Ben's lectures

Moral: Wherein we give Ben a chance to speak for himself.

---

Foreword: The George Washington University School of Business was the site of the FED's recent outreach. Part 1 (video - also available at federalreserve.gov) of a 4-part series took place yesterday.

The following are notes and comments that were posted while watching the video today. The intent is to watch all four of these and to summarize at the end.

As we said earlier, he has an impossible task in his position, and we'll be a little more respectful this year. After all, he has not acted like King Alan.

Now, in one write-up on the lecture, there was mention that Ben joked about the 'gold' standard as this: moving something from a hole in South Africa to another hole. I'll be looking for that remark, so expect a comment about that bit (the notes will be marked with the corresponding time stamp from the talk). The idea is to get away from a gab standard, and there are many way to do this.

Other than that, I'm going to listen open-minded as one would expect. And, my comments, hopefully, will be fair.

Notes (italics, my aside, sometimes with links):

• ~4:28 - looking at the broader contexts, including his area of the Great Depression
• ~5:12 - Part 1, why central banks? Next week will get into the current issues.
• ~8:00 - what do central banks? Stability, essentially (macroeconomic, financial)
•       macroeconomic - think jobs, inflation                
•       financial - bailouts to prevent runs
• ~9:00 - usual tools? monetary policy (interest rate, mainly; but, print, or burn, money - using bonds) and liquidity (cheap loans, without due credit assessment - of course, last resort - do we all not wish for that?)
• ~12:04 - third tool? financial regulation and supervision (not unique to the FED) to reduce risk
•      side note (wasn't this the same guy who said that things were fine in the 2007 timeframe?)
• ~13:07 - a look at early efforts, Sweden, 1668, most backed by gold (see below)
• ~15:28 - financial panics (lack of confidence, runs - everyone wants their money, whatever that is) 
• ~21:17 - lender of last resort (bailouts to calm panics - uses Bank of England as example, quotes Walter Bagehot -ah, Bagehot says if there is collateral - in other words, don't enhance leveraging already gone awry, too, Bagehot says higher interest rate - Ben did not do that!)
• ~23:42 - now to the FED's history, the functions were done privately before the FED, first the clearing house, daily exchange, they would close down and look at failures (if only we could do that), but private turned out to be inadequate, 1893 stands out
• ~28:27 - finally, the FED, and gold's use to base money, ..., 
• ~30:14 - here it is, gold, used as a standard: a waste of resources, dig a hole/move stuff/put into a hole (at least, you have something that is real!), of course, money supply is limited, why then a central bank?, says inflation (?), closer ties (sensitivities) between economies of countries (some would argue that is good, he admits), uses China as an example (tied to US currency - yes, we're in a big hole to them), ..., independence, he says, if not use gold? (chimera), speculative attackes? (ah, guy, we don't see these now?), didn't prevent panics (again, the FED does? - I get pangs thinking of how the FED treats savers), lack of credibility? (did not this last go-around take care of that for the central banks?), hallelujah, over the longer term, prices were stable (did you review your slides, guy?)  
• ~38:01 - deflationary example, related to gold (sounds just like people being underwater now, what is the difference?)
• ~39:50 - Williams Jennings Bryan wanted to add silver to gold, so that there would be a bigger basis (there are other elements! - it's called heterodox, what about an energy model? -- the cruxifix now is the Street (not Main) and ca-pital-sino) 
• ~40:30 - President Wilson, and the FED is born, 1913, lender of last resort, and manage the gold standard, disagreement between Main Street and Wall Street (ah, never heard of such a thing) on control, so 12 Banks, BOGs in DC, equitable?   
• ~45:00 - lucky for the FED, that its start was in the good times (Roaring 20s), but, then 1929!, global in scope, from 1929-41, stocks down, output and prices down, 25% unemployment
• ~50:00 - why did it happen, according to Ben? WWI aftermath, gold, stock bubble (see Minsky), panic and collapse, ..., liquidationism (eliminationism? - what about the egos of the bankers, bonus mentality, ...?),   
• ~52:08 - the FED failed (we knew this was coming): didn't ease monetary policy (rather, tried to stem speculation), policy tightening and inaction, also gold (1933 change eased deflation), didn't play lender of last resort (from whence the funds for this?, taxpayers, of course) 
• ~55:25 - admits banks were insolvent, gives FDR's actions (1933, 1934) credit for Deposit Insurance (runs) and getting off of the gold standard (fire up the presses), these helped offset the FED's errors, says bank failures went to zero (oh yes, 1000s had already failed, so wouldn't those left be stronger?)  
• ~58:27 - he's using modern concepts, and language, to argue FED failure (overlooking a whole lot of detail - no doubt, he's looked into these details, but he cannot compare now and then as closely as he has been allowed to do - subject to be discussed further - in other words, how are we different now - besides computation?), next time, he'll look at the central bank since WWII up to 2008/9 and show the reasons for his/their actions (can't wait!)
• ~59:19 - questions - first one: Ben notes that the one knob of interest rate cannot control the stock market and has a big impact on the economy (and savers, too, guy), in this case, the FED trusted the traders, too much; second one: gold standard, why the interest? is it possible? Ben says price stability (partly true, long run) and the removal of his role (yeah! oracle, in chief), Ben says that the practical side says there isn't enough gold, expense, the policy side (ah, Labour gets its nod) would make it difficult to try to keep employment up -- says that, historically, those countries who dropped the gold, as standard, recovered more quickly from the Depression; third one: double dip, despite FDR's intervention, Ben says premature tightening, fiscal and monetary, but there is controversy about that view; fourth one: recoveries take time, but people (especially politicians) have short term views,    Ben says to consider the Depression as an outlier, but, in general, financial downturns take longer - this latest, finance; do central banks cooperate? they did, recently, historically, there have been issues (used Europe after WWI, as an example), gold standard forces cooperation, somewhat, ..., now, hopefully, there would be more

