AMD responsible for economic meltdown

[Robert Myers]

http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/10/23/23idg-Greenspan-Bad.html

"Greenspan has long praised computer technology as a tool that can be
used to limit risks in financial markets. For instance, in 2005, he
credited improved computing power and risk-scoring models with making
it possible for lenders to extend credit to subprime mortgage
borrowers."

Since, without AMD, commodity computing would have been much more
expensive and much slower, we can only assume that the current crisis
might have been put off indefinitely, if not forever, were it not for
the meddling of AMD (and its co-conspirator, IBM).

Greenspan has also publicly admitted that his faith in free markets
might have been unjustified. I have it on private information that
the militant wing of the neo-con movement has a fatwah out on him.

Yes, you can still come here to stay informed.

I thought of hahahahahahahaha as a subject line, but that would have
fit most any post here for a long time.

Robert.

 

[Del Cecchi]

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:46:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened
Robert
<e013dd80-5b8a-4ce0-b7db-d70666bd7017@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

I would have expected you to accuse Turing, Fleming, Volta,
and clever humans in general.
Why this bias against AMD?
And was it not you who helped the process?

And, actually, it is not about mortgages, as Greenspan would perhaps
want you to believe.
It is that other countries will no longer lend you money, as each
American
has now > 34000$ debt (that includes babies, and children).
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

When will you pay the Chinese, Japanese, and all those others back?
http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

The only solution is to invent an even better processors, other
products. and license and
export it.

Or use the nukes to grab the world, and declare the debt void.
But where would you be without cheap Chinese mobos?

So, that was to keep it at least a bit on topic.
Intel has some cash, has been buying back shares IIRC, but if nobody
can buy its processors then what?

So. maybe best is just to enjoy the time before WW3.
WW2 came after the great depression. 1930 - 1940, rise of Hitler,
2008 -2018 ? Who will it be?

If other countries will no longer lend, why are US Government Bonds at
record low interest rates and the dollar is up against many currencies
including the Euro? The dollar now buys 0.77 Euro, rather than the
0.63 of this spring and is back to where it was in jan 2007.

Greenspan is no longer in any official position and is trying to
protect his reputation. And it is about irresponsible lending in all
its forms including the many financial products based on those loans.
Tell me about Iceland.

WW2 was started by an expansionary maniac. WW3 was the cold war,
which was won by the west over the objections of many Europeans. WW4
could be started by a maniac in a third world country that manages to
go nuclear. Hypothetically one could imagine that Iran actually means
what it has been saying and tries to eliminate Israel. That might be
enough due to the geopolitical and economic importance of the region.
Putin is another possibility, although much less likely to me.


del

 

[Del Cecchi]

Perhaps because the FED cannot print the interst money fast enough on their old laser printers ... ;-)


Capital is likely moving away from Europe too, I dunno what hedging is exactly going
on in the currency markets today.
I do notice oil going down.
It seems the dollar relative to the Japanese currency is at an all time low.
And US owns Japan the most money.

There is a meeting this week with the big hedgers, Soros, some others with congress IIRC
to work out a new strategy.




OK, but the cold war was not really a war.


Yes, Putin & friends need high oil prices, he might, just to get the price
up, be willing to play along with bombing Iran.

Not sure, if Obama becomes president then oil may fall to very low prices indeed,
as the 'house of Bush' influence will become zero.

What could start it is US weapon sales to some dictator, so he would arm
himself and attack lots of others... seems like a standard CIA plot
from Hollywood LOL

since this group seems to be turning into talk.politics.geek or
something, what the hell. The Russians seem to be selling plenty of
arms. What was on that ship off Somalia again? And there was Khan in
Pakistan selling "making nuclear bombs for dummies" across the globe.

And why would Obama presidency make oil go down? Economy that far down?
Carbon Tax? Arabs love us so much they will give us oil out of
goodness of their heart?

Putin will just reannex Ukraine and Georgia and maybe some of the Stans
and see if Europe says anything.

The real question is what happens with Iran. Will they go nuclear and
if so will they actually attack Israel? Will Obama let them? Maybe
that is the Crisis that Biden predicted

del

 

[Robert Myers]

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:46:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
<e013dd80-5b8a-4ce0-b7db-d70666bd7...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

I would have expected you to accuse Turing, Fleming, Volta,
and clever humans in general.
Why this bias against AMD?
And was it not you who helped the process?

You must be a serious young man. Perhaps you need to get some air, or
get laid, or something. You didn't get "hahahahahahahaha" as the
subject line? When you are at a party, how does someone announce a
joke to you?

