.
What if - because I need to think really hard about this - we take the opposite arbitrary position from the arbitrary position we normally take which is that the other reported perception is invalid, that it does not represent something real, and simply say that the other reported perception does report something that is real. What we are searching for is some acceptable Logic that explains how that can be so. We have here Arbitrariness, on the one hand, and Logic, on the other, and they are both valid tools in Analysis. No. They are both essential.
I have in this way synthesized my observations into a theory, we have in this way synthesized the observation into a theory, which can be applied anywhere. I can turn away, now, from that theory which is of the utmost interest to me and of no interest at all to you, and apply the theory to purposes in which you are interested. Purposes are what make an argument Theoretical. We have here the idea that Theory, Pure Thought, can serve a Purpose, a purpose, that it can get Something DONE. Theory is of course connected to Action. In The System, Theory is connected to Action by A Bus, and what we are exploring is the Nature of This Bus. Your approach to the bus is to try to force it to do one particular thing. The Nature of The Bus, though, is Fuzzy. One Particular Thing has to be digested by it into a Throng of much more particular things. A mist, a fog that comes creeping up the valley meadow from the sea of them.
You would tell me about what you want to accomplish, and I would apply theory to that.
But you need more information about what the product would be like. Let us turn this thing towards crystal matrices which store information in ordered layers, each bit having its own precise location. I do not understand the one type, and I think I do understand the other. The one that's made of gates I don't understand but I do understand it sits in the matrix in the position of a nucleus, and operates the surrounding protoplasm of locations and structures for input and output connectivity. The protoplasm is a kind of string, which we, through the nucleic medium, can operate, by dividing it into many smaller strings.
I am thinking - at this moment - of setting up a Lycos Mail account, which is free, if I accept ads, which I would love, love to do, but I'm hesitating. I'm hesitating because ... because it's in my nature to hesitate. Well, that's true, it is. But I also have objections. If I think about it I know that if I didn't have objections, I wouldn't hesitate. For one thing, why do I want all sorts of accounts? I mean, it's not that I mind having accounts. It's something about the accounts that I mind. Now I have to set up an Android phone. Yikes! 9:48 AM.
Let me ask you this: what would be the nature of a general ULA for personal connectivity services? Hmm. You put the new phone next to your laptop and ask the two to introduce each other. Phone, this is my laptop. Laptop, this is the new phone. Hey guys. Laptop, sign this phone into your network.
Ohhh wow. The implication is that connectivity plans are properly a component of the main computer operating system, the network hub device. That would be better connectivity.
I have also been thinking for a long time about making very large buildings and bridges out of very small components that can be placed, adjusted and replaced by hand in situ. Also, a better mouse.
Why is it only where we look? Listening is ... I mean, there are sounds. The flowers in the garden are a kind of sound, too, that go with the birds. The slight excess of leaves. And branches. The difficult work to be done and then the small step forward planned, I almost jumped up to do it. Spent an hour doing various tasks, moving things around, tidying things up, prepping. Opened the phone box and documented everything and read all the tiny - very crisp - print on the box. Very rational. An index to the SLA. Hesitating to open the box.
Going back - see, this is the kind of thing we need to capture - ... going way back ... to when I first got interested in the stock market ... or, more properly, to when I first ... to a moment when I became acutely interested in it ... it may have been preceded by other such moments, but fleeting ones ... if we then skip over an immense amount of detail, a very very long sequence of very similar events, we find me working a kind of routine in which I visit a certain web site, run a scan, and access a chart for each of some number of stocks. I might be able to work my way though, say, 30 charts, looking for the pattern de jure, du jour, and when I find that I look at some details, and among those details are certain headlines, and so I will follow those links and come to pages of commentary ... on all manner of things.
Hey! We're all over here!
Or, can magic produce even that result? Because that one is not even proper. It's fundamentally impossible. I have to be a little more subtle than that. I mean, it did produce the one result, or at least you cannot say I didn't do the magic and then the result didn't happen. Ha! In magic we place the desired result in the result location, and then when we get the desired result we say "see, that's what I put in the result location!" It's Tricks. And now it's up to you to figure out how they're done. Or you could just say, when I produce a solid gold watch for you out of a hat, "nice trick."
In fact, that's the trick right there.
My laptop just showed something useful looking I didn't know was there, because I accidentally clicked on something. Hmm. Better mice could undermine that function!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, one of those articles talks about all sorts of interesting things, and now I can't remember where I put it - see the problem? - but I locked one bit of information into my brain which is that there exists a Commission Free Brokerage, RobinHood. Oh, my. But, to get access, I need a phone. So, I do a little research, not moving, typing "what is the best deal on a phone?", following a link, scanning a page, scanning, scanning ... the best deal on a phone is Virgin Mobile, the LG Tribute 2 at twenty $29 ... and
A profit, in business, is, means, sustainability, and it is and it means growth. The two things go together, sustainability and growth. Management isn't being paid to not grow the company, and this is because growth is the investor's profit, or reward, and it is also the founder's dream, but not just dream, job. The founder wants a job. A job isn't just sitting around collecting money, it's getting something done. The founder's dream is to supply more and more people with something. First you figure out how to supply a few people with it, and then you grow the business. That's how you can get it to be big. That's how you can supply a lot of people with something.