Remarks:

03/21/2012 -- Next lecture is tomorrow, 3/22. Then, there are two next week.

Modified: 03/21/2012

Alan M. Turing

Moral: Wherein we get back to some technical issues that imply limits.

---

The motivation is partly celebration of the 100th of Alan M. Turing. The March ACM Communications has a series of articles. We'll use one of these. To be brief, Turing's work was seminal to computing; yet, some, like the quants in their race for profit, ignore some basic issues. Then, we, the populace, bear the costs. Too, economists have migrated toward 'modeling' as a key method; they, too, do not seem to have paid attention.

---

But, first, a comment is in order. What we have in the world are two things: those who use these limits to sustain their intake (Made-offs and those who game the system and more) and those who let themselves be led by the nose (as in, the stupid, the Made-off victims, et al).

You know what? This has always been the case. The problem now? Computation. It is not as robust as we might be led to believe.

---

One of the ACM articles is by Prof Cooper (of Leeds, UK): Turing's Titanic Machine? The Prof looks at the background and provides some insight into the current debate. But, we might ask, what debate? You see, many operational stances have been able to skirt around the issues. That ability, itself, can be seen within the contexts we obtained from Turing's work.

For now, let's just look at the categories of adaptation to the reality. That is, even if one has not read Turing's work, dealing with computation causes one to broach upon this subject, by necessity. The Prof has four categories (Note: the order does not imply ranking). We (perhaps, tongue in cheek) could add more.

• Reductionists -- characterized by confidence, these apply what they know. Is this the most? Wait? Isn't this operationalism, at its core? Or, in economics, making money if one can. 
• Impressionists -- now, this mindset has become aware of the limitations of science (ah, is this where quasi-empiricism first come to fore?) and knows that we need philosophical (just keep from becoming too meta) bridges. Wait? Perhaps, the economic schools, and the debates thereof, crop up. 
• Remodelers -- ah, hypercomputationalism or perturbations, one might say. Or, there looks to be something parallel to what we see with the interpretations in the realms dealing with the quantum world. In economics, is this where we have the interminable experimenting with our lives? 
• Theorists -- ..., sloughing off a whole lot of detail, let's just point to Chaitin (pdf), for now. But, one could ask? Where is our meta-economics? 

