A square wave is a function which moves along at a fixed value for awhile then suddenly switches to another before switching back in a repeating cycle.
In sound this makes a harsh buzzing noise.
In the real world signals can't jump instantaneously from one value to the other so there is a bit of jitter before the new value settles down.
A picture will illustrate:
According to my theory when we are seeing rapid fluctuations in price it means that there is soon to be a sudden jump to the new state. In human terms in means there is a fundamental shift taking place in the social and/or economic structure of society and people haven't yet adapted to the new reality.
In addition to the currency fluctuations we have seen the rapid changes in oil prices, interest rates and, of course, stock prices.
What the new "reality" will look like is anyone's guess. I offered my 2 cents on how to influence the outcome in my latest essay.
The future is not foreordained, but letting things drift is never the best idea. Policies not Politics ---- Daily Landscape
Now imagine an adiabatically changing potential, which sometimes has only one well but may develop secondary wells and a cusp catastrophe. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Thanks anyway. In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
Previous stable state: Anglo-disease (30 years of it) Now: Chaos (the chaos can still increase from our current point, or decrease...) Sometime in the future: another stable state (insert your favourite forecast of the future here).
Of course, as to peak oil we can also think that the model(s) (in the short-medium term) are fcking wrong: as most models have an implicit assumption of inifite demannd (or demand to the level of maximum production).
If demand falls dramatically then there might not be peak oil after all (especially if, in the mean time, or dear leaders are prescient enough to take this oppportunity to convert our economies from black to green)
Can you explain this?
If that is the case, the "old state" cannot be simply described as "Anglo Disease". Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Old state: low prices Chaos: The current ups and downs New state: high prices
But again, peak oil might be wrong if demand goes down and there is a massive switch from black to green (energy) before demand rises again.
There's also no guarantee of stability. Because in fact we haven't really had economic stability for the last thirty years - far from it.
What we've had is a relatively stable political system which has been implemented and sustained using economic jargon as a rhetorical narrative device.
Expecting that economic jargon - which is made of sandcastles floating on bullshit, as JK Galbraith has almost pointed out - to provide an insight into any stable political system in the future might possibly be optimistic.
What the new "reality" will look like is anyone's guess.
this new "reality" is not going to favor "the common man"? In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
In a digital system you wouldn't get any signal at all at an attenuation of 0.2 because that would be too small to switch bits.
It's more likely that there's a chaotic instability happening which may - or may not - lead to a dramatic state change.
But unlike chaotic processes in nature, economies don't just happen. They're engineered to work in a certain way for the benefit of certain people.
Nothing in economics is inevitable or out of human hands. The problem is making sure it's the right human hands doing the engineering.
The problem is making sure it's the right human hands doing the engineering.
Why do I get the feeling it's the Phil Graham/Grover Norquist types who will be the "human hands"? In the end, might makes right. Nothing has changed since the caveman.
According to my theory when we are seeing rapid fluctuations in price it means that there is soon to be a sudden jump to the new state.
The more fundamental problem is that the oscillation damps out after the step. What you are showing is the opposite of what you are describing. Reverse the arrow of time on your graph and you would be showing what you are describing. Perhaps Mig could find an anology in quantum theory for such a scheme. It is far beyond me, but I did spend a lot of time looking at deformed square waves when I was designing audio circuits back in the 70s. As the Dutch said while fighting the Spanish: "It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
To me, the noise is the signal in financial price series, and if you stripped it out you'd be left with the naked square wave. Most economists teach a theoretical framework that has been shown to be fundamentally useless. -- James K. Galbraith
Real economies are based on politics, not maths. You can't design signal flows until you specify social outcomes, and the big problem we have at the moment - and have had for decades now - is that the people who design the outcomes have been utterly dishonest and manipulative about what they've been trying to achieve.
At best they've been dishonest with themselves, and at worst they've simply been acting criminally.
If you want to model the economy accurately, you don't need square waves, you need special prosecutors.
