The Possum Bistro

Current market systems are based on a number of interactions between large scale institutions (cartels, trading blocks, and consortiums) that have a limited proactive outlook (they wish to make a profit) and a highly backwards looking one (keep things stable to ensure that profit). Individual investors are left without the knowledge of those trading blocks, by and large, but it is interesting that they do follow an inherent rule-system that is 'non-obvious'. One of the first interesting experiments in adaptive computing through genetic algorithms was a stock price analysis system in which the system was given historical data and then allowed to create variants of itself to try and tackle different internal variations in their systems. Those that succeeded, by and large, were kept, the losers removed and then those winners multiplied and then allowed to exchange internal code variants. The system is ingenious as it removes human based bias from the analysis and, instead, moves it to the data input realm and then measures how the systems adapt and evolve towards more correct solutions. The internal 'code' of these systems is unintelligible to the normal programmer and many have artifacts that are, apparently, contradictory, internally, to getting a desired outcome. Yet, remove those 'superfluous' internal components and the resulting code does not track as well as the parent! There are now some investor funds that have *zero* human analysis input and the only changes are in giving adaptive code a chance to play without money in sandboxes to generate up new variants that track things better. It speaks well of human ingenuity to create things that we do not understand but still work, and it also speaks very poorly of our current understanding of human based interactions that we do so poorly at something like market prediction.

[...] When applied to a market place and given all the expected known input, plus some that may be extraneous, an adaptive algorithm that tracks markets can be created... it is obviously finding underlying patterns and rules that can be modeled and yet how and why that happens is non-obvious. A lot of the block trading is, of course, done by rule-based computing, and they all have similar views although strong variations within those views. Some of the smaller trading blocks have actually shifted over to this concept, not totally but in smaller scale areas, and we are now seeing a market driven by algorithms trying to figure out each other's way of doing things and adapting to them to gain advantage.... humans do have input to this system: small trading groups changed algorithm behavior when they were added in, although not down to the level of 'investment clubs' - there appears to be a 'noise level' involved also.

[...] The fully automated market systems have run likewise, now, for over 5 years and have similar internal anomolies: we don't know what sections of code actually *do* for the overall function of the program and yet if you remove or change those in a 'sandbox' of non-live cash and yet real market data, they perform less well than their parent stock. These systems create an internal set of rules that have adapted them to the input and output environment plus to survive the selection process and they have created a way to adapt to those things they are measuring and measured 'against'. They are creating internal tools and systems to survive analyzing the human driven market and yield best performance based on the market past history and its variables, their own ability to measure those things, their ability to predict future market trends and then survive to create a generations of progeny with changes that may or may not be more robust than the parent stock.

[...] How the software adapts to that input we do not know as the major movers are not addrssed as entities but as part of the environment of the overall market: they are environmental and to be adapted to. That they *are* adapted to is beyond a doubt, years of market returns demonstrate that. How the software does it? We can't really say, even when the code is before us to be analyzed... we are not the program living in its environment and having a selective pressure on us. This code meets the needs of that pressure. All of what we are that drives the market are adaptation pressures to that software type. Just like with indidivual humans, we can say that the broad class of humans have certain characteristics, but how each individual human does what he or she does, is not easily analyzed.

[...] In adapting to the changing market environment (and as this is evolutionary code, those running such allow new generations to spawn and are tested against current generations and market data, with new software added to the final and surviving mix) if that environment changes then the software mix changes: it is not static and evolves to meet the changing market. Our adaptation to these tools is taken into account by the tools and *they* adapt to our adaptation. This will never be a majority of the market as what 'sane' individual will trust even a significant portion of their savings to software that we really have no idea as to how it works? Humans will place much trust in machines and software, but on code that adapts, evolves, changes with money involved? This is driving the larger investment houses, however, to try and understand what they are doing, how it can be modeled and how their environmental impact on the market is predictable. Think of it: if mere evolutionary software can characterize your activity and make predictions on it, then your organization has gotten predictable. To some organizations this offers 'stability', but to others, especially 'hedge funds' and such, this has got to be extremely worrying as their market impact is based on being unique in their observations to catch the overall market unawares to their activity. Having even a small segment that can adapt to that and predict it in the way the market moves in response to a hedge-fund or other organization/fund type like that? And one segment of that is a true, scientific 'black box': how it works is unknown save for what it takes in and what it yields out. Even the folks running it don't know what the software 'really' does beyond what it 'apparently' does.

