Tuesday, August 25, 2015


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: 08/25/2015

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: 08/14/2015

08/14/2015 --

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Google as poster boy

Moral: Wherein we allude to several possible hints. Poster boys do not have to be rogues.

Let's see. So many examples of late that the world has dropped on our lap.

  • The golden sacks guy as a poster boy for the 0.01% (I have seen up close some of their dealings). 
  • Trump, as in the Donald, as the poster boy for flim-flam. We cannot blame the Donald; he just represents that ilk (not meaning Republicans or Conservatives - Dems have their oligarchical (it's an attitude, people) folks, to boot). Flim-flam? Yes, see one article on the determination of total wealth.
  • Which brings up the so-called market with its inflated status (oh Janet, I thought that you would not have the male blindness). 
  • So, finally, on the Google pop the other day after which the press has gone on and on, and on and ..., about the $billions increase: a very small amount of shares outstanding were involved in the activity that caused such an increase. ... Ought we use, priming the pump? Getting the suction going so that the pockets of the hapless are (will be) emptied? ... Not picking on Google; it is just that they make a good poster boy for this issue (of which, the Fed is (has been) an enabler).
  • ...
Rather than dampen, we will start to think temper (perhaps, anneal). Actually, what I have in mind goes far beyond the little stress tests that the banks have gone through (thanks, Timmy - remember him?).

Remarks:  Modified: 07/27/2015

07/22/2015 -- Some of these were rogues.

07/24/2015 -- Now, we must add Amazon. They had a big pop after hours, yesterday. The press is exclaiming about them being more valuable than Walmart. I don't think much of the Waltons, but this whole bit sounds a lot like 1900/2000, when the nebulous futures of the so-called future companies of the web were seen as more valuable than brick and mortar. Now, on the other hand, Amazon has been building centers (computing, distribution). But, he, meaning the joker in charge, does not take care of his people. No, he's taking his wealth and meddling. Bought the Washington Post, for instance. ... So, these two can stand out. There are more to add to the list. From these occurrences, we can paint a good picture of the problems with the current financial mess (er system). ... Looks like 10M or stock are active (as in, what's report by volume). Of how many outstanding? 500M or so.

07/24/2015 -- We'll be re-looking at the "new royalty" issue. Ought those who get benefits from riding the magic carpet with the fat cats worry? Yes, sustainability cannot be attained with these types of methods. Adam Smith has been mis-used for too long. ... Near-zero, in that the most pay, through the nose and worse, is a key issue (the Jokester of Amazon knows this).

07/25/2015 -- Gosh, another poster boy (WSJ on 78-year old). He is an inspiration, in a sense. His choice is problematic from another. Why does he not put his brainpower toward resolving some economic issues (like the madness of the market, and proponents thereof) rather than just pilfering because he and his kind can and are allowed to?

07/27/2015 -- Today, things started downward. But, I noticed that both Google and Amazon were roaring up (small number of shares involved), again. Someone priming the pump on this Monday morning to get things going? It seems that the exchanges hit a bottom and are going up. ... By the way, there are limits set that stop trading on the downside. Have you ever seen this happen on the upside (to wit, the pops of last week)? -- Will use Quora to explore things further. --- Also, we will be getting back to the Quants and issues related to their roles.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Piketty, again

Piketty? Yes, the rage a year ago. The Economist, recently, summarized Thomas in four paragraphs. This deserves a more thorough view, but on a quick read, there was one reaction. Besides, I like their Brit humour, so, no doubt, this summary is precious.

Quote: And today’s super-rich mostly come by their wealth through work, rather than via inheritance.

Not true. The wealth of the super-rich comes from the magic multiplier having a larger basis, in general. So, those who got from what "papa may have had" were able to preserve (some kudos there). For the newbies, like Zuck, the multiplier applies to (rests upon) that collected from the dreaming of many who buy into the future (not bad, in principle, but who thinks about sustainability - I have not had a FB post for dinner). In this latter case, those who bail out early get the goods (think of all of the MS millionaires, for one of many examples).


"work" could be demonstrated to those who sit at tubes (or carry mobile platforms - i for idiot?) by pulling them away from their false reality (we will get back to Zuck talking of telepathy - plus his 31-year-old's viewpoint - ah, where is the wisdom in the modern age? ... money does no buy wisdom - see below, Aside2, about hard problems) for a period of time. None of the CEO class works (a multitude of those under him actually work under conditions that would make most CEOs melt or go running to mommy).

Aside1: People already read others. That is one factor behind sucker-hood (hapless victims). However, superficial looks do not encompass the totality (to be discussed) of the person. In fact, many in the quagmire, unable to rise out of bad situations, are held back due to the influence of others, part of which is non-verbally (all sorts) manifested. ... I know that Zuck's parents are into mind science, yet I will have to see what insights they might have attained into the "human" aspect that everyone is dancing around: as in, human as made in the likeness (read as you wish - what needs to be known, in this day and age, is that most do not need intervention twixt themselves and That Which Is - and FB does not facilitate truth in this sense as fully as some seem to think or to wish/hope for).

