Is it time to replace the Federal Reserve with a computer?

[mitchel]

Yea, I would also like a brain upgrade to a 10000 core Pentium with 2^64 GB of ram please.

 

[dawp]

Read The Evitable Conflict by Isaac Asimov as it covers what could be a possible outcome of such a scenario. a good story from the I, Robot short story collection.

 

[yllus]

I'm realizing how little fiscal sense people around here have. Do you really think that if the market could be predicted by a computer sim, it wouldn't already have been written? I think there might be a company or two who would be interested in a system that could do this.

There's always a ton of things needing to be added to the equation for it to even remotely resemble the real world. Just yesterday, three completely regional factors played hugely into the price of oil:

Oil hit a record high near US$118 a barrel yesterday as rebel attacks cut Nigerian supplies and a Scottish refinery strike threatened North Sea crude production.

Further support came as OPEC officials said the market had enough oil and that the producer group would not ramp up output to help bring down prices despite calls for more oil from some consumer nations.

U.S. light crude settled up US79¢ at US$117.48 a barrel, before hitting US$117.83 in late trade. London Brent crude settled US51¢ higher at US$114.43 a barrel after hitting an all-time peak of US$114.86.

Pipeline attacks in OPEC member Nigeria last week shut 169,000 barrels per day (bpd) of Bonny Light production, forcing Royal Dutch Shell PLC to declare force majeure on exports of the crude.

How are you going to factor in the impression of a speech by an OPEC spokesperson? Everyone has their own idea of what weight to give that statement, and most people are going to be wrong. How are you going to predict rebel attacks in Nigeria? Are you going to build in a +/- for it occurring? Now you've just thrown off the everyday price of oil for something that probably rarely happens.

Let's say we build a million-variable system that takes into account all of this. You're still not going to get accuracy because, simply, humans are involved. People start thinking as a pack and get irrational about what they want. No computer system can model the irrationality of humans. They can build in a small allowance for it, but not truly predict it - and that's exactly what would be needed, an accurate prediction of the effects of human irrationality before it happens.

 

[Dari]

I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

And what part of human has:
1. Common sense
2. Experience
3. Intuition

To deal with complex economic issues that cannot be parameterized don't you understand?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

And what part of human has:
1. Common sense
2. Experience
3. Intuition

To deal with complex economic issues that cannot be parameterized don't you understand?

Please. If you've ever done anything more than simple statistics you'll understand that, done correctly, analysis of data can provide the quality you seek. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, history can be quantized. If it can be quantized, you can easily qualify it. Again, the common sense, experience, and intuition you seek are all in the data if you know how to get it. This is what math is all about. It isn't just about putting data into excel fields like you probably do. Anyone can do that. The point is to understand the data. If a computer can do all the hard work for you, what makes you think it can't go the last mile? Just give it instructions and it'll follow it.

If you'd like to give me an example of what the experts at the Federal Reserve can do that a computer cannot (aside from kiss ass), I'm all ears.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: Dari

2. No outside interference

Does the program write itself? If so, I need to get me one of those for work.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

And what part of human has:
1. Common sense
2. Experience
3. Intuition

To deal with complex economic issues that cannot be parameterized don't you understand?

Please. If you've ever done anything more than simple statistics you'll understand that, done correctly, analysis of data can provide the quality you seek. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, history can be quantized. If it can be quantized, you can easily qualify it. Again, the common sense, experience, and intuition you seek are all in the data if you know how to get it. This is what math is all about. It isn't just about putting data into excel fields like you probably do. Anyone can do that. The point is to understand the data. If a computer can do all the hard work for you, what makes you think it can't go the last mile? Just give it instructions and it'll follow it.

If you'd like to give me an example of what the experts at the Federal Reserve can do that a computer cannot (aside from kiss ass), I'm all ears.

think? Use of foresight perhaps? Knowledge of basic economic fundamentals? Knowledge of people?

there is no regression that can be done to determine what you want to do here. Even assuming you could come up with the data fast enough to react, you ignore the fact tha the economy changes quickly and often, and any model, assuming that it could be made, would be rendered useless.

As it is, even the most advanced and complex statistical methods are incredibly ineffective and predicting much of anything when it comes to the economy.

my question to you is what exactly do you think a computer would be able to do, and for that matter, how?

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

And what part of human has:
1. Common sense
2. Experience
3. Intuition

To deal with complex economic issues that cannot be parameterized don't you understand?

Please. If you've ever done anything more than simple statistics you'll understand that, done correctly, analysis of data can provide the quality you seek. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, history can be quantized. If it can be quantized, you can easily qualify it. Again, the common sense, experience, and intuition you seek are all in the data if you know how to get it. This is what math is all about. It isn't just about putting data into excel fields like you probably do. Anyone can do that. The point is to understand the data. If a computer can do all the hard work for you, what makes you think it can't go the last mile? Just give it instructions and it'll follow it.

