Re: Retiring Rich (was Re: Ideocosmology)

[David Dockstader <DRDOCK00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>]

On Sun, 29 Mar 1998 22:24:48 -0600 brian whatcott said:
>                  No, it must have to do with developing a model, testing
> experimentally, and discarding/refining hypotheses.
> Do tell all?

Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind.  The models like models in physics
can be very simple or very refined and like the models in physics the simple
models may prove very useful and the more refined models can fill in the
details if they are desired.  A lot of science consists of having enough
understanding of basic math to be able to apply it to real world situations.
Math folks understand the math, but they don't know how to create models that
will work in the real world and as a result their math serves no useful purpose
beyond math for the sake of math. Probably the only real model anyone needs
is exponential growth, and since we all have access to spread sheets we don't
need to be able to do the math.  Just start at age 30 and put $1000 in the
stock market every year and with an average historical yield retire at 65
a millionaire.  If you invest in companies that have historically done better
than average yourreturn will probably be better than average and you can retire
a multimillionaire.  This simple model is so far beyond the comprehension of
most Americans that they prefer to pour their money into slot machines and
state lotteries where obviously any model based on real data must show that
if you bet often enough you will get back less than you put in.  On the other
hand you can win at the race track. Again the model can simply be developed
from historical data.  Isn't this how we do science?  We look at what happens
and then expect it to happen again.  Just bet on horses and riders who
consistantly win and go home with the money from the folks who bet on the
horses and riders who consistantly loose!