recentpopularlog in

jerryking : nobel_prizes   16

The Chip That Changed the World
Aug. 26, 2018 | WSJ | By Andy Kessler.

Integrated circuits are the greatest invention since fire—or maybe indoor plumbing. The world would be unrecognizable without them. They have bent the curve of history, influencing the economy, government and general human flourishing. The productivity unleashed from silicon computing power disrupted or destroyed everything in its path: retail, music, finance, advertising, travel, manufacturing, health care, energy. It’s hard to find anything Kilby’s invention hasn’t changed.

Now what? Despite the routine media funeral for Moore’s Law, it’s not dead yet. But it is old.......Brace yourself. When Moore’s Law finally gives up the ghost, productivity and economic growth will roll over too—unless. The world needs another Great Bend, another Kilbyesque warp in the cosmos, to drive the economy.

One hope is quantum computing, which isn’t limited by binary 1s and 0s, but instead uses qubits (quantum bits) based on Schrödinger’s quantum mechanics. .......Maybe architecture will keep the growth alive. Twenty years ago, Google created giant parallel computer systems to solve the search problem. The same may be seen for artificial intelligence, which is in its infancy. ......Energy is being disrupted but not fast enough. Where is that battery breakthrough? .........Biocomputing is another fascinating area. We already have gene editing in the form of Crispr. New food supplies and drugs may change how humans live and not die and bend the curve. But.... anything involving biology is painfully slow. ....Computing takes nanoseconds; biology takes days, weeks, even years. Breakthroughs may still come, but experiments take so long that progress lags behind. Still, I’d watch this space closely.
Andy_Kessler  artificial_intelligence  breakthroughs  broad-based_scientific_enquiry  Crispr  game_changers  gene_editing  Gordon_Moore  hard_to_find  history  inventions  miniaturization  molecular_biology  Moore's_Law  Nobel_Prizes  quantum_computing  semiconductors 
august 2018 by jerryking
Some of the Wisest Words Ever Spoken About Investing - MoneyBeat - WSJ
By JASON ZWEIG
Nov 25, 2016

Investing is often portrayed as a battle between you and the markets. Instead, Graham wrote, “the investor’s chief problem — and even his worst enemy — is likely to be himself.”

Evaluating yourself honestly is at least as important as evaluating your investments accurately. If you don’t force yourself to learn your limits as an investor, then it doesn’t matter how much you learn about the markets: Your emotions will be your undoing....Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman with his book Thinking, Fast and Slow.
I’m especially grateful that he taught me this: “The most important question is, ‘What is the base rate?’”....Michael Mauboussin, a strategist at Credit Suisse, has taken that hint and compiled base rates for all sorts of corporate measures, so investors can readily check a company’s projections against reality.....From the economist and investing writer Peter Bernstein, who died in 2009, I learned about Pascal’s wager: You must weigh not only the alluring probabilities of being right, but the dire consequences of being wrong....Finally, Mr. Bernstein never tired of emphasizing that we can never know the future — least of all at the very moments when it seems most certain....Richard Dawkins pointed out in a lecture in 1996, many of us today know more about the world around us than Aristotle, the greatest mind of his age, did more than 2,300 years ago: “Science is cumulative, and we live later.”

Investing knowledge is also cumulative, and we all benefit from those who have already learned — and taught — how it works.
investing  investors  gratitude  Peter_Bernstein  wisdom  economists  Jason_Zweig  ETFs  books  Benjamin_Graham  pretense_of_knowledge  base_rates  Michael_Mauboussin  self-awareness  self-analysis  self-reflective  proclivities  probabilities  Pascal’s_wager  Daniel_Kahneman  delusions  self-delusions  emotions  Achilles’_heel  cumulative  Nobel_Prizes 
november 2016 by jerryking
Architect David Adjaye's World View - WSJ.com
By Ian Volner
Nov. 6, 2013 | WSJ |

Profile of David Adjaye:
The promise of those first projects attracted major institutional commissions—including the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo in 2005, and Denver's Museum of Contemporary Art two years later—but it was the 2008 economic crisis that obliged Adjaye to look still further afield and set up satellite offices in Germany and the U.S. "The catalyst for us was the downturn," says Adjaye. "We had to undergo a total restructuring. Basically we had to go big or go home."
architecture  Africa  innovation  design  Ghanaian  Nobel_Prizes  museums  art  cosmopolitan  contemporary_art  David_Adjaye 
november 2013 by jerryking
Economist Edmund Phelps on restoring the spirit of adventure
Oct. 04 2013 | The Globe and Mail | by BRIAN MILNER.

Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change,

Columbia University economist Edmund Phelps made some waves at a conference in Beijing last month that included three fellow Nobel Prize winners. His blunt message: Too many young Chinese are intent on pursuing government jobs that are a waste of their talents and education. What is being lost in this “public servant frenzy” to obtain secure but unrewarding work is the eagerness to embrace risks, strike out in new directions and spark the widespread innovation needed to develop a thriving modern economy.
economists  innovation  books  China  risk-taking  Nobel_Prizes 
october 2013 by jerryking
Ronald H. Coase, a Law Professor and Leading Economist, Dies at 102 - NYTimes.com
By PATRICK J. LYONS
Published: September 3, 2013

At the University of London, he was on his way to becoming an industrial lawyer when a seminar with Sir Arnold Plant, a well-known economist of the time, changed his focus again, this time for good. After graduating from the London School of Economics, he taught there and at other British universities, and married Marion Ruth Hartung in 1937. The couple immigrated to the United States in 1951, when he joined the faculty of the State University of New York at Buffalo. He left for the University of Virginia in 1958.

While teaching at Virginia, Professor Coase submitted his essay about the F.C.C. to The Journal of Law and Economics, a new periodical at the University of Chicago. The astonished faculty there wondered, according to one of their number, George J. Stigler, “how so fine an economist could make such an obvious mistake.” They invited Professor Coase to dine at the home of Aaron Director, the founder of the journal, and explain his views to a group that included Milton Friedman and several other Nobel laureates-to-be.

“In the course of two hours of argument, the vote went from 20 against and one for Coase, to 21 for Coase,” Professor Stigler later wrote. “What an exhilarating event! I lamented afterward that we had not had the clairvoyance to tape it.” Professor Coase was asked to expand on the ideas in that essay for the journal. The result was “The Problem of Social Cost.”

Professor Coase was soon invited to become editor of the journal, and to join the Chicago faculty, where he stayed the rest of his life, disdaining the equation-heavy approach of what he called “blackboard economics” in favor of insights grounded in real markets and human behavior.

By identifying transaction costs and explaining their effects, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences wrote in announcing his prize in 1991, “Coase may be said to have identified a new set of ‘elementary particles’ in the economic system.”
obituaries  economists  lawyers  NPSIA  regulation  property_rights  human_behavior  transaction_costs  FCC  broadcasting  Ronald_Coase  Nobel_Prizes  Coase's_Law  behaviours  frictions  social_costs 
september 2013 by jerryking
Why Innovation Is Still Capitalism’s Star - NYTimes.com
By ROBERT J. SHILLER
Published: August 17, 2013

Edmund S. Phelps, a professor of economics at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate, has written an interesting new book on the subject. It’s called “Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge and Change” (Princeton University Press), and it contains a complex new analysis of the importance of an entrepreneurial culture.

Professor Phelps discerns a troubling trend in many countries, however, even the United States. He is worried about corporatism, a political philosophy in which economic activity is controlled by large interest groups or the government. Once corporatism takes hold in a society, he says, people don’t adequately appreciate the contributions and the travails of individuals who create and innovate. An economy with a corporatist culture can copy and even outgrow others for a while, he says, but, in the end, it will always be left behind. Only an entrepreneurial culture can lead. ... In 1991, I started a business with Karl Case, an economics professor at Wellesley College, and Allan Weiss, a former student of mine at Yale. We called it Case Shiller Weiss, Inc., and it was devoted to an innovation we dreamed up. The idea was a new “repeat sale” home price index — which would track the changes in the value of the same houses over time.