If you'd like to give me an example of what the experts at the Federal Reserve can do that a computer cannot (aside from kiss ass), I'm all ears.

think? Use of foresight perhaps? Knowledge of basic economic fundamentals? Knowledge of people?

there is no regression that can be done to determine what you want to do here. Even assuming you could come up with the data fast enough to react, you ignore the fact tha the economy changes quickly and often, and any model, assuming that it could be made, would be rendered useless.

As it is, even the most advanced and complex statistical methods are incredibly ineffective and predicting much of anything when it comes to the economy.

my question to you is what exactly do you think a computer would be able to do, and for that matter, how?

What exactly do you think thinking is? Think about. Seriosuly. It's all about carrying out different scenerios in your mind and seeing the outcome. You may do this several times before you come to a logical conclusion. Well, this is exactly what a computer can do, only faster.

Your knowledge of economics can be turned into an algorithm.

Knowledge of people is another way of saying you can predict what they may do if you do something. But that doesn't even matter if you already have a set of rules that you're going to abide by. The logic is inherent. Knowledge of people does nothing to change the response variable given the data.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

And what part of human has:
1. Common sense
2. Experience
3. Intuition

To deal with complex economic issues that cannot be parameterized don't you understand?

Please. If you've ever done anything more than simple statistics you'll understand that, done correctly, analysis of data can provide the quality you seek. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, history can be quantized. If it can be quantized, you can easily qualify it. Again, the common sense, experience, and intuition you seek are all in the data if you know how to get it. This is what math is all about. It isn't just about putting data into excel fields like you probably do. Anyone can do that. The point is to understand the data. If a computer can do all the hard work for you, what makes you think it can't go the last mile? Just give it instructions and it'll follow it.

If you'd like to give me an example of what the experts at the Federal Reserve can do that a computer cannot (aside from kiss ass), I'm all ears.

think? Use of foresight perhaps? Knowledge of basic economic fundamentals? Knowledge of people?

there is no regression that can be done to determine what you want to do here. Even assuming you could come up with the data fast enough to react, you ignore the fact tha the economy changes quickly and often, and any model, assuming that it could be made, would be rendered useless.

As it is, even the most advanced and complex statistical methods are incredibly ineffective and predicting much of anything when it comes to the economy.

my question to you is what exactly do you think a computer would be able to do, and for that matter, how?

What exactly do you think thinking is? Think about. Seriosuly. It's all about carrying out different scenerios in your mind and seeing the outcome. You may do this several times before you come to a logical conclusion. Well, this is exactly what a computer can do, only faster.

Your knowledge of economics can be turned into an algorithm.

Knowledge of people is another way of saying you can predict what they may do if you do something. But that doesn't even matter if you already have a set of rules that you're going to abide by. The logic is inherent. Knowledge of people does nothing to change the response variable given the data.

so you are a fucking idiot.

ok lock this thread up.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm starting to believe that some here have a hard time reading. A response variable is exactly what it is, a variable that responds to a select amount of inputs. The current Federal Reserve doesn't look at millions of variables or a speech made by the head of OPEC. He looks at data based on a few parameters and responds to them. A computer would do the exact same thing. The main difference between a computer and a man is:

1. A rigid obedience to rules

2. No outside interference

3. Much faster response given the data at hand

These primary criterions aren't difficult to discern. No one, including myself, is looking for the perfect interest rate at the right time. All I want is a rigid adherence to monetary policy without interference. Job creation can be handled by the Treasury and elected governments (Federal and state).

My logic here is simple, not complex. Each party focuses on his/her department without crossovers. This will make monetary policy and job creation more efficient.

And what part of human has:
1. Common sense
2. Experience
3. Intuition

To deal with complex economic issues that cannot be parameterized don't you understand?

Please. If you've ever done anything more than simple statistics you'll understand that, done correctly, analysis of data can provide the quality you seek. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, history can be quantized. If it can be quantized, you can easily qualify it. Again, the common sense, experience, and intuition you seek are all in the data if you know how to get it. This is what math is all about. It isn't just about putting data into excel fields like you probably do. Anyone can do that. The point is to understand the data. If a computer can do all the hard work for you, what makes you think it can't go the last mile? Just give it instructions and it'll follow it.

If you'd like to give me an example of what the experts at the Federal Reserve can do that a computer cannot (aside from kiss ass), I'm all ears.

think? Use of foresight perhaps? Knowledge of basic economic fundamentals? Knowledge of people?

there is no regression that can be done to determine what you want to do here. Even assuming you could come up with the data fast enough to react, you ignore the fact tha the economy changes quickly and often, and any model, assuming that it could be made, would be rendered useless.