---

To reiterate the importance of the subject, we can use a phrase from the Prof's article: In 1970, the negative solution to Hilbert's Tenth Problem when combined with results from classical computability arising from contrived priority constructions, circumstantially pointed to a very rich infrastructure of incomputable objects.

Which means several things that ought to give one pause. Of course, we can (ought to) go ahead with innovation. But, letting the best-and-brightest experiment real time (and consideration of the side-effects, thereof) is not something to take lightly.

---

We'll get more into the Prof's notions. However, for now, contemplate the fragile state, please.

Remarks:

03/16/2012 -- Computing's definition (yes, used in the context of this post) will need to cover some notion of the delta (difference) between expectations and delivery, implying (yes) the importance of the user's values. That is, the providers (ISPs) are servants, not the other way around. Utility, if you would.

03/12/2012 -- Related organization (CiE). They'll feature Alan this year at their meeting in Cambridge.

03/12/2012 -- Prof Cooper has an interesting mathematical pedigree. With two advisors, he has two 'grandparents' of note: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Wiki) and Alan M. Turing (Wiki). The blogger does not have an advisor/parent, but he claims a heritage via a cousin and an uncle: Carl-Wilhelm Reinhold de Boor (Wiki) and G.H. (Godfrey Harold) Hardy (Wiki).

Modified: 03/16/2012

The ideological errors of capitalism, VIII -- disingenuity

Moral: Wherein we continue the "ideological errors" with another post; ever wonder how economics, in terms of our beans (money), has gone so far awry?

---

Did we not just look at illegality or mere stupidity as the motivator for errant-ness?

---

There is much to look at, as a whole bunch of theory has been proposed the past century or so. We need to look at that; the idea is to not demean the old masters. That their followers idiotically mis-use great ideas is not a bad reflection on the master. If the master is not here to intervene, then who will? Besides, all of these ideas have a context that ought to be kept in mind.

Take Markov, for instance. His ideas are central to a whole lot of modern (such as, that of the quants) worldviews. He also plays heavily into decision processes in unknown ways which we'll bring out into the light. For one, we can ask: do we need to know how we got to our current dilemma in order to get things corrected and on their way again?

Say what?

Well, the answer would be no, but then yes. For the types of thinking that would say no, we could point to Andrey's ideas and extensions thereof. How many instances do we see now where decisions are made as if we can just cast off what has happened to date?

In fact, the illegal versus stupid thing says that we can use the latter for the bosses, in many cases. As in, stupidity is hard to legislate away (this is not cynicism, by the way). And, in many cases, the notion of 'to err is human' is applied, such as noone goes to jail. But, harming oneself through stupidity is one thing; bringing hard times to the multitudes is another.

---

Aside: there have been subtle changes over the times since the 60s. We can talk two things. Take general aviation. I remember the arguments about dropping liability concerns which then opened up the field; have not many more planes been out and about on a daily basis? In fact, some wonder if that area just might be the one open to mis-deed at some point. Take computing. How many have had angst (more, measurable results from failures -- how many zeros after the $1 could one accumulate for all of the business costs related to software failure (no particular company in mind, I might add)?

---

Of course, Andrey's take only works for particular decision types where we have information sufficient to build, and maintain, the decision chain. Now, overlaying human characteristics is where one type of issue comes to fore. The quants (mentioned above) bewail that people are not like particles whose states (though they may have unbounded properties) are far easier to handle by system thinking.

Take the modern corporate environment, for example, suppression of individuality is key to success; for all those, except for a favored few. In fact, off-shoring, in many cases, was motivated by the willingness (actually, their suitability for being exploited) of poor workers (in oppressive societies) to be amenable to doing unconscionable amounts of work for little to nothing (yes, Steve, what say you?). This suppression goes to the quick; talk to the top guy, he would love to have mindless automatons who follow orders (actually, they need to adore the guy or gal at the top).