Now, coding as work? Laughable (from an old guy who has been there on many levels for many decades). Of course, some may very well be challenged (see Aside2) by situations thereof.

Aside2: Facility and accomplishment might pertain to superiority (the supposed best-and-brightest who have led us down perdition-laden paths). However, if you look deeply, those who rule do not get involved in the details. How does this work (pun?)? ... Take hard problems. The notion is that it is harder to find solutions than to see if a found solution is correct. Okay? Existence views, basically, note that a solution exists; normally, there is little hint in how to find such. ... Now, for the ruling class, they may not know how a solution was derived, but they can check it or pay to have such checked. ... There will be more on this from the truth engineering aspect. ... In computation, one can test (or prove or ...); in any case, automated facilitation may develop (bringing its own issues - our problem is that too many have swept these under the rug (old saying) - to wit: ah, too many to list, but auto (as in, those things driven) come to mind, ...).


Now, Yellen is going great guns, as did Ben, in perpetuating the myth of the multiplier. At least, she ought to allow that a few types of future payments ought to be based upon some view that is beyond the chimeric. How can this be? That is the "work" (pun) to be done. ... Fortunately, there are people like Thomas, albeit his view is only partially complete.

Look, everyone tries to find some equation that subsumes the reality, ala Newton and our old friend, Albert. But, those little things are easily misunderstood; however, some intuitive takes might hold grains of truth that ought to get some attention. To get to the meat (and I do not mean: regression to the mean - puns?), though, requires digging into the whole of the equational mix (which can be work - I will admit, but it does not decimate the physical self to smithereens - metaphorically, of course, have you ever talked to someone who has done manual work - by the way, those grammar snits ought to see if they can get over their superior selves enough to "listen" - by the way, if we looked properly, we would see a whole bit of peripatetic knowledge being wasted which is closer to what the real worker sees - ah, the ignorance of humanity).


Nowadays, I get offers of zero-interest credit cards plus leading statements offering rewards for buying. Sheesh. Where is there the rational look at a proper foundation for those who do not need material things or who ought not be playing the silly games of the ca-pital-sino which is abetted mostly by male fantasies?

Remarks:  Modified: 07/06/2015

07/06/2015 --

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Ben's blog II

Gosh, Ben is finally starting to sound like a blogger: Say it ain't so, Jack. In fact, I have to admit that I'm impressed.

Aside: I would be more so if he could see that some of us are "appalled" at some of his decisions from which we are still (and will be for awhile) suffering.

Now, you see, Ben's early things looked more like publications. How much help did he have? Well, actually, did he actually use the keyboard on this last effort?

From the beginning, here is the post count (all 2015): March (3), April (9), May (1), June (4). I read the first few (see my Remarks). In April, I had asked how long he would do this (well, he did wind down shortly after). But, as all bloggers know, this stuff takes work. Unless, one is just spouting off (to what audience?).


Wait! I started going back. He wrote on baseball, yesterday. Okay. But, then, the prior one is related to a story that I read. Yes, unfortunately, people have to spend oodles of time trying to second guess the oracle who has no clothes. What a sham!

But, he know the technicalities. Thanks for setting us straight, Ben.


Now, in the prior post, Ben talks inequality. Does he even know the word? I would argue that, from the position of near-zero, one cannot consider these matter without first addressing the conceptual basis of investor and stockholders as of primal concern. In my post, I skirted around many issues; with time, I will get to the proper discussion (for now, Ben says that he got stocks back to their trend; nice, Ben, but you did throw savers under the bus - this paragraph admits that).

In the meantime, keep converging toward blogger-ness, Ben.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/27/2015

06/27/2015 -- In his post on inequality, Ben gloats, almost, the he got stock back to their inflated state. Earlier, I had said that he liked his index fund, way back in April of 2011. But, surely, Ben knows of the chimeric nature of the ca-pital-sino; or, does he? With his remarks about savers losing (which he admitted), he said that the pain was relatively less. Oh gosh. Ben, if you have $1, it would hurt worse to give up $0.50 than if you had $10, or $100, or, like we see with the fat cats, $1,000,000. What does 1/2 a buck mean to them? Ben claimed that interest bearing income was a small percentage of a retirees mix. Given that, then he could make his policy take that little bit. But, Ben, the future? Heard of that? Nice steady returns can build (to wit, my experience with Savings BondsA set of savings bonds that was bought in the year of 1980 and cashed out in 2010 would have returned 422% based upon the purchase price of the bond. ). But, Ben nipped that. Fortunately, those bonds had been almost 30 years in existence before his ways drained, or started to drain, off the gains, minute as they were anyway -- Ben, gambling for the future? - Nash, you know, is not the oracle of all.) ... So much more to say. Ben really needs to consult with the likes of me (I know as much economics as does he - too, my world experiences are far beyond what he, nestled in the realms of power and academia, ever faced. --- Yes, the real world, Ben, that suffered under the downturn and then under your policies.).

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Yellen is thinking, mainly, of stockholders?