[...] On the adaptive code, Stephen Jay Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory posits that the genomes of animals contain much in the way of 'junk code' that serves as partial back-ups for well running parts of the genome and as sources of future variability. While within a year after his death that had to drop by the wayside as we found much in the way of utility in such parts of the genome of humans, in computer code these code reservoirs may serve just that purpose. Thus, even though it may have little active or useful role to play in the running code it may serve great utility for allowing code to be more adaptable for future generations of descendants. There is also the concept that the actual hardware the code runs on has, itself, timing systems that are inherent in the speed of code execution so that 'non functioning' portions may serve as timing delay mechanisms for one reason or another... the wonder of adaptive code is that it is not internally self-deterministic but is representative of surviving the human set conditions which are unknown to the code itself. By surviving it can thrive and attempt to continue to survive even as its progeny has variation to compete better than its parent(s). It is an extremely fascinating area of work, because what we have are a large group of known ideas and structures that, when allowed to work on their own, yield things we can't figure out. The reason we decompile these code systems is to try and understand those gaps in our understanding so we can get a better idea how to craft decent computer coding structures. What we think we know is challenged by the outcomes of these systems and that points to us as having missed something in our thinking process: as creator we can now be baffled by our creations.

Basically, algorithms programmed to record and identify the implicit norms of behaviour made by individuals in the economy. As Anthony Giddens - a constructivist - had envisioned, agent-structure duality exists and is a continuous dialectic. The algorithm encapsulates the complexities of the dialectic and influences the behaviour of agents working within the system, but as human beings, we employ our own intellect, gut instinct and reasoning that alters the norms of the algorithm. To a great degree, humans are less of empty vessels and abstract units, and more of the elements that render us human: our passions, ambitions and fears.

And still though we may have gotten better at market prediction, we can't figure out the forces behind the dynamics. From a constructivist's point of view, it seems that we have to delve deeper into the intricacies of influences that condition and socialise the individual's psyche, response behaviour and perspective. That sounds more like pyschology than anything else, but elements such as culture and philosophy might be better placed to analyse and understand why algorithms work - the basis being non-obvious factors of which their significance may be greatly underestimated or underrated.

On technology:

Regarding the much-trumpeted 'trickle-down' effect of technology, another popular meme circulating in several circles of discussion: technology becomes the decisive factor in widening the gap between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Even the virtual communities aforementioned in your post are luxuries of individuals who are better off in countries. I acknowledge the doubled-edged sword that technology represents, but obviously more needs to be done in terms of enhancing the accessibility and affordability of technology that will empower individuals. Needless to say, significant barriers to this objective of social justice are being constructed and reinforced by the Transnational Left dabbling in free-trade capitalism and neoliberalism.

Most of the game-oriented virtual communities require monthly fees as upkeep costs for participation, though smaller competitors have populated the market with free access to their online communities - a trend that is bound to intensify as technological ideas proliferate with increasing ease across borders. Having experimented with a particular game a few years back, I was taken aback with how much time I was spending trading, negotiating and earning profits from buying commodities and selling them at a more opportune time. And I could easily sense the presence of cartels that had already begun to take root and get more and more comfortable - with no form of enforcement possible. The only possible remedies taken by the hosts of the game involved resetting prices in the economy, or altering the supply of materials being 'dropped' in the game. Even so, with the consistency in surveilance by cartels, it only took a matter of hours before prices stabilised, if only to the benefit of these cartels. However, those who had experienced being forced to pay higher prices were socialised into being more wary of these monopolistic practices and thus were less likely to release their materials after a price reset.

Individuals who are well-accustomed with the workings of capitalist economies inside out definitely fare better in accumulating wealth within virtual worlds (not referring to myself), and these virtual communities serve as microcosmic playgrounds from which some ideas of enforcement of norms and principles as agreed between willing participants may be discussed, experimented at little real cost and perhaps rendered workable. Perhaps the socialisation that comes with being part of such virtual communities will allow individuals to be more sensitive to real-world problems of chronic underdevelopment, poverty and crime.