---

Economics goes wrong from loving abstraction too much, we have said. So, why is this dis-ingenuous? After all, how else does one get a Nobel?

Well, that love has led to a computational framework as if by necessity; then, that which is considered sufficient to "believe" the results of having this framework has been doctored such that we do not know what is what anymore. Yes, folks. But, we have to ask if it was any better before? Or, to put it another way, has it ever been what it ought to be? Well, no.

In fact, what is the 'it' being referred to here? What we need is a re-look that is constructive from an almost elemental sense. Some posts here have tried to do this, albeit somewhat cursorily (imperatives, knowledge, technology). The trouble is that we can't stop the world (as Buckley would have liked us to do, several times).

---

Then, we'll need to show how the basis ought to be people. That is somewhat implied with the emphasis on the consumer (I, II, III) in the basic equation, however we need more (see rank and file).

---

Expect more on this theme.

Remarks:

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability in discussing quants (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben). 

02/04/2012 -- This trait adds to the potential fraud power.

Modified: 03/15/2012

Illegal or just stupid

Moral: Wherein we look at some modern quandaries.

---

Without pointing fingers, one has to ask whether it's the idiots who ascend in our modern society? Oh, let's point a couple. There was a headline that got my attention, today. It's a firm that recently went bankrupt. And, just a few days before, the head guy (extreme over-achiever (ah, don't those types just make you sick - barf, barf, ...?), Senator, Governor, etc. probably an Eagle Scout) was telling people that things were okay.

The talk today was about the size of the missing money. Well, it was more than a billion (1 with 9 zeros following). I didn't read the whole thing (too depressing) but saw someone saying that the actions within this company may not have been illegal but that the head guy definitely was not a good manager.

Say what?

---

Wait! There are those who text and drive and who, thereby, create increasing likelihoods of harming someone, perhaps even themselves. I know; these idiots almost run me over every day as I walk on a sidewalk or in a marked crossing. Business is run like this; that, folks, is what we get from the best and brighest?

---

We'll forego more than only a few words about this other guy who wants to continue to stiff the savers for another couple years. Gosh. I wonder if he puts on special garb in order to kiss up (worship) that big chimera who plays with him (Sirens).

---

Then,we're in an election year that is taking unprecedented steps because of bench decisions the past few years. Like someone said, we'll all hold our noses and vote when it's time.

---

So, back to the title. Someone took a big company to task telling management that they could not drive things solely with rules. You need a proper mental outlook for the workers to follow. It's not like you lay down the code and a dumb machine executes these.

A company needs a spirit and some ethical sense (I'll start to use moral as soon as I work out how the secularist think that this ought to go); management is supposed to bring this out; ah, those guys/gals are after their own rewards, is that not so?

---

The larger economy has the same issue. Yet, money has become the sole thing of value; all sorts of decisions the past couple of decades have resulted in our current mess almost by definition. Were we all just stupid?

---

What was the article from a year ago or so? Oh, yes, we'll dumb ourselves down to make our machines look good. Evidently, this applies, as well, to management and leadership. Yes, leaders seem to have the worse case of lead feet; why is that?

Remarks:

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability in discussing quants (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben).

02/03/2012 -- Stockman on Ben.

02/01/2012 -- Their risk officer (the first example, above) said tsk, tsk. He was shown the door. Ah, way to go, Governor!

Modified: 03/15/2012

Jobs, labor, disrespect

Moral: Wherein we look at Rick's words on the Bifurcated Society of which we are all (except for the fat cats sitting in their reverie while being divorced from the real world) now intimately aware.

---

From whence the jobs given that we've optimized out-sourcing (out-housing) to the max and that the newer positions seem to require a high level of numeracy (a bane, if we looked at it -- by the way, this is from one who is quite enough versed in mathematics -