At the time, this was an entirely new line of business. And, at first, that posed a problem: we were spectacularly unsuccessful in raising money.
Robert_Shiller  innovation  Colleges_&_Universities  Nobel_Prizes  capitalism  entrepreneurship  Obama  3-D  economists  books  corporatism  job_creation  crony_capitalism  indices 
august 2013 by jerryking
David Isenberg Sees Smart Business Model In 'Stupid Network'
February 20, 1998 | Wall Street Journal p. B1 | by THOMAS PETZINGER JR.

Dr. Isenberg worshipped the émigré biologist Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, a Nobel laureate and friend of his family. "If you're going to fish," the old scientist told him, "use a big hook." . . .

Picture of
David Isenberg by Elliot Banfield
Used with permission of Elliot Banfield
AT&T  telecommunications  free  disruption  Thomas_Petzinger  Nobel_Prizes  contrarians  Bell_Labs  George_Gilder  business_models 
march 2013 by jerryking
At Davos, Leaders are Debating Whether Corporations are More Powerful Than Governments
January 27, 2012 | TIME.com | By Rana Foroohar.

The top companies seem to exist in a world apart — they are booming, and their executives are prospering. If there is a meta theme to this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, it is that the world’s largest companies are moving on and moving ahead of governments and countries that they perceive to be inept and anemic. They are flying above them, operating in a space that is increasingly disconnected from local concerns, and the problems of their home markets. And if the conversations here are any indication, they may soon take over much of what government itself does....The problem was nicely captured in this week’s New York Times piece on Apple, looking at why the iPhone is mostly made outside America. As one of the company’s executives put it, “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.” It’s a sentiment that was echoed on Time’s Board of Economists’ panel, where business leaders blamed for not sharing the $2 trillion in wealth sitting on corporate balance sheets argued that they did create jobs and prosperity — just not in this country.....Labor economist Clyde Prestowitz pointed out as much in an article in Foreign Policy this week where he noted that while Apple may not think American economic issues are it’s “problem,” it certainly depends on the Seventh Fleet to keep Asian waterways safe and clear so that it can deliver it’s products.....A lot of people here in Davos — people like Nobel laureate Chris Pissarides, and a number of high level investors I spoke with — say that we can’t innovate or educate our way out of this problem. It’s only going to get worse, particularly as a coming automation revolution starts to hollow out white collar jobs in rich countries.
Rana_Foroohar  Davos  multinationals  Apple  globalization  cash_reserves  job_destruction  job_displacement  downward_mobility  automation  hollowing_out  white-collar  developed_countries  Nobel_Prizes  large_companies  statelessness 
august 2012 by jerryking
Investing Ideas That Stand Test of Time
April 25, 2000 | WSJ | Jonathan Clements

These days I find I am left with just three core investment ideas:
(1) Financial Success is a Sense of Control
If you ask folks about their financial goals, they will likely offer a laundry list of goods they want to buy or announce they want to accumulate as much money as possible. But in reality,
both goals are a prescription for unhappiness.
Sure it might be nice to purchase everything that catches your fancy. But nobody has unlimited wealth, so a focus on endless consumption inevitably results not in happiness, but in frustration and financial stress. Yeah, it would also be great to have heaps of money. But if all you want is an even bigger pile of cash, you will never be satisfied, because you will never reach your goal. So what should you
shoot for? A far more worthy goal, I believe, is eliminating the anxiety that comes with managing money. You want to reach that sweet spot where you feel your finances are under control, no matter what your standard of living and level of wealth.

(2)Investing is Simple
No doubts about it, there are lots of investments and investment strategies that are mighty complicated. But complexity usually means investors are running the risk of rotten results and Wall Street is getting the chance to charge fat fees. Investing is best when it is simple. In fact, if you want to accumulate a healthy nest egg, there
isn’t much to it. First, you have to save a goodly amount, preferably at least ten percent of your pre-tax annual income. Second, you should consider investing at least half of your portfolio in stocks, even if you are approaching retirement. Third, you should diversify broadly, owning a decent mix of large, small and foreign stocks. Fourth, you should hold down investment costs, including
brokerage commissions, annual fund expenses and taxes. Finally, you should give it time. A little humility also helps. Don’t waste effort — and risk havoc — by trying to pick the next hot stock, identify the next superstar fund manager or guess the market’s next move. Instead, your best bet is to buy and hold a few well-run mutual funds.

