It's not þt really unexpected things happen—it's þt we fail to understand, & hence fail to expect, þt normal variation will be as large as it is bound to be...
Here is an interesting science article that gives one pause. Although Taleb invokes the placebo effect (a 20% absolute clinical effect, as opposed to our best drugs having a 5% absolute effect), there may actually be something worth seeing.
This is a paper making a sensational claim. The first author is Luc Montaganier, who is the Nobel Laureate for isolating the HIV virus. In the paper he demonstrates that certain pathogens have an electromagnetic signature that can be embedded into water. From here, the pathogen’s DNA code can be realized and isolated through laboratory techniques. Additionally, that same water may be cultured by human lymphocytes to recover the intact pathogen, with the full understanding that a living cell is a complete PCR lab as well as the necessary substrate for culturing pathogens. This largely speaks to the pleiomorphic properties of water. There may be something regarding homeopathy and naturopathy.
Black-swans-that-aren't are a dime a dozen in financial markets.
In the 1987 stock market crash, I was informed (but did not reliably verify) that there were people forced out of long put positions because the rise in implied volatility caused their Initial Margin to increase by more than the improved moneyness of their positions caused their Variation Margin to decrease.
ETA: to spell out my point, if the young quant whippersnappers in your vignette had said "we think that this 'portfolio insurance' is going to blow up and cause the market to crash, let's put on a leveraged short position with options", the wise old market hands would have asked "OK, what would be the implication for margin calls in that scenario?"
"Where'd they get such a notion that anti-GM arguments could overturn 40 years of US go-to trade policy that science should come first? And the Birnam woods come to Iowa because of it."
Is that rhetorical?
The EU and even African nations banned GM foods. The GOP half of Congress (and a large US minority population) are also anti-science and more theocratic. Should we be surprised that Mexico has assimilated either/both of those ideas?
I wish to add, genetic modifications aside, the real purpose of this type of commercial farming was to be able to broadcast spray chemicals into the environment -- pesticides and herbicides. As much of this activity occurs in the Midwest, the run-off flows down the Mississippi River. And it all flows through NOLA. There is a 90 mile corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, called cancer alley which is one of the highest cancer rates in the nation. (Granted, the petroleum industry is also represented there, as well.) but the theme is still the same. Toxins and pathogens underlie the inflammation which is probably the cause of the chronic disease epidemic today. GM opponents may have a point to draw concern, if only indirectly.
There is no consensus that the WTO assessment of biosafety of GM crops is correct as it takes a rather narrow view. While I doubt that the fruits of the crops are likely to cause harm to humans, even more so if they are used as animal feed, there is certainly concern that some GM crops, e.g. herbicide and insecticide modified crops will harm the ecosystems they are planted in. There is also the issue of IP, cross-pollination, and the impact on farmers and farming. Some types of GE are fine, such as the removal rather than insertion of genes. At some point the attempt will be made to enhance photosynthetic efficiency to increase crop yields. Unless very tightly controlled, this could have a very disruptive effect on ecosystems as some plant species, such as grasses, if cross-pollinated, could overrun flowering plants. Industries like the chemical and ag have a poor reputation for testing and harm reduction. Most chemicals are untested. Disease outbreaks that impact humans are often caused by antibiotic use in husbandry which creates antibiotic resistant bugs. Countries have a right to be cautious. Maybe that is a shield to protect local producers, but the US is hardly an exemplary actor. Florida cane sugar protection raises the price of US sugar above world prices., and has led to the substitution of HFCS for cane or even beet sugar. IIRC, NAFTA had a huge impact on Mexican farmers as their inefficient farming practices were undercut by US exports as tariffs were cut. If that allowed GMOs into Mexico where before they were excluded, no doubt there were both economic and health welfare, and political fallout to deal with. In summary, it is complicated.
Regarding Taleb and homeopathy:
Here is an interesting science article that gives one pause. Although Taleb invokes the placebo effect (a 20% absolute clinical effect, as opposed to our best drugs having a 5% absolute effect), there may actually be something worth seeing.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.5166.pdf
This is a paper making a sensational claim. The first author is Luc Montaganier, who is the Nobel Laureate for isolating the HIV virus. In the paper he demonstrates that certain pathogens have an electromagnetic signature that can be embedded into water. From here, the pathogen’s DNA code can be realized and isolated through laboratory techniques. Additionally, that same water may be cultured by human lymphocytes to recover the intact pathogen, with the full understanding that a living cell is a complete PCR lab as well as the necessary substrate for culturing pathogens. This largely speaks to the pleiomorphic properties of water. There may be something regarding homeopathy and naturopathy.
Black-swans-that-aren't are a dime a dozen in financial markets.
In the 1987 stock market crash, I was informed (but did not reliably verify) that there were people forced out of long put positions because the rise in implied volatility caused their Initial Margin to increase by more than the improved moneyness of their positions caused their Variation Margin to decrease.
ETA: to spell out my point, if the young quant whippersnappers in your vignette had said "we think that this 'portfolio insurance' is going to blow up and cause the market to crash, let's put on a leveraged short position with options", the wise old market hands would have asked "OK, what would be the implication for margin calls in that scenario?"
Consider adding the fall in TIPS prices during the 2008 financial crisis (thin market + massive forced sales from Lehman). That was incomprehensible at the time. https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2009/08/04/uncovering-the-mayhem-in-2008-in-the-tips-market
"Where'd they get such a notion that anti-GM arguments could overturn 40 years of US go-to trade policy that science should come first? And the Birnam woods come to Iowa because of it."
Is that rhetorical?
The EU and even African nations banned GM foods. The GOP half of Congress (and a large US minority population) are also anti-science and more theocratic. Should we be surprised that Mexico has assimilated either/both of those ideas?
I wish to add, genetic modifications aside, the real purpose of this type of commercial farming was to be able to broadcast spray chemicals into the environment -- pesticides and herbicides. As much of this activity occurs in the Midwest, the run-off flows down the Mississippi River. And it all flows through NOLA. There is a 90 mile corridor between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, called cancer alley which is one of the highest cancer rates in the nation. (Granted, the petroleum industry is also represented there, as well.) but the theme is still the same. Toxins and pathogens underlie the inflammation which is probably the cause of the chronic disease epidemic today. GM opponents may have a point to draw concern, if only indirectly.
There is no consensus that the WTO assessment of biosafety of GM crops is correct as it takes a rather narrow view. While I doubt that the fruits of the crops are likely to cause harm to humans, even more so if they are used as animal feed, there is certainly concern that some GM crops, e.g. herbicide and insecticide modified crops will harm the ecosystems they are planted in. There is also the issue of IP, cross-pollination, and the impact on farmers and farming. Some types of GE are fine, such as the removal rather than insertion of genes. At some point the attempt will be made to enhance photosynthetic efficiency to increase crop yields. Unless very tightly controlled, this could have a very disruptive effect on ecosystems as some plant species, such as grasses, if cross-pollinated, could overrun flowering plants. Industries like the chemical and ag have a poor reputation for testing and harm reduction. Most chemicals are untested. Disease outbreaks that impact humans are often caused by antibiotic use in husbandry which creates antibiotic resistant bugs. Countries have a right to be cautious. Maybe that is a shield to protect local producers, but the US is hardly an exemplary actor. Florida cane sugar protection raises the price of US sugar above world prices., and has led to the substitution of HFCS for cane or even beet sugar. IIRC, NAFTA had a huge impact on Mexican farmers as their inefficient farming practices were undercut by US exports as tariffs were cut. If that allowed GMOs into Mexico where before they were excluded, no doubt there were both economic and health welfare, and political fallout to deal with. In summary, it is complicated.