That post was the purest and most deliberate troll I could muster.
Alan Greenspan is the one who wants to solve the nation's problems by
insisting that we can no longer afford Social Security. He is,
himself, a kind of an ongoing troll--a kook, as another poster would
have it.

As for the "experts" here on economics, I've long made it clear what I
think. If you and others want to claim that you are just as smart as
the best in the business, say, Alan Greenspan, you may now do so with
my enthusiastic blessings.

And, actually, my post was on topic. This is a group about PC
hardware. The fact that that hardware has become much more powerful
and much less expensive has allowed perfect idiots to make plots,
graphs, and predictions of just about everything without spending very
much of anything, including thought.

What has AMD to do with this? The idea that faster and cheaper
hardware is always and unquestionably a good thing doesn't pass
muster. In the circumstance at hand, the world is being run by models
so complicated that no one any longer understands. The old maxim
"garbage i, garbage out" has disappeared under the weight of povray
benchmarks.

Carry on. After all, you will, anwyway.

Robert.
Kook, troll, evil genius.

 

[Yevgen Barsukov]

On a sunny day (Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:46:47 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Robert
<e013dd80-5b8a-4ce0-b7db-d70666bd7...@q35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>:

I would have expected you to accuse Turing, Fleming, Volta,
and clever humans in general.
Why this bias against AMD?
And was it not you who helped the process?

And, actually, it is not about mortgages, as Greenspan would perhaps wantyou to believe.
It is that other countries will no longer lend you money, as each American
has now > 34000$ debt (that includes babies, and children).
 http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

When will you pay the Chinese, Japanese, and all those others back?
 http://www.ustreas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

The only solution is to invent an even better processors, other products.and license and
export it.

Or use the nukes to grab the world, and declare the debt void.
But where would you be without cheap Chinese mobos?

So, that was to keep it at least a bit on topic.
Intel has some cash, has been buying back shares IIRC, but if nobody
can buy its processors then what?

People are addicted to internet, games, just the PC experience itself.
They will buy processors and other electronic crap even if they don't
have bread to eat, just like drug addicts can starve themselves to
death to get their shot.
Btw I am not saying it is bad. It just shows that humanity as a whole
is much more a bio-silicone hybrid rather than just monkeys that _use_
robots. The human culture is a program that can run both on bio-brains
and on silicon CPUs. It is more and more hardware independent, and
will
run on whatever is more effective.

Regards,
Yevgen

 

[Del Cecchi]

It was pushed way up by GW Bush's policy.
After all he is just a pawn of the Saudi king.
Or, if you will, there is this strong relation between oil price
and politics:
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
We are now falling of the peak, back to say 20$???


They need to sell, anything is only worth what somebody wants to pay for it

Why do they need to sell? Got plenty money.

Not sure, but indeed they may form a new power block, possibly voluntarily.

Possibly voluntarily? You have to be kidding. Volunteer or I will kill
you voluntary maybe.

I do not think they will attack Israel, unless they are attacked first.

So you think that the talk by Ahmadinejad is all just BS bluff?

US can sell a lot of weapons to the countries threatened by an 'aggressive' Iran.
So from that POV US needs Iran to make dark statements.
It is all weapon industry controlled, if US will sacrifice Israel, well would not
surprise me, but sort of unlikely.

All weapon industry controlled? The Iran Mullahs are under control of
US military industrial complex? That seems like a stretch to me.

o
mmm

Do you remember Steve Jobs saying the Apple computer was so powerful that it
could be used for nuclear weapon simulation?
That was when it was still 500MHz or so...

They don't need simulations when they have the pakistan recipe. So this
is a non sequitor.

You Europeans are living in a dream world.

 

[Del Cecchi]

You must be a serious young man. Perhaps you need to get some air, or
get laid, or something. You didn't get "hahahahahahahaha" as the
subject line? When you are at a party, how does someone announce a
joke to you?

That post was the purest and most deliberate troll I could muster.
Alan Greenspan is the one who wants to solve the nation's problems by
insisting that we can no longer afford Social Security. He is,
himself, a kind of an ongoing troll--a kook, as another poster would
have it.

As for the "experts" here on economics, I've long made it clear what I
think. If you and others want to claim that you are just as smart as
the best in the business, say, Alan Greenspan, you may now do so with
my enthusiastic blessings.

And, actually, my post was on topic. This is a group about PC
hardware. The fact that that hardware has become much more powerful
and much less expensive has allowed perfect idiots to make plots,
graphs, and predictions of just about everything without spending very
much of anything, including thought.

