Thursday, November 19, 2015

FED warp

Moral: Wherein we see one view of unwinding.

Unwinding? Our note, 08/24/2009: Ben offers no mea culpa; oh, he blinked and then panicked (not what one would expect of a General). Ben unwind now. The Vienna School's view that these things are undecidable (which is a computational issue) is right on.

At the time, we were all expecting some type of normal withdrawal from the addictive ways. But, the addicts won out, and savers became more flayed than sacked.


Recently, a WSJ opinion brought this back to fore for me. How the Fed Has Warped the 401(k). The image is an excerpt.

Be sure to read the comments. A lot of these are people talking about their strategies for beating the system, in the sense of not losing their money and obtaining some type of gain. Remember, we have quoted Niels as saying that the only way to not lose is fiddling (insider info, etc.). 

What we need for savers is the savings bond, rather than the market chimera, that pays interest over time. There is much to discuss in this regard. 

Remarks:  Modified: 11/20/2015

11/20/2015 -- Taking winnings (?) off the table. 

Friday, October 23, 2015

Sustainable and near zero

Moral: Wherein we acknowledge Fallows' look at Gore's view.

Yes, we're still here, though a little quiet. So, Janet and company are stiffing the savers. I could (would) say theft, actually. We are being pilfered so that the markets can run their crooked games.

Al Gore does not like all greed. Only the short-viewed type. No, he likes long-term greed. That is nice, Mr Gore. I like your emphasis on sustainability, but with your being so close to the players you may not be able to be aware of things that are amiss.

Listen to the little guys. Not those who can belly up with the $3M that you want for your investors.

So, this is about Fallow's article: The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore (there are plenty notes, to boot).


What Al and friends do is broaden the scope. We all know that the quarter-reporting view is just too limited. Or, rather, it reinforces the gaming. And, little people, like the savers, lose out (we can go on about this but won't, now).

So, they add in environmental and social issues to the equations. Nice guys/gals. You do not take it far enough. And, that is where near-zero comes in. I want to see a proper/in-depth accounting (yes, I know, tilting like the Don). And, I know that I have a long way to go to make this more clear.

In the meantime, congratulations, Mr. Gore, on your success (huge accumulations). Your work, at least, was a little light added to the darkness of the greedy times. Did you really have to use that concept?

Did Al Gore 'invent ' Sustainable Capitalism?
What ;we see from this newsflash is that Blood and Gore have their critics. Look at the notes associated with The Atlantic's article.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/28/2015

10/23/2015 --

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Billions and billions

Moral: Wherein we mention that Ben has his book and that Janet still does not see a bubble.

Yet, we see this story. That is, the financial firms (according to an article on Yahoo) had profits amounting to multiples of billions in 1/2 of the year.

Now, juxtapose that with the latest that I saw from a bank visit. Savers are getting 0.08% for their money. That is less that 0.1% which is as close to zero that you can get.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/06/2015

10/06/2015 -- Now, remember our put on "Beyond your wildest dreams" from earlier this year. Yes, those who run the financial realm rake off of the top. In essence, they de-cream so that we all get less of the fat.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Quora quarter

Moral: Wherein we pay attention to passing time.

After all, today starts the 4th quarter of 2015. What happened yesterday, with the 3rd's close? Was not paying attention. Why? Well, was doing some Quora work. I had run across the site earlier; but, this summer, I paid closer attention. And, got pulled in. Below, I'll sketch out some thoughts related to this blog.

The first entry for me was in the latter part of July, so that makes it about 10 weeks. I could get the specific date in order to have the quarter by that. But, on second thought, July was the first month of the 3rd. So, I'll just say that I did two months and a week (or so) on Quora. Or, I could say that I got started a little over three weeks into the 3rd quarter.

Aside: I'll to a recap on all blogs, but, in general, Quora stimulates the brain in a different way than does blogging or other types of social media that I have used so far. We will look at that. There are the usual trivia questions; or, students try to get you to help them with their homework; or, inane topics and responses entrap the unwary. But, overall, it is a good experience.


In terms of Janet and money (why not use water as a basis?), a recent WSJ book review motivates the following bit of contemplation.
  • Markets, et al, are game based. How this evolved needs some explanation, but we're not going down that path, presently. 
  • As such, these markets reinforce the male-dominance pattern, as if we need this. Look, guys, and gals, we do not need that metaphor realized; as in, ideas procreate. 
  • So, prior to the advent of the computer, things got to some balanced point that was directly related to ability to dominate, as well as the agility in screwing over others (which is subterfuge, not domination). 
  • Since the computer, technology has been exploited to fill the pockets of those who run the game (which Ben and Janet support). 
  • Technical approaches, such as linear methods, made great way in this scheme of things. 
  • Then, techniques out of AI research came to fore. The book was touting backward propagation in the situation of neural networks as a means to implement inductive processes. 
So, as said earlier, none of this was foreseen by Adam Smith, our friend, who is rolling over in his grave due to the claims being put upon his name.