As it is, even the most advanced and complex statistical methods are incredibly ineffective and predicting much of anything when it comes to the economy.

my question to you is what exactly do you think a computer would be able to do, and for that matter, how?

What exactly do you think thinking is? Think about. Seriosuly. It's all about carrying out different scenerios in your mind and seeing the outcome. You may do this several times before you come to a logical conclusion. Well, this is exactly what a computer can do, only faster.

Your knowledge of economics can be turned into an algorithm.

Knowledge of people is another way of saying you can predict what they may do if you do something. But that doesn't even matter if you already have a set of rules that you're going to abide by. The logic is inherent. Knowledge of people does nothing to change the response variable given the data.

so you are a fucking idiot.

ok lock this thread up.

I think I'm done with you.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: nergee
How about a free market.....

An example of this is the 1% Fed Funds Rate in 2003-2004. I doubt the market on its own would have reduced interest rates to 1% or held them there for long if it did.
The Fed held rates rates too low too long. This created the biggest housing bubble in history. The Greenspan Fed at a very bad time, compounded the problem by endorsing derivatives and ARMs.

Banks would need someone to borrow money from. The federal funds rate is targeted but the discount rate is controlled by the Feds. If there was no Federal Reserve, politicians would fill such a role. Nobody wants that. We don't have philosopher-kings as leaders. Look at Bush...

The banks would be the place you would borrow money from. What a few of us would like to try out is keeping politicians and government out of our money.

nergee is right on the money. The Fed can't possibly set interest rates better than the free market can. And Warren Buffet strongly advised against derivatives when Greenspan was hailing it. We see now who was right and who was wrong.

free market equilibrium =/= optimality.

Define optimality.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dari


I think I'm done with you.

i don't know what else you expect when you ignore all questions and issues raised and keep repeating the same drivel over and over.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dari


I think I'm done with you.

i don't know what else you expect when you ignore all questions and issues raised and keep repeating the same drivel over and over.

Someone obviously didn't get the answer they wanted and are crying over it. Go whine to your mother, not me.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The Fed can't possibly set interest rates better than the free market can.

free market equilibrium =/= optimality.

Define optimality.

Text
Text

In a nutshell, free markets don't work because they don't exist.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The Fed can't possibly set interest rates better than the free market can.

free market equilibrium =/= optimality.

Define optimality.

Text
Text

In a nutshell, free markets don't work because they don't exist.

I wanted you to define optimality because that's actually a relative term. What's optimal for me isn't necessarily optimal for you.

For your first link, you cite social welfare which is actually a debatable topic. Is it social welfare or forced theft?

On your second argument, I'll agree with you there. Market failures may come up from time to time.

 

[CallMeJoe]

So: all we need is a more powerful computer than currently exists, an entirely disinterested financial/statistical/computing genius to program it, an equally disinterested genius to define and quantify all the variables to be included, an army of entirely disinterested auditors to collect the real-time data to enter, and a guarantee that politicians won't figure a way to cook the books for their own or their favorite lobbyists' advantage.

It sounds simple enough. When can we start?

edit: punctuation, spelling

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
So: all we need is a more powerful computer than currently exists, an entirely disinterested financial/statistical/computing genius to program it, an equally disinterested genius to define and quantify all the variables to be included, an army of entirely disinterested auditors to collect the real-time data to enter, and a guarantee that politicians won't figure a way to cook the books for their own or their favorite lobbyists' advantage.

It sounds simple enough. When can we start?

edit: punctuation, spelling

Isn't it great how we have boiled it down to a few independent variables? It will be such a gloriously simple model, not requiring millions of inputs, such as housing, capital ratios, capital flows, liquidity, relative economic valuations for global economies, commodities movements, consumer sentiment, credit expansion or contraction outside the control of the Fed, thousands of other variables (if not millions) all changing each second as the bat-shit-crazy and irrational humans scurry about in their lives, and, of course, the price of tea in china.

Wherever shall we find a horde of disinterested programmers, database experts, statisticians, economic interpreters, testers, and implementers?

Hey, lets outsource it to Accenture, surely those people have no vested interest and will do it correctly?!

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Dari


I think I'm done with you.

i don't know what else you expect when you ignore all questions and issues raised and keep repeating the same drivel over and over.

Someone obviously didn't get the answer they wanted and are crying over it. Go whine to your mother, not me.

you haven't adress any question or issues anyone put forth

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
The Fed can't possibly set interest rates better than the free market can.

free market equilibrium =/= optimality.

Define optimality.

Text
Text

In a nutshell, free markets don't work because they don't exist.

I wanted you to define optimality because that's actually a relative term. What's optimal for me isn't necessarily optimal for you.

For your first link, you cite social welfare which is actually a debatable topic. Is it social welfare or forced theft?