What has AMD to do with this? The idea that faster and cheaper
hardware is always and unquestionably a good thing doesn't pass
muster. In the circumstance at hand, the world is being run by models
so complicated that no one any longer understands. The old maxim
"garbage i, garbage out" has disappeared under the weight of povray
benchmarks.

Carry on. After all, you will, anwyway.

Robert.
Kook, troll, evil genius.

I thought of your post as an attempt at humor but I didn't have anything
better to do than to respond.

 

[Robert Myers]

I thought of your post as an attempt at humor but I didn't have anything
better to do than to respond.

My sense of humor in life is that one never quite knows. I do think
of Alan Greespan and his ilk as dangerous, self-deluded fools. I have
long thought that. Now that the ex-emperor himself has announced that
he has realized that he was wearing no clothes, perhaps it is time for
an all-round Class A uniform inspection.

That won't happen, of course, and you have been quick to point out
that the politicians who are about to benefit handsomely from economic
misery may be no better.

The critical moment in this crisis might easily have been inferred
here, when a Wall Street type showed up trying to hire someone who
actually knew something about microprocessors. His post mentioned AMD
and Intel explicitly, and he might as well have said, "Geez, you guys
talk about this a lot. Could someone tell me the difference? I'll
pay handsomely." In retrospect, it was just about the same time
Greenspan was praising commodity computing as a way to make us all
more wealthy and to put every household in a house of its own. So the
poster here had it on the best authority that microprocessors are a
way to get rich (the only thing that really interested him), and all
he needed to know to master the subject was *which* microprocessor was
the fastest path to riches.

Or to ruin, as we have learned. The world economic order may prove to
the only the latest and most spectacular victim of the Attack of the
Killer Micros. It's a ghoulish kind of laughter, but what else can
you do?

Robert.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

What has AMD to do with this? The idea that faster and
cheaper hardware is always and unquestionably a good
thing doesn't pass muster.

Why not? More unsupported statements. Do you prefer to
blame the tools rather than the user? That an inanimate object
is responsible rather than nominally thinking human beings?

In the circumstance at hand, the world is being run by
models so complicated that no one any longer understands.
The old maxim "garbage i, garbage out" has disappeared
under the weight of povray benchmarks.

Only to the most innumerate. The need for GIGO
increases with CPU power to some exponent certainly
greater than zero, and probably greater than one.


-- Robert R

 

[David Kanter]

http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/10/23/23idg-Greenspan-Bad.html

"Greenspan has long praised computer technology as a tool that can be
used to limit risks in financial markets. For instance, in 2005, he
credited improved computing power and risk-scoring models with making
it possible for lenders to extend credit to subprime mortgage
borrowers."

Since, without AMD, commodity computing would have been much more
expensive and much slower, we can only assume that the current crisis
might have been put off indefinitely, if not forever, were it not for
the meddling of AMD (and its co-conspirator, IBM).

Greenspan has also publicly admitted that his faith in free markets
might have been unjustified.  I have it on private information that
the militant wing of the neo-con movement has a fatwah out on him.

Yes, you can still come here to stay informed.

I thought of hahahahahahahaha as a subject line, but that would have
fit most any post here for a long time.

Robert.

As an aside, the systems that Fannie Mae used were actually SPARC
machines, not commodity x86 : )

David

 

[Yousuf Khan]

http://www.nytimes.com/external/idg/2008/10/23/23idg-Greenspan-Bad.html

"Greenspan has long praised computer technology as a tool that can be
used to limit risks in financial markets. For instance, in 2005, he
credited improved computing power and risk-scoring models with making
it possible for lenders to extend credit to subprime mortgage
borrowers."

Since, without AMD, commodity computing would have been much more
expensive and much slower, we can only assume that the current crisis
might have been put off indefinitely, if not forever, were it not for
the meddling of AMD (and its co-conspirator, IBM).

Greenspan has also publicly admitted that his faith in free markets
might have been unjustified. I have it on private information that
the militant wing of the neo-con movement has a fatwah out on him.

Yes, you can still come here to stay informed.

I thought of hahahahahahahaha as a subject line, but that would have
fit most any post here for a long time.

The 1987 meltdown was caused by non-x86 mainframe technology. Doesn't
matter what the technology is behind the scenes, humans will always
program them the same way.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Robert Myers]

Why not?   More unsupported statements.

Allan Greenspan has been supporting his statements up the wazoo to
people like you. I think you should form a debating society, take
over an island or a country somewhere, and hand out Nobel prizes to
one another.

Do you prefer to
blame the tools rather than the user?  That an inanimate object
is responsible rather than nominally thinking human beings?

"Blame" and "responsible" are neo-con obsessions. S**t happens, you
know?