Of course, this would set as a precondition that individuals take such virtual socialisation experiences seriously, even though the initial intention on their part was to escape the seriousness of reality. Also, transnational communities such as these run the risk of being 'monopolised' by only those who can afford it, such that only special interests are served. This is exactly the ideal which the Transnational Left is striving to duplicate on the global scale; this is why I emphasise on focusing on rendering accessibility to such transnational communities easier for everyone - to ensure that counter-hegemonic blocs will prevent special interest lobbies from dominating the agenda and exploiting transnationalism, hijacking the movement and using it for its destructive, utopian ends.

One of the successes of the Transnational Left is convincing that the communities which it has inspired and spawned are 'global' in scope, when in fact they serve the vested interests of a particular few in each country. An exclusive club with exclusive objectives.

The asymmetrical effect of technology on this, beyond having things like cheap cell phones in the hands of Kalihari bushmen, is two fold: the cost of individualized manufacturing is now following the Moore's Law cycle, though at about a decade or two behind, and those devices allowing individualized creation break the societal concept of restricting individuals based on their use of materials. The first and second generation of precision, computer driven home lathing systems, along with routers for wood, are the basis for replacing the bits with metal working bits and doing that with metal. Also the microtechnology and the 'lab on a chip' concept, plus precision output devices using commodity parts (like using cells in inkjet devices) will change the way we view the creation and utization of everything from such things as automatic weapons (with a home system and precision lathe and casting you are down to the cost of raw materials, equipment and time) all the way up to custom pharmaceuticals and organic cellular substrates. Our concept of government to 'restrict our vices' to ourselves is coming to an end in a hard and fast way because the original parts manufacturing is cheap. A village that can get a modern, $200 PC with solar cells is set up to now have its own precision forge and drafting system, with lathing, and add on pharmaceutical and organic cell substrate creation. The cost factor is not a 'divide increase' paradigm, but a 'lower the bar to lowest possible income' one. This is also, by the exact same technology, a Von Neumann concept: you now have the parts to create an entire *new* device from scratch. While large scale manufacturing will play its part, stopping that from replicating will be impossible as it is all technology driven via data. The Open Source movement now includes OS Robotics and OS Manufacturing for these new tools and devices. The economic shift of this sort of work in this pre-gen era are already apparent: low cost handheld devices in rural India now allow farmers to trade commodities with each other at global market prices adjusted to transport efficiencies. Yes, trading livestock for wheat is done at Chicago Board of Trade prices... which, prior to the 1990's, was impossible to even think about. Local economic factors now play a part in global decisions, and global result reflect into local economies directly: no intermediaries save those doing the local trading seeking a 'fair price'. Consider the blacksmith in a village during the anti-Soviet Mujahaddin era, in which an AK-47, brand new,made from local parts, was $200-250. Now replace the man, the forge, the hand tools, with a sub-$20,000 device that utilizes free drafting templates, precision cast analysis, precision machining and can clunk out 3-5 of those a day based on raw materials. Yes the one man's job goes away... but the output increases as well as quality.... the skill base disappears. Do that for precision pharma products with known chemical structure and reagents. Currently I am utilizing a medication that is very costly due to abuse of it by the richer portion of the US population, which restricts output and has increased overhead due to 'controls'. The actual cost of materials and compounds for a drug that has been known for over 25 years is miniscule, as is the manufacturing process. The overhead is the driving cost and that is governmental overhead, almost entirely due the restricted drug category it is in. Now, if for a sub-$1000 investment and a few tens of dollars in chemicals and existing compounds I an *make* that for a net cost of pennies per pill.... now imagine that for cocaine, for heroine, for LSD, for any known pharma product that has molecular description. That is not the far future, and devices like that for creating chemical labs on a chip are already in first gen production for sensors. An entire directed chemical lab on a microchip. Add in an FPGA and multiple compound inputs and I now have a fully adaptable, small scale chemical lab for personalized production of pharmaceuticals. Any drug that is 'patented' has a chemical analysis and structure as part of that... intellectual property theft? or utilizing technology to create a new basis for personalized precision drug making?