On your second argument, I'll agree with you there. Market failures may come up from time to time.

in my view social welfare and market failure are often two sides of the same coin, and my fixing market failures, you often make one individual worse off (such as a producer who can no longer freely dump into a river)

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
So: all we need is a more powerful computer than currently exists, an entirely disinterested financial/statistical/computing genius to program it, an equally disinterested genius to define and quantify all the variables to be included, an army of entirely disinterested auditors to collect the real-time data to enter, and a guarantee that politicians won't figure a way to cook the books for their own or their favorite lobbyists' advantage.

It sounds simple enough. When can we start?

edit: punctuation, spelling

Isn't it great how we have boiled it down to a few independent variables? It will be such a gloriously simple model, not requiring millions of inputs, such as housing, capital ratios, capital flows, liquidity, relative economic valuations for global economies, commodities movements, consumer sentiment, credit expansion or contraction outside the control of the Fed, thousands of other variables (if not millions) all changing each second as the bat-shit-crazy and irrational humans scurry about in their lives, and, of course, the price of tea in china.

Wherever shall we find a horde of disinterested programmers, database experts, statisticians, economic interpreters, testers, and implementers?

Hey, lets outsource it to Accenture, surely those people have no vested interest and will do it correctly?!

Oh and let's just pretend that past history is always a good indicator of future event and the world never changes and new variables never come into play.

 

[BansheeX]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BansheeX
Not to mention that Wall Street is ahead of the working man in the inflation line when unbacked liquidity trickles down from the banks, meaning that Wall Street's disproportionate benefit is very much a result of the federal reserve and Keynesian policy.

Because these people standing in the soup line after they all lose their jobs after the financial markets collapse from a lack of liquidity.

I guess you didn't read anything about 1929.

Uhhh, Legend, don't look now but the Fed existed after 1913 and was the root cause of the great depression. Hyperinflation will have the same soup line result as mass deflation and too little money: too much money worth nothing. The great depression happened because of the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply and not following their own policies under the rules of the gold standard.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: BansheeX

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: BansheeX
Not to mention that Wall Street is ahead of the working man in the inflation line when unbacked liquidity trickles down from the banks, meaning that Wall Street's disproportionate benefit is very much a result of the federal reserve and Keynesian policy.

Because these people standing in the soup line after they all lose their jobs after the financial markets collapse from a lack of liquidity.

I guess you didn't read anything about 1929.

Uhhh, Legend, don't look now but the Fed existed after 1913 and was the root cause of the great depression. Hyperinflation will have the same soup line result as mass deflation and too little money: too much money worth nothing. The great depression happened because of the Federal Reserve contracting the money supply and not following their own policies under the rules of the gold standard.

Was it the root cause of the GD? The Fed had marginal control over rates. The government effectively told them to drop them to allow GB's new gold backed currency to float without significant depreciation. The problem wasn't the Fed, it was the idea that we needed to be best buddies with GB.

The trigger point, contraction, was a reactionary measure demanded by politicians, agriculture groups, and bankers, because they didn't want the currency to depreciate against other currencies as the economy turned south.

They followed the rules of the gold standard quite well, protect value, limit inflation, at the cost of liquidity.

 

[Dari]

Man, I've got to say that people here can be really dense and outright stupid. If you read what I wrote and understood the mathematics behind the two processes I was advocating, you'd come around to the idea of a computer driven interest rate machine.

(REGRESSION) Simply put, you can put any and every variable you want with the corresponding data into a machine and do Forward/Backward stepwise regression and it'll tell you the most pertinent variables given our response variable.

(STOCHASTIC PROCESSES) You then take your variables and setup a function and let it work on an infintisemal (sic?) level. It only responds to current data given the last data. It is updated only when the data from the entire set of variables are given.

You go back and forth to see any changes in your parameters. Again, this is a response function, not a function that will predict the future.

BTW, new economic or financial variables, unless they're independent of the current variables, will always show up in the current variables. If not, regression analysis will find it and add them provided the computer is given as much information as possible.

I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here. Perhaps some are scared of change.

Oh, and there are already algorithms that try to predict future interest rates. One of them is Taylor's rule but the Feds certainly don't pay any attention to it. Why? Because they are politicized and worry about employment.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
So: all we need is a more powerful computer than currently exists, an entirely disinterested financial/statistical/computing genius to program it, an equally disinterested genius to define and quantify all the variables to be included, an army of entirely disinterested auditors to collect the real-time data to enter, and a guarantee that politicians won't figure a way to cook the books for their own or their favorite lobbyists' advantage.

It sounds simple enough. When can we start?

lol, brilliant. More like an army of all of the above, though.

Originally posted by: Dari
I'm not sure what is so difficult to understand here. Perhaps some are scared of change.

I'm actually sitting here a little amazed that someone could be as thick-skulled as you. People aren't disagreeing with you because they're "scared of change". People are disagreeing with you because your idea is stupid.