Moral: Wherein we consider how things unfolded to now.

Yellen speaks; the markets inflate. Someone is priming the pump today; the main problem is that mom and pops are getting screwed (will be burnt). ... And, savers? Oh Lord.


First, we'll collect material, by type and time. Actually, Drucker (2011 article) discusses how this bit of insanity came about.
    2004 - Tangible versus not - 62 to 38 vs 16 to 84? Change in percent of tangible to intangible from 1982 to 1999.
    2011- The Dumbest idea - make money or create a customer? No, cook the books (thanks, Jack).

    timeless - Investopedia - of course, we know, a priori, how their view will go.

We have to do more than just dampen the magical multiple.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/22/2015

06/18/2015 -- So, Yellen talks. No rate increase. Then, the markets jump up. Too, the wags (shrilly) start to say, come into the ca-pital-sino. We have several months of rise. ..., So, someone pumped (as in priming) up the system, today. And, we know that the huge leaps are the mere artifact of the accounting. ... Too, we have "investors" who are the focus (supposed). Good companies have gone toward a more balanced view in which customers get a lot of attention as do the workers who get things done and make the customers happy. What the hell does the investor do? Sit on their fat arses and give us attitude, as in, I'm entitled to this. Says who? Oh, Adam Smith (silly me)? ..., So, much to discuss in order to get a better framework. ... The WSJ recently quoted Friedman (the monetarist) who talked greed, this is the way, etc. Almost barfed, quite frankly.

06/22/2015 -- However far from effective this post might be, the message will improve. Just as we see Ben moving toward blogginess.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015


Moral: Wherein we consider two seemingly disparate (but, not) views of current matters.

As an aside, Morgan Stanley is quoted as saying that it's tough to beat the S&P for several reasons. Their research says that only 20% of the actively managed little bundles of money were successful in 2014. ... You know, one might say that it's also a small percentage (overall) who can take out "gains" during boom times. When we have downturns, losses are general.

So, that may call for some dampening notions.
    -- Now, for the first issue, someone used "casino" in reference to the millennials. The article called them, the Ben Franklin Generation. Too, though, they will be the youngest set when things do return to normalcy (euphemism for a reversal). So, we need to keep them in mind, as a separate group, as we discuss matters. Their emphasis on technology is short-sighted, however, when things do fall apart, we will be able to, then, get some attention upon the important issues. Which are? Well, they're scattered, by reference, throughout these posts. In total, the view is coherent, albeit integrative work may be necessary to bridge what might seem disjoint to the casual view.  
    -- So, let's get to the real issue. Here and in the other blogs, we have used undecidability a lot (especially, in truth engineering). Basically, think of it as this issue: unless we have experienced a situation before, we have very little clue about things that are involved. Or, much of computing is repeat (actually, it's one of the big frames in science's process) - and, I am not talking, in particular, about issues related to deterministic views (an important concept). 
    Rather, there is this proclivity toward "vertigo" that is overlooked. Why? Cleverness, essentially (a really simple analog is error-correcting code). ... Now, computation has been more of a boon than a bane, until now, for many reasons which we will go into. But, the bane aspect will become more prevalent, and I am talking more than "data-driven" hell  (Janet needs to exude the "wizard's" aura). ... So, much to discuss. But, in modeling via computer, cleverness entails compactification of sorts. Call it closure, if you would. 
    The motivation is to allow decisions to be made (albeit, default reasoning can go a long way without contributing more problems) via various intricate means when normalcy will not allow itself to be found. ... In many cases, some type of thing (one might call it a node-it-all) finds itself as the basis - whether asserted or inserted, it does not matter. This "thing" has all sorts of looks; in some cases, it's hidden via a mathematical system definition. Using "node" is meant to imply an emphasis on logic and decisioning. 
    And, to equate (associate), in your mind, "node" with "knowed" (yes, true, simple past tense) is not off the mark (we have a whole lot to say about that - let's, for now, defer this discussion of blindness vs delusionality. Okay?             
Finally, there has been much allusion to Facebook (FB) playing all sorts of roles in the discussion. Now, we can offer some hints. FB cannot be a node-it-all; nor, can using FB allow one to attain this state - actually, we don't have to go far beyond the "feed'ing frenzy" examples. Nor, I might add, can anything created (ah, yes, infer here as you wish, we'll get to this). That we seem to have all of this success is due to a lack of proper insight (and hubris); some say that "karma" might apply, as a concept. I say, just wait, the unexpected will bite you on the arse (do we not want that for fairness many times, albeit that we see some who seem to "play with fire" without getting burnt - how many hapless might, though, suffer from the actions of those who play?).

Remarks:  Modified: 06/16/2015

06/16/2015 -- We will start to expand upon the theme as it relates to truth engineering (concepts essential to a balanced proliferation of AI - that is, safe for all of the people, especially the hapless). ... So, what is "eating the world" now? Marissa agrees with Marc that it's software (see Marc's slides at Slideshares - there is a transcript). Some say data. ... We'll weigh in from the viewpoint outside of the mobile mania. ... Eventually.