Sunday, March 1, 2015

A pause

Moral: Wherein we let ourselves step back and survey the madness.

Madness? Yes, Yellen flaying the savers and talking abstracted views. But, Ben is the culprit.

We'll get back to the whole thing, technically and otherwise.


Yellen might need to think of the Fed as rusting the economy. The Fed as a corrosive agent? How's that? She, and they, play into the pockets of the big guys. Who are? Those who take from the economy, essentially, without giving proper attention to infrastructure. Ah, arguable points there?

See this article at The Atlantic: Rust never sleeps. We all know that the infrastructure is failing (near-zero, folks - of course, I'll need to get back to that). From the investor side, all they want is their return irregardless of the side-effects (why let this stupidity continue?). Then, we have the looker-forwards (ala the computationally-enhanced maniacs) who expect to be carried by those not of their ilk. Ah, it's cool to be STEM, computer-literate, numerically fluent, etc. But, at the same time, that view forgets the reality that requires attention, care, manual effort, etc. by those who have the wherewithal to do the dirty work (when it could, the social used slaves -- indebted living, with no limit to the indebtedness, is not far above slavery).


Elsewhere, I mentioned that returning the draft would be a good thing (see Epstein in The Atlantic, January, 2015). Not to collect warriors. No, let's have KP and latrine and other duties in the mix. Especially, the favored (coddled) need to have some experience (notion) of where their crap goes once they flush (ah, how did such a class come to be? wait, they have always been here - well, revenge of the nerds has been fun to watch, but it has limits that need to be considered).


Yes, we are prepared to follow up with the proper framework and discussion. How long will this take? We are not on anyone's schedule nor do we accept anyone's deadline. However, motivation is sufficient to bring the new view to light, albeit a little step at a time.

Yellen deals with oodles of bucks and has no regard for those of the little bucks. But, then, who actually cares for other than the 1% (or even a smaller set)? Obama's jaw-boning about financial types having no ethics is one clue of the present situation and what we need to consider (too, see recent article on the five ways that financial types can ruin your retirement - not this guy, except the idiots did spill some trash my way - and I mean idiots of the worse variety).

Did Obama really use the golden rule? We know that on the Wall Street, the thing that is golden is the sacks (as in, golden sacks).

Remarks:  Modified: 03/01/2015

03/01/2015 -- Let's say this: the next downturn will bring back to focus the things that are (and have been) under discussion here. When will that be? Well, the longer it takes, the more we will see the hapless, and those who cannot afford to lose their means, pulled into a no-win state (since Yellen (and her ilk) wants people's money thrown into risky approaches).

Wednesday, February 18, 2015

Illusion of liquidity

Moral: Wherein we let ourselves use some of the jargon though we wish to appeal to the general intelligence of those who are affected (namely, all good people).

El-Erian talks the illusion of liquidity. Is that not of the same issues as addressed by the Cheshire multiple?
    Related topics: Dark pools (allows manipulative trades in order to circumvent effects), HFT (adds to the illusion), ...
The plot will thicken as we go along. 

Remarks:  Modified: 02/18/2015

02/18/2015 -- The term "Cheshire multiple" was coined by Marilyn vos Savant during the last downturn  (time frame was 2009). 

Wednesday, February 11, 2015

Zero interest rate policy

Moral: Wherein we let Wikipedia do the talking (we have talked enough about flaying) after last time looking at a market manipulation stance.

Sufficient is this cutout from a page: Zero interest rate policy

Zero interest rate policy
courtesy of Wikipedia
Notice the warning sticker about the tone. Per usual, the drive-by sticking had no justification. People raising issues need to explain themselves or their views on the Talk page.

Any action by the Fed to unwind this thing is way overdue.

Remarks:  Modified: 02/11/2015

02/11/2015 -- Source for the list that is on Wikipedia: Barry Ritholtz. See the discussion. One asks why the consumer is leveraged. Oh, really, now. It is because that is the only way to survive, the system allowed such, entrapment that is perpetual is attractive to who want to fleece (move monies from the pockets of the hapless to that of the elite), etc.

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

80-year-old whiz

Moral: Wherein we look at financial engineering.

We will let the article speak for itself: Bloomberg Markets (March 2015). The image, from the article, describes how an e-bond is constructed.


There are words, like reduce risk and maximize liquidity. The former? Did we not hear financial types bragging that risk was no longer in our vocabulary? Yes, right around the time of the downturn. So, a Nobel guy has bought in. So, too, did we see the almost take down of the economy of such types; King Alan had to bail them out.

The latter? Seems to me that liquidity's purpose is to allow constant raking off the top of the cream; thereby, diluting the milk, people.


As said, this is informational. However, bear in mind the context in which discussions will resume. 

Remarks:  Modified: 02/03/2015

02/03/2015 --

Thursday, January 29, 2015

When Boston was the Frontier

Moral: Wherein we look at a review of a recent book.

Theme: Our heritage (see backbone series, for instance) as the twain of old England and of our own doings (far enough away from home to learn to want to be independent).


Quote from the review which quotes Taylor (my emphasis): On the other hand, “more than has been recognized . . . American ‘innovation’ used English models.” Those models included the pursuit of “prosperity and liberty for some” by requiring “others to be poor, subordinated, dispossessed, and shackled.” Indians died, and African-Americans worked so that some Englishmen could get rich (but others remain poor) in a new land of inequality.