All along, the markets could make use of technology as it because available. In some cases, they may have driven the improvements. Not usually, though, as their whole thing is maximizing gains from the intake (as in, profit). And, the old guys paid and benefited. It was the younger set that brought in the stuff. The book reviewer said that he lost a student (machine learning) to a well-paying job. Turns out that pattern recognition has come quite far. Has its limits, though (to be discussed).

One thing the reviewer wrote was that the back-propagating neural network had lots of data to work with. Yet, from the underbelly up, the whole things stinks. This big daddy data could not tell you.

Remarks:  Modified: 11/21/2015

11/16/2015 -- Question: What are the most shocking truths about macro economics at the global level?

11/21/15 -- Why-does-the-Islamic-banking-system-not-charge-interest-on-loans-and-advances-What-are-their-alternative-sources-of-revenue?

Monday, September 14, 2015

Basis for money

Moral: Wherein we consider a new basis for money.

We have written about money here, quite a bit (here and at truth engineering). Too, we have looked at the inequities that are not natural which come about since there is no way to model or to think about these issues except from a very unstable, abstract basis.

There is much to discuss, but without further ado, we want to propose water as the standard for money. This can mean many things. For one, yes, its use would be analogous to having gold as the standard. We would not need Fort Knox or equivalent.

The thing would be more closely tied to what we have seen with bitcoin. But, it would be more rational.


Some of the discussion will be on Quora: What-would-happen-if-the-entire-world-got-rid-of-money.

My suggestion, very briefly:
    I would like to propose water as the basis for a monetary system for a number of reasons. Money ought to flow. Its use can cause growth and cleanliness. Too much can lead to rot and decay (have we not seen a whole lot of that?). Then, banking would be like plumbing. The gaming, now called investing, would be such that we would have a clear pool - and, it would be for fun, not of any consequence. Now, we don't know how much water there is. What is the upper limit? Well, you see, at least we would have some physical notions behind the modeling. What water? Would that in the clouds count, too? Yes, nice to think about? As, who does not like water?

    For the technical, I am proposing that water be used like we did gold. However, it would be more a modeling scheme, better than bitcoin. Along with this would be a change in the viewpoints to account for flow, usage, etc. Even, storage. What we would not see would be gigantic accumulations and the like.
The difference between this and gold is that the latter has a long history related to avarice. Water is essential to life, as is money.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/01/2015

09/14/2015 -- Henry Ford thought that energy could be a basis for money.

10/01/2015 -- For awhile, I have pondered on what elements might be a good basis for money. Gold and silver were a default since they were used for currency (loose meaning) due to their intrinsic value (socially determined). Some have proposed an approach based upon nature, such as thermodynamics. We could have number of elements proposed. Now, water? That gets us to two, both of which are important to life. The systematic methods for doing this type of basis needs some attention. Needless to say, bitcoin, as said, offers an example of a non-traditional approach.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015


Moral: Wherein we look at the mess of the Fed.

On Quora, there was some debate about whether one could use an in-the-large characterization for undecidability, namely the halting problem of Turing. In essence, sure it can be used; even though the problem has to do with whether we can know if a program will find an answer (okay, every man's view?), it does apply to the larger picture.

What gets me is that theoretic views (logic, computer science, etc.) know about this problem. But, you get cowboys (business people, financial wannabes, and such), like Ben, making decisions and changes on the fly to something that is very much driven by computers or which has a very large component that is computationally bound. These best-and-brightest types are just digging a bigger and bigger hole for all of us.

We talked, here, about unwinding a long time ago. He and she are several years late.

So, the halting problem as far as the Fed goes is this: Will Janet halt the flaying of the savers? There is a lot to talk about, but some views of late are encouraging.


First, this WSJ op-ed is right on: A Fine Fed Mess.

Then, Fiscal Times had a little article. Essentially, the headline said: The Troubling Truth Revealed by the Stock Market’s Nosedive. We find this chart provided by Alberto Gallo.

Ah, see the halting problem?

If Ben had done the deed at the time of the taper tantrum, we could have been better off. But, alas, no, he did not. Now, he sees some need to go negative on interest. Let's hope that Janet is not listening to such a siren call (perhaps, she's immune). 

Remarks:  Modified: 09/13/2015

08/25/2015 --

Friday, August 14, 2015

Timmy and friends

Moral: Wherein we talk about different things.

Of late, namely the past three weeks, we have been on Quora. Yes, we did get to use the magical multiplier, and such. One question dealt with whether Quora is the modern day Northumberland (say 700s?). We all know the the Magna Carta look back this summer.

So, we'll be getting to all of that.


Of note, too, is that Timmy gathers some of the higher-ups to Yale where they discussed what needed to be done to bail out the financial crowd (beyond changing diapers and wiping their arses). We will get back to that. Ben was there. ... Exclusive bunch.

Probably, thanks are due to Yale for sponsoring the thing.

Remarks:  Modified: 11/16/2015

08/14/2015 --