For precision pharma products, there needs to be enforcement of measures to protect indigenous knowledge in developing countries. One problem why big pharma companies have been able to sue and outmanoeuvre these low-cost producers is due to the race in devleoped countries to patent everything and anything, then lobbying to extend patent periods in order to protect their profits while local populations in the afflicted countries are unable to benefit from the low-cost substitutes. Stricter restrictions need to be enforced such that the patent will be granted only if a new drug has a significantly greater effect than a predecessor. This is only one of several approaches that need to be undertaken to minimise the blatant impunity with which special interests have been hoarding technology and innovation to feed their pockets, in the process disincentivising innovation in developing countries and creating an atmosphere of auto-regulation and 'self-censorship'.

Issues of intellectual property theft have to be weighed against the urgency of social justice, the needs of local communities against the needs of the profilgate and wealthy.

On transnationalism, I posited the challenge of managing transnationalism instead of wholly rejecting it - we can wield it to our advantage of strengthening local communities, preserving identities and values while warding off brutal imposition of homogenisation and playing right into the hands of the Transnational Capitalists and Utopian-idealists.

The scourge that is Transnational Progressivism has been as evident and clear to me as ever, and your post simply elucidates it even clearer. Intellectuals such as Andrew Linklater have questioned why particularistic associations such as nation-states must exist in the international system when the ties that bind each individual to another are fraternalistic. Thomas Aquinas noted that we were, as humans, all governed under one natural law as dictated by God, and so we should embrace each other. Such optimism ingrained in the benign view of human nature is much desired for in this current apocalyptic age of multitudinous dangers that we live in in trepidation and perpetual fear, yet is unhelpful, even hampering our conceptualisation of the realities at hand.

The only problem with the utopian view that progress of humanity can only be measured when the obligation felt by the individual - as a result of pulls of loyalties stirred by particularistic associative elements such as race, ethnicity, ideology and nationalism - gives way to the obligation felt towards mankind is that it should be done as quickly as possible, with almost complete disregard for the intricacies of disparate cultures and identities. Too often does the mantra 'for the greater good' involve overgeneralisation and brutal homogenisation of identities such that the individual is quickly forgotten. Diversity falls prey to the 'race to the bottom' as the lowest common deoniminator is sought after as if it were an end in itself.

The lowest common denominator manifests itself in the worst excesses of 'free trade' capitalism as espoused by the neoliberal ideologues: where low costs are supposed to attract investment, protectionist measures coupled hypocritically with exposing domestic producers to ruthless competition from abroad have allowed for the exploitation of low-cost labour. Other countries see this and start a race to the bottom by squeezing their workers even more.

Too benign a view of human nature, too distrustful a view of government.

I do agree that Communism is a main factor in the atomization of individuals to society: that arises from treatment of individuals as a 'mass' not as individuals. The Prisoner's re-phrase - "I am not a number, I am a free man!" - is a direct attack against the source of this dehumanization that wishes to yield humans down to units of something larger. That is detestable on the Left and the Right, and the dehumanizing factor of treating humans as 'economic beings' only is a bad trait both sides have picked up. I am more than the sum of my income and buying decisions, much, much more... and yet that is what the authoritarian views of Communism and 'free trade' Capitalism would have me be - an economic unit only. That is now a religious dogma instead of being a form of analysis only, and I am sickened by the easy dehumanization of individuals boiled down to 'lowest common denominators'. If we are just that, then we will have some lovely, adaptable systems that will take our place very soon now... luckily we are non-linear systems that not only have adaptability, ingenuity but drive towards certain goals. When those goals over-ride viewing humanity as individuals creating larger things about them known as society... we are on a downward spiral as a species if we attempt to change that into mass calculations *only*, because that is what makes us human.

I believe the problem lies not with transnationalism per se but how it is being managed, much like globalisation itself. It is a process, but to deny that transnational forces are wholly beyond the control of governments is a pathetic attempt to absolve oneself of responsibility to their electorates. Even more serious, to deny that transnational forces are being manipulated and exploited by a select few within these communities - special interest groups, corporate lobbies, idealist-socialists, criminal networks, terrorist organisations, drug cartels - is to willingly and consciously surrender sovereignty to these entities, who are only all too eager to gobble up the carrion.