We need to get back to the series on Economics/Finance. From the get-go, capitalism creates classes. Oh, I know. The gospel for this worldview says that anyone can lift themselves (note, above, the American delusion).

It's more like this, folks, We ought to have a draft (national service - of course, being sensitive to limits [many types] that some people face) in which all get their hands dirty. And, I'm not talking what the military academies put their students through as being enough. No, exposure to down-and-dirty jobs ought to be included in everyone's little step to maturity.

Then, we could work ourselves away from the type of social bifurcations where idiots who fly on their magic carpet (internet/web morons, to boot) have no regard for the myriads of folks who clean their diapers, labor for their comfort, etc.

And, folks, it's a long litany. Reminder. As a youngster, I was into hard labor (examples - [1] also, capable of handling advanced material - in fact, in one graduate math class which I attended with dirty fingernails, having come from my laboring job, my desk mate wondered how such a person as I could score higher on tests; [2] worked with a crew out on the rail, in the summer; as in, heavy, physical crap, okay?; ..., [n] many more ...).

My favorite example of an American? Someone of old New England stock who has a PhD but who can, and does, tear down and reassemble an engine (and capable of a whole lot more).


BTW, there are a slew of things to bring up here, including the need for peripatetic views and ways (especially for some of these clowns who are almost disembodied in their intellectual focus - to be explained). ... Don't get me going on these types (I just read of some hardball players who like to use CDS [ah, let's really look at those] to browbeat others and to fill their pockets - if you must know, look at recent WSJ articles on such) who manipulate financial matters to their advantage (the whole of the ilk that think that things like dark pools are a necessity, etc.)


Anyway, from where we sit, we are just observing and suggesting improvements (in our own time - the upcoming 400ths will allow us to relook at the American experience, again, and hopefully get the warts more fully exposed).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/29/2015

01/29/2015 -- This year? The 800th of the first sealing of the Magna Charta.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Talking to the addicts

Moral: Wherein we just take note of the goo-goo talk going on everywhere, now. Ben/Janet did a good job in that respect.

Canada? Who has been the epitome of good banking? Europe? Poor Germany (worked hard; kept their economy on even keel; they will be like the savers under the FED - slapped silly).

As an old timer, I don't know if I'll see fiscal sanity return in my lifetime.

Remarks:  Modified: 02/05/2015

02/05/2015 -- 80-year-old manipulator of the markets still at it. ... The questions remains, for the financial engineers: what is the scientific basis for your efforts (as in, real engineering bumps up against nature, which is a hard task master)? ... You guys exploit the multitudes (let me characterize this for you ... in my own time, of course).

Saturday, January 17, 2015

The quant-ificational view, again

Moral: Wherein we take up the technical slack with a re-look at Quants and their work.

Quants? Yes, there have been references in this and the related blogs to work that is highly mathematical, in scope, but is computational in practice and need. In other words, lots of things are done under various names (technology, progress) that are ripe for review by other than the players. As in, technical folks who might have a different perspective on these matters.

So, to date (search on quants): FEDaerated, truth engineering, 7oops7. In truth? My view more than differs; I am from an older set who has had a technical focus for several decades now. However, given the discussion, below, you will see that the issue is open.


What changed? Well, despite the cheeky prose, there never was any "luddite" tendency or leaning. Rather, think of the position as more quasi-empirical (to be discussed further) and as being of a small set compared to those rushing off after the genies and demons related to the ramifications of the philoabstract'd.

Now, recall that my recent thrust is asking us to think about normative mathematics (to be discussed further). Say what? Is there even any definition? Yes, in my mind (which is sufficient for me to keep going). Somehow (to be explained at some point), Galois' work was apropos to my ponderings, and I was doing searches (one benefit of technology has been the increasing set of material that seems to be endlessly emerging). Many times, this type of activity turns of questionable material.

But, I ran across this blog: In particular, I landed on what is called a "Leanpost" and looks like a very good idea. How many publications have I seen where people are copying on-line material that is far from complete? Plagiarism seems to have become a norm. I like this; perhaps, bloggers ought to use PDF (or similar) for things that are further along (with the default being that a post is sketchy, at best).

Now, the leanpost that I landed on was this one: Galois Theory for dummies. Great. It is a very good explanation. Too, I remember several years ago that a computational expert (applied mathematics) was using Galois as defense against some venturous approaches (some of these I can recount since I was close enough to know the details; others I need to look at in a deeper fashion as companies using proprietary cloaks covers a whole lot of mischief - and those who role it is to audit/review do not have the proper approach - too, getting down and dirty is beneath a whole lot of folks --- actually, for those of the younger set, I don't castigate yo'all as a group; rather, I would ask that you pay attention to potential, down-the-road ramifications from your current actions and choices that seem so brilliant and creative at the time of spawning).  


Enuf of that, for now. With the FED running amok like cowboys in the real-time experimentation on the whole of the economy and the world, how can we expect the computer/software people to have any other framework with which to work?

Well, we have ways to weigh in there.

Needless to say, it was good to run across this blogger who has dabbled in the arts and languages as well as in the numerical worlds. Nice.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/23/2015

01/17/2015 -- Two pages that represent good web material: one older (love this site), one newer (see 6 Further Reading - nice).