Interesting post (must read the original story it references at some point).

I feel (think is perhaps too strong a word) that your "creditor to a struggling and mediocre firm" analogy is closest to the reality.

It ties in with the feeling that the Cons have shifted to a new faith-based radicalism (free from the need for evidence) over the last six years. This includes undermining numerous established institutions (Courts, Parliament, Bank of England, OBR, Civil Service, various regulators purely for political point scoring in their pathetic 'culture wars') and being dismissive of anyone who disagrees with them or even questions their excessive use of executive power to avoid scrutiny and accountability.

Essentially, it feels as though they have ("at first slowly and then suddenly") destroyed the 'credibility premium' that the country has been able to command. That will likely take a considerable time to rebuild (if it can be done at all).

The best hope for stability might yet be a long-term Labour government led by a pragmatic bridge builder not a revolutionary.

Expand full comment

My own theory - based on nothing other than my gut feeling - is that the 45p cut brought unwanted attention to the people in the market and this was their way of saying 'nowt to do with me! I didn't ask for this'. Even if you end up trousering the tax cut, it essentially costs you nothing to register your displeasure with it. Many of these people know they are not very popular and a short term gain, such as the 45p cut was likely to be, would only have set them up for even bigger pain (50p?) in the future if/when a new govt came in and had them in its sights.

Expand full comment

This is a great article but I mildly disagree with the concluding flourish. I think the 'market view' is much closer to an average or aggregation of the input opinions than an entirely separate view (implying that perhaps it is more than or qualitatively distinct from being a sum of its parts). That doesn't cut against the thrust of the article (that the market output is more complex than any individual observer can comprehend). And this is why I think it is disanalogous to the AI example - the problem with the market is a too much information problem (we can't know all the views/motives/information of the individuals inputting), whereas the AI example might be both/or either a too-much info and a 'too sophisticated for us reasoning' problem. Now perhaps I'm wrong and perhaps all the latter type problems dissolve in to actually being former type problems (the question is, is a super AI more intelligent than us because it has faster/greater computational capacity and therefore can 'brute force' making conceptual leaps by just considering more permutations, or is it also somehow better at making those conceptual linkages and leaps?). But I have a rankling feeling that I wouldn't say the market has a view because it is a blind, mechanistic bringing together of individual human actions. Is that what the super AI is also? Is it just a sophisticated Mechanical Turk? Am I?

One thing I think is interesting but under explored is whether our working definition of intelligence (or consciousness) involve normativity and is that something that can be programme or will emerge in very sophisticated AI?

Expand full comment