I have been thinking that the blogger in question IS George Soros, but after reading the NY times article, I now think that the blogger thinks exactly like Soros, but he is better than Soros because, for instance, back in May 08, he made a prediction/vision which he posted on his about the dollar, stocks and commodities. The price action has vindicated that prediction.

What is interesting in that prediction is the WHOLE reasoning of why things would turn the way they did (A la Soros). And they turned exactly as explained. The the article is below.

A FASCINATING and a MUST read.

Could anyone help determine whether RFT is Soros. His behavior is similar to Soros (He has Napoleon’s picture on his profile, but he removed it).

http://financialtraders.blogspot.com/2008/08/dollar-equities-stocks-and-commodities.html

There are many shades of gray between absolute preeminence and collapse.

Let’s try to go beyond binary pseudo-thinking, shall we?

One thing is sure: the US is not at its best now, far from it. We got biiig problems but biiiig resources in material and people.

The question is: Will we use them wisely to get out of this pickle, or are going to get stuck, denying there are fundamental problems that MUST be addressed?

“On to a new world order. What consummate arrogance that Soros knows that we need a new world order.”

Soros is not the first person to believe a New World Order will emerge. It *has* to.

What consumate arrogance to believe that the US will be able to retain its mantle? Remember, once upon a time … there was unprecedented global *change* and then the US became the global leader until…..

Change – you cant fight against it. The change to so many important (domestic) fundamentals and so many changing global ones, can only mean the status quo will change.

Chickens have come home to roost. A country that elects Bush *twice* and that has unravelled its financial system to this extent cannot expect to retain the global throne – this is all said regretfully.

The Mandelbrot reference is correct, efficient markets aren’t smooth just like the weather isn’t. Thunder storms are not caused by psychology.

And this is because the marketplace is fundamentally not a closed system.

Or, as another native of Hungary, Istvan Mészáros, put it:

Everything else is built around these two principles which are never established, but always assumed. They reciprocally and quasi-axiomatically support one another, constituting thereby the real armour of the theory. According to the believers in the ‘subjective revolution’, the irrepressible drive of the – by their ‘human nature’ so determined – individuals for maximising their utilities brings about the happy economic condition of equilibrium; and by the same token, economic equilibrium itself is the required condition under which the maximisation of the utilities of all individuals predestined for the purpose of selfish utility-maximisation can be – and for good measure actually is being – accomplished.

This impregnable circular reasoning provides the theoretical framework in which assumptions can run riot, enabling the economists concerned to derive the desired conclusions from the earlier enunciated ‘assumptions’ and ‘suppositions’, without any need to subject them to the test of actuality.
(Beyond Capital, 1995)

Many (all?) neoclassical economists are confused because they know no better than what, for over a century, has been ideology. Objective value as understood by Smith, Ricardo, Sismondi, Marx, was tossed aside in favor of the subjectivities of needs while producers were transmogrified into consumers and labor into merely another ‘factor’ rather than the sole value creating moment. With labor value disappeared from ‘the equation’ so also the moving non-identity of value and price and other systemic contradictions until crises came to appear as (almost by definition exogenous) surprises.

Why mention this? Because, last instance, paper claims are claims to a portion of just that labor value which neoclassic theory effectively ‘disappeared’. From this perspective, EMH was/is blind.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24443099-20142,00.html

- prospect theory was developed in the 1970s.
- behavioral finance became a fad at least 10 years ago.
- CAPM has been discredited as the all-encompassing theory since early 1980s.

But what’s more: I suppose any reasonable scientiest _knows_ that his models are only tools to explain a litle part of the world, and does not confuse this explanatory power with the idea, that reality would behave exactly like the model.

Case in point: It should be obvious that rational expectations mainly are an efficient tool to make the mathematical modelling easier; and let’s not forget that the theory of rational bubbles was concieved about 1982.

Here is a correlate quote:
A national leader once said: “[Our party] will use its own revolution for the establishing of a new world order.”

Is this what attracts Soros to the politicians that he supports? His reputation as a 14 year old collaborator in Budapest reeks of one who would plunder the earth for vanity. Not much has changed in 60 years.

On to a new world order. What consummate arrogance that Soros knows that we need a new world order.

Afraid it is impossible to scream over the internet.