I concur with your point about having to wield transnationalism as a tool, to manage it and strengthen the communities that we already have succeeded in creating and preserving. Never should we let the tool ride roughshod and erode what we have accomplished - when the means become an end in itself, transnationalism has no intrinsic value other than to equalise at the lowest common denominator. Though transnational communities should not be accepted as the basis for a world government, they should be perceived as the budding beginnings of transnational civil society.

These transnational forces could draw resources from disparate areas of expertise, intellectual banks of ideas and solutions, and channel these by utilising the proliferation of media to protest against the hijacking of transnationalism by the malevolent agents aforementioned. Bring public pressure from within and without, act as the unofficial Fourth Estate in exposing atrocities and failures in ensuring social justice throughout, socialising governments and peoples into investing themselves into a mutually-strengthening relationship between themselves as members of their respective communities and members of global civil society.

Of course, global civil society cannot possess pretensions to world government, and any move towards creating concretised laws of enforcement designed to punitively punish deviant behaviour should not be encouraged. Instead, global civil society harnesses transnationalism as the medium through which social norms and practices can be established between willing participants suited to their specific conditions and circumstances such that it benefits them, and not a covenant imposed upon them as though it were a one-size-fits-all approach (as has been done in terms of conditional assistance, modernisation, trade liberalisation dictated by the IMF, World Bank). We cannot afford to mismanage transnationalism the same way globalisation has continued to be mismanaged up till this day.

The most basic right is to FORM into such groups that HAVE differences in outlook. From that proceeds the right to protect such groups from others, as an organized structure. Transnationalism wishes to utilize group phenomena and exploit it to rule and, in that doing, slowly erase the meaning of being in a group via history and culture. Our current environment supports differences amongst groups to come to better ends via different ways of viewing the world. By homogenizing culture, humans become more atomic and have fewer differences amongst themselves and become replaceable objects to society. By emphasizing the differences we do get a bloodier interplay between cultures and societies, but better institutions are slowly created to secure those differences and promulgate them - the individual becomes the main contributing point to these things and a necessary mover of society.

I part ways with the Transnational Left and Right in their attempts to homogenize culture via economic enforcement and then the more brutal 'real' enforcement of the powers of the State. By seeing people as societal 'objects' and putting rights on the 'to be traded' table, we lose the meaning of the source of those rights being internal to each and every one of us. I would sooner trust adaptable software that is a black box as it adapts to human culture and society, rather than to have such new and bland culture imposed by humans just 'trying to make the world a better place' by removing all the nasty little bits that make us human.

Again, transnationalism as a process, if managed can possibly foster mutually strengthening institutions and regimes of behaviour that can 'secure those differences and promulgate them'. If left to its own devices, I agree with your conclusion that certain opportunistic groups will exploit it in order to crowd out, devalue and systematically eradicate opposing groups - destroying identity and individuality in due time. The seductive appeal of transnationalism capitalises on this basic right to form groups with deviations of outlook from those established by hegemonic discourses existing in the world today, spread either by governments, propaganda wings of crime and terrorist networks, or any other self-proclaimed authority. The fatal flaw in unmanaged transnationalism lies in the fact that you can count on these groups abusing such power and exploiting zero accountability to electorates, while proclaiming to work 'for the greater good' and 'humanity'. Of course, we can never tell which transnational entities have malevolent intentions, but that doesn't mean we should reject transnationalism altogether - we should seek to moderate its excesses (as displayed by the Transnational Left and Right) and impose our own informal system of checks and balances upon their actions. The only workable solution requires us to seek out methods to manage transnationalism and promote incentives that align the interests of local communities living in an increasingly globalised civil society. At no step in this process should we forget the intrinsic rights of the individual, and his or her irreplaceability in relation to the whole of global civil society.

It is deeply ironic that through the homogenisation of culture, lesser differences results in greater ease in liquidation; while accentuation of uniqueness may in the short-term stir conflict, in the long-term such the necessity to actively struggle and defend one's uniqueness is the key to ensuring its survivability and longevity.