(3) We are the enemy
If successful investing is so simple, why do so many people mess up? It isn’t the markets that are the problem, it is the investors.
We make all sorts of mistakes. We fret about the performance of each investment that we own, so we don’t enjoy the benefits of diversification. We are often overly self-confident, which
prompts us to trade too much and bet too heavily on a single stock or market sector. We
extrapolate recent results, leading to excessive exuberance when stocks are rising and unjustified
pessimism when markets decline. We lack self-control, so we don’t save enough.

[All the points made immediately above are analogous to Jason Zweig's article on personal finance & investing. From Benjamin Graham --investing is often portrayed as a battle between you and the markets. Instead, “the investor’s chief problem — and even his worst enemy — is likely to be himself.”

Similarly, Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman wrote in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow. [that]evaluating yourself honestly is at least as important as evaluating your investments accurately. If you don’t force yourself to learn your limits as an investor, then it doesn’t matter how much you learn about the markets: Your emotions will be your undoing.... ]

If you are going to truly be a successful and happy investor, it isn’t enough simply to devise
strategies that allow you to meet your investment goals. Your strategies also must give you a
sense of financial control and fit with your risk tolerance, so that you stick with them through the
inevitable market turmoil.
That may mean keeping more of your money in bonds and money-market funds. It could mean
paying for an investment advisor. It might mean scaling back your financial goals and accepting
that the kids won’t be heading to Harvard and that you won’t be able to retire early.
These sorts of choices aren’t foolish. What’s foolish is settling on investment strategies without
considering whether you can see them through.
personal_finance  investing  howto  ideas  goal-setting  Nobel_Prizes  money_management  Jonathan_Clements  financial_literacy  biases  humility  mistakes  self-awareness  self-control  proclivities  overconfidence  financial_planning  delusions  self-delusions  emotions  human_frailties  Jason_Zweig  extrapolations  risk-tolerance  recency  unhappiness  human_errors  bear_markets  sense_of_control  superstars  Daniel_Kahneman 
may 2012 by jerryking
How to Plan for a Successful Retirement: Think Slow - WSJ.com
April 9, 2012 | WSJ | By DIANE COLE
So Much for Snap Decisions
A Nobel Prize winner explains why one secret to a successful retirement is to think 'slow'

the message that Daniel Kahneman, psychologist and Nobel Prize winner, delivers in his new book, "Thinking, Fast and Slow."

Typically, he says, people rely on blink-of-an-eye judgments, driven by emotion and impulse, in navigating life—even when we should be thinking "slow," using reason, deliberation and logic to weigh our options.

WSJ: In your book, you discuss overconfidence as a common pitfall. What impact does that have?

MR. KAHNEMAN: Overconfidence is everywhere. We all have clear and certain beliefs, and our certainty is not impaired by the fact that other people hold contradictory beliefs. We just think they are biased.

When optimism and overconfidence come together, you get many mistakes. Optimistic estimates can in retrospect seem almost delusional. One example is that people end up paying about twice as much as they originally expected to pay for kitchen renovations.

DANIEL KAHNEMAN: 'We all have clear and certain beliefs, and our certainty is not impaired by the fact that other people hold contradictory beliefs.'
DANIEL KAHNEMAN: 'We all have clear and certain beliefs, and our certainty is not impaired by the fact that other people hold contradictory beliefs.' JON ROEMER
WSJ: Is there a way to keep our self-certainty from blocking out other evidence?

MR. KAHNEMAN: You can imagine yourself trying to make the case for your belief before a skeptical judge.

It is even better to try to construct the best possible case against your own position, because searching for arguments that support your position is unlikely to lead you to correct your mistakes.
book_reviews  decision_making  retirement  howto  personal_finance  planning  financial_planning  Daniel_Kahneman  gut_feelings  optimism  overconfidence  thinking_deliberatively  Nobel_Prizes  self-certainty 
may 2012 by jerryking

Copy this bookmark:





to read