Only to the most innumerate.  The need for GIGO
increases with CPU power to some exponent certainly
greater than zero, and probably greater than one.

I'm not sure, but I think we've actually agreed on something.

Robert.

 

[Robert Myers]

The 1987 meltdown was caused by non-x86 mainframe technology. Doesn't
matter what the technology is behind the scenes,

The modeling that led to spectacular mismanagement of US energy policy
took place on IBM and CDC machines. I've argued with a participant in
that modeling right here in this forum. I've even offered citations
to respectable literature about just what went how badly wrong. If
the Wall Street whiz who visited had read that discussion and pursued
the implications, he might be a wealthy man now.

Contrary to your assertion, however, the technology does matter, and
computers have introduced an entire new class of error: "If I can plot
it, I must know something about it," along with a related, but
important, error, "If I think I can attach meaning to the labels on
the axes, I must understand the plot."

As of the early 70's energy modeling fiasco, telling whoppers with
computers was a game reserved for the elite, principally big research
universities and the national labs. Now anyone can play, thanks to
commodity computing.

I'm not sure how that reality will change the world, but change the
world it will. The motto here is: "Cheaper and faster." My proposed
motto would be: "More transparent and more reliable."

Robert.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Contrary to your assertion, however, the technology does matter,
and computers have introduced an entire new class of error:
"If I can plot it, I must know something about it," along with a
related, but important, error, "If I think I can attach meaning
to the labels on the axes, I must understand the plot."

Not really. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" dates back
to Mark Twain if not before. "How to Lie with Statistics"
is a clever little book from the 1950s. It is nothing new.
Computers merely provide a new tool for obfuscation.

As of the early 70's energy modeling fiasco, telling
whoppers with computers was a game reserved for the elite,
principally big research universities and the national labs.
Now anyone can play, thanks to commodity computing.

That goes for everything, from financial modelling
to the IPCC climate change predictions.


-- Robert R

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

Allan Greenspan has been supporting his statements up
the wazoo to people like you.

Yes and therein lies his downfall. I was inclined to believe him,
until Alan said he was "profoundly shocked" shareholders didn't
watch risk. But what basis did he have to expect them to? In the
go-go stockmarket, especially through mutual funds, what mattered
was quarterly profits. The longterm was obviously ignored and
therefore sacrificed to make short term income.

That subprime must end in tears was obvious even beforehand
but politicians are unwilling to steer a runaway truck into the
ditch and so it smashes the town. More short-term thinking,
so how could they recognize anything else? That's how Alan
became a serial-bubble inflator. To save the day!

Although there is ample reason (Ayn Rand) to suspect malice, I
believe Alan Greenspan is more a religious fool -- believing in
the perfection/existence of free markets in spite of evidence to
the contrary. That also fits Napoleon's Razor: "never attribute
to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

debating society.

Supporting statements are needed to evaluate an argument.
When validated, they support it. When in doubt, they weaken
it. I don't know how you go about determining validity, but
I ignore what others believe and (especially) what I like.

"Blame" and "responsible" are neo-con obsessions.
S**t happens, you know?

Only neo-cons are logical? "Blame" and "responsibility"
are important to determine best corrective actions.
The neo-cons might make it about justice/fairness, but it
is also a matter of effectiveness. Look at handgun bans.


-- Robert R

 

[Robert Myers]

Although there is ample reason (Ayn Rand) to suspect malice, I
believe Alan Greenspan is more a religious fool -- believing in
the perfection/existence of free markets in spite of evidence to
the contrary.

My exact accusation.

That also fits Napoleon's Razor: "never attribute
to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence."

Self-serving logic can always be written off as incompetence. It's in
Alan Greenspan's interest to believe that what he believes is true and
important. That's the basis of his paycheck and his pension. He
doesn't have to hate poor people or even to be a greedy capitalist to
be a selfish jerk. He's merely human.

Supporting statements are needed to evaluate an argument.
When validated, they support it.  When in doubt, they weaken
it.  I don't know how you go about determining validity,

The hot question is: how does anyone? The safe answer is: not the way
you seem to think.

I've showed that it can't be done the way you think even in very well-
defined circumstances. Why would you imagine that it would work in
any kind of real-world situation?

I *guess* (although I have no real evidence in hand) that humans do
better than merely guessing, but I don't know how. Efficient market
theory offers one possible answer. Even if you believe efficient
market theory (and I don't think that anyone really does), the market
only gets it right in the aggregate. Many people with plausible logic
will have gotten it wrong.

These are subtle and deep questions, and your contemptuous sneering
only shows that it's not worth trying to discuss them with you. How
many different ways do I have to find to say it?