I separate Transnationalism into two major parts: 1) Ideologically driven - Progressivism and Stateless Capitalism being the two main sections here, but this also includes Transnational Terrorism seeking to erode the Nation state foundations, and,

2) Functional Transnationalism - Structures that are not ideologically driven, but arise out of our ability and need to communicate, things like the internet, banking system, aircraft rules and regulations... purely functional aspects to allow international trade and commerce to happen.

While the neutral system types serve to help bring humanity together in a diverse way, the organizational structures (UN, WTO, and so on) become homogenizing and disassociative structures (while the terrorist become highly repressive and retrograde ones also seeking isolation to increase anomie and spread of their views). It is always interesting to hear the 'One Worlders' go on about how mankind will work to be one continuous state of being, and then put forth that these current homogonizing structures are just the thing for it. Humanity has, however, always kept local differences (often harshly) even when joining in larger groups and those associations take time to make. From the rise of the first City States to City State based Empires was hundreds of years, at least. From those to actual Nation states was hundreds if not thousands of years more to weld the first diverse set of City States into a more or less permanent National structure. The hundred fifty or so Principalities in the Germanies point out that problem from their first formulations after the fall of Rome to their final annealing in the late 19th century. That was at least 700 years if not more to accomplish and by the end of it Germany would be a Nation and the 'German Question' that had haunted Europe all of those centuries was finally brought to an end. Mind you they already had international trade going on for the last half or more of that, yet those functions would be interfered with by religious institutions and other Nations and that fractionated the Germanies over and over again. That is why, when looking at the Transnational neutral structures and hearing suggestions of some lovely ruling body or bodies I get distinctly cold shivers: the history of the Germanies points to a major problem with that, as does India, The Balkans, parts of South America and Pakistan. While Germany and India came to some good conclusion on these things, these other areas are set to crumble if an attempt is made to bring outside order to them by Transnational fiat. Iraq is proving to be the first point in the history of the Middle East where *not* doing that is being attempted. If Iraq can hold together and succeed for 20 years or so more, it will have demonstrated that outside help that does *not* impose order can help local cultures to create new order.... very much like that adaptive code. And like that it may not look like we expected it to, but it will be recognizable in its functions and outlooks. That is a vast learning process of societal liberty that will prove a crucible for our ideas about society, culture and individualism.

Indeed, we have come a long way in creating the conditions for local cultures to flourish, for identities to be preserved, and for individuals to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of speech and of difference in opinion and perspective. The Nation-state has become the most effective mechanism with which to protect these gains in progress, but ironically it has also become the shield behind which many autocratic rulers have hidden to defend their right to oppression, totalitarianism and regression. Ideological transnationalism seeks to unravel the orderliness in modern international relations, homogenise cultures and identities behind a duplicitous facade of idealism and cosmopolitanism. The Nation-state to the Transnational Left and Right is a hindrance to the attainment of their objective: to establish a world whereby peoples are defenseless against the exploitative methods - for wealth, domination and control. The lowest common denominator, the race to the bottom and the achievement of regression for the sake of equality at the lowest cost and shortest time - an effective concoction of venom potent enough to threaten the values which we hold dear.

For some, transnationalism of the functionalist strain provides an emancipatory potential: those local communities whose resources, individual rights and liberties have been ravaged and taken away by their tyrannous rulers who employ sovereignty as a defence against regime reform. For these peoples, transnationalism presents possible solutions to break the chokehold held by the regime, to be less subservient and dependent on its masters, instead utilising the proliferation of information, technology and ideas to their advantage. Empowerment of individuals at the expense of the state is key in reminding abusive or nonchalant, satiated and corrupt governments of their responsibility and accountability to their electorates. Cutting out the middle-man - more often than not, the Transnational Left and Right are culpable for this, complicit in its collaboration with the local government or authorities - will bestow upon those individuals who deserve to have their voice heard, to be respected for their differences in opinion, and to be accepted as unique, irreplaceable members of humanity, of global civil society.

Managing transnationalism will require each of us to appreciate the complexities of demands and needs of local communities: when the Nation-state is infringing upon their rights and actively acting against the preservation of identity, or when more power should be invested in promoting functionalist transnationalism, reinforcing the legitimacy and unchallenged authority of local governments in preventing homogenisation of cultures.