I get an idea and I come up with the following measure: total market capitalization of all listed companies world wide is 60 Trillion dollars, and if it takes ten years to fully recapitalize that, that's 6 Trillion dollars of new money into the stock market every year, or if it takes 60 years, that's 1 Trillion dollars of new money coming in per year. 1 Trillion dollars is $1000 per person world wide. Now we can attempt to account for the fact that it is likely the top 1% of contributors to this buying with new money contribute some substantial part of the total amount. What would be more interesting would be to know how much, say, the middle third contribute. Well, the average should be $1000 per person. Well, no, that's not necessarily correct. We an shift the average point to the left, and we need to do so, because of the hyperbolic nature of the graph. But what we do find is that a very large percentage - number of people - contribute some money to the stock market every year (every day, if you like), and a still fairly large percentage contribute a fairly large amount every day. Wait, if we flip the graph, it's some number of people contributing some amount - range of amounts - a day, and the graph slopes downward, and then plunges downward. The top 1% contribute some very large amount. The 50th 1% contribute some amount - not nothing. Only the top few percents contribute very large amounts, but that still leaves a lot of people contributing lesser amounts, and only the top 50% contribute what could, in a purely logical sense, be called large amounts, but that still leaves 50% contributing mostly something, and quite a few percent contributing something more or less substantial.
Really, I am trying to convince someone who believes, quite fervently, that the stock market is something completely evil and arbitrary that it is in fact something fundamental, a utility, that people utilize, for prosperity and security. And the parabolic curve does show that prosperity and security are not equally distributed among the people, but you are saying this is because of the stock market, and I am saying it is because people participate in the stock market to lesser or greater extents!
To complete the logic of this we need to note that money made in the stock market is new money when it's reinvested in the stock market. Another hyperbole describes the numbers of people who are reinvesting certain amounts of money in the stock market, and these will tend to be the same people who are investing heavily, that is, as heavily as each other. People who aren't investing a lot won't be reinvesting much, and people who are investing more will be reinvesting more.
Reinvestment, though, is a function of profits flowing out of the market as cash. Well, at any rate, it's a function of cash flowing out of the market. Well, reinvestment of profits has to come from profits. But reinvestment of profits could also be measured as reinvestment of profits that did not come from other losses ... profits not offset by losses. I don't even want to try to think what that amount might be, but I will say this: the same people who comprise the top one percent of ownership probably contribute the top 1% of reinvested profits not offset by other losses - not their own losses, everybody's losses, and the bottom 1% of reinvestors probably contribute the least, the smallest part, of reinvested profits not offset by losses. But I will tell you one other thing: take any percentile, and some people will be reinvesting more profits not offset by losses, and some less, and the same people who are among the former group will be contributing more of profits that are offset by losses, more cash taken out of the market, in total, and also, taking more cash out that those who are not contributing as much in any category, and these people will then to move up the curve, while people who are by any of these measures contributing less financially to the stock market will tend to move down the curve. Well, I mean, they'll move to the left on the curves we've been talking about, which is actually up, and people who contribute more - I don't mean in terms of goodness, you can sort that one out for yourself - will move to the right on the curve, and down it. They will have fewer and fewer peers where it comes to making financial contributions to the stock market.
And here's where that all leads: while some people will make significant contributions without making a lot of financial decisions, and some of those same people will move up the curve, and some of them will stay where they are, and some will move down the curve, there will be some sort of positive correlation between people who move up the curve and make more decisions. If you divide everyone in a group into two groups, those who make fewer decisions and those who make more decisions, the ones who make the most contributions will tend to be among those who make the most decisions.
I don't know whether the data will support this last assertion, but I know it has to. I know it has to because decision making is one of the functions of the stock market, if not ... its entire function.
Meandering around the stock market for another hour ... checking my paper trades ... getting into conversations ... getting ideas ... realizing things. Finally moving about the property just a little and prompted by things there, here, to remember something. Listen, years ago a guy who had studied my mind quite a bit said, out of the blue, "you should get into the hardware business." Maybe he said "I see you running an online hardware store." I thought that was completely bizarre, but also very very attractive, as an idea. Today I find myself wanting to run Ace Hardware, well, at least in a certain capacity. I want them to ... this is the way I see retail generally: people with an inventory allow consumers to look at that inventory via online tools. Looking at the products isn't enough. It's too abstracted. It's not sufficiently real. But, anyway, when you pick something it gets shipped from the inventory from which you selected it, which might very well be at your local Ace, or some other Ace retail store.
For this to work, though, we need to greatly improve the efficiency of delivery. If I were to now extend this plan it would be in that direction.