Only neo-cons are logical?  "Blame" and "responsibility"
are important to determine best corrective actions.

Total ex post facto illusion. Round up the usual suspects and have
them shot as quickly as possible. You could argue that I'm doing just
that to "poor" Alan Greenspan. Actually, you would have a point,
except that he is very, very well off compared to those from whom he
wanted to take Social Security benefits.

Robert.

 

[Robert Myers]

Not really. "Figures don't lie, but liars figure" dates back
to Mark Twain if not before.  "How to Lie with Statistics"
is a clever little book from the 1950s.  It is nothing new.
Computers merely provide a new tool for obfuscation.

Even liars have to display a modicum of cleverness. Computers lower
the bar. One can make hundreds of plots and choose the one that makes
one's case. Who would be the wiser?

Pure fabrication, of course, has always been a possibility, but also
very risky. Computers make the "Who knew?" defense easier than ever.

That goes for everything, from financial modelling
to the IPCC climate change predictions.

Climate change "predictions" have been subject to the same kind of
public criticism from me, to the same accusations of my being a
"kook." The political right doesn't have a corner on unjustified or
self-serving self-confidence.

The correct inference is not that you can get it right if you do it
right. The correct inference is that:

1. Every prediction should be regarded with skepticism.

2. Ad hoc and ex post facto analysis should also be regarded with
skepticism.

The answer to: "Lessons learned?" may be: "None." Nobody knows
anything, but especially not people who try to predict the results of
unrepeatable experiments, like the future.

You seem to think that computers, and especially very inexpensive
computers, have changed very little. I disagree. I lack confidence
in proofs or analysis that I can't see through from beginning to end.

In the past, one might take some ratty data, draw a line through it,
and call it analysis. It may be terrible or useless or misleading
analysis, but at least you can see what's been done. Computers have
changed that situation dramatically.

Robert.

 

[Del Cecchi`]

Robert Myers wrote:
snip

Even liars have to display a modicum of cleverness. Computers lower
the bar. One can make hundreds of plots and choose the one that makes
one's case. Who would be the wiser?

Pure fabrication, of course, has always been a possibility, but also
very risky. Computers make the "Who knew?" defense easier than ever.

Google "tom petters" to see a current story about (allegedly) complete
fabrication that went on for years.

snip

In the past, one might take some ratty data, draw a line through it,
and call it analysis. It may be terrible or useless or misleading
analysis, but at least you can see what's been done. Computers have
changed that situation dramatically.

As of course folks as smart as us know, curve fits and extrapolations
and are only valid for some situations. Vis, Long Term Capital
Management with the Nobel prize winners. Almost took down wall street
years ago, based on NonAmd data mining and correlations.

The map is not the territory. You can't bullshit an electron.

Robert.

del

 

[Robert Myers]

As of course folks as smart as us know, curve fits and extrapolations
and are only valid for some situations.  Vis, Long Term Capital
Management with the Nobel prize winners.  Almost took down wall street
years ago, based on NonAmd data mining and correlations.

Yes, but the latest bit of puffery correlates well with the AMD
bubble.

It's a joke, just a joke, except that it isn't. The engineers did
their jobs well. The physicists at Los Alamos, at least, did
contemplate what they had wrought.

From better, faster, and more energy-efficient microprocessors, we'll
get better and more pervasive animation. Everything else is a crap
shoot.

Robert.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

I lack confidence in proofs or analysis that
I can't see through from beginning to end.

And you call me professor? This sounds very much like a
theoretical [mathematics] approach. You've gone native!

I need premises and data, then I will perform my own analysis
or at least verifications. Wading through someone else's
analysis is a didactic insult, and you are very likely to
fall into traps like hidden assumptions made the first time.
The video Jan posted is a neat example.

You might complain this is not possible with CFD and similarly
complex computer models. I've been dealing professionally with
such for 30 years and the rules are always the same: validate
the model and input against known conditions and step-outs.
Watch the tweaking. When I can't, the model is just like a
Picasso -- maybe you like it, maybe you don't, but you have no
way to determine validity. "Trust" is reliance, not validation.

There is tremendous value in orthogonal ("cold eyes")
analysis. And for including diversity in general.
Omissions are usually worse than errors.

In the past, one might take some ratty data, draw a line
through it, and call it analysis. It may be terrible or
useless or misleading analysis, but at least you can see what's
been done. Computers have changed that situation dramatically.

The printing press changed the situation much more, earlier.
But like all tools it can be used as the wielder wishes. Sure,
fraudsters can seize local advantage. But they are fighting a
tide of literacy, communications, retrievability and numeracy.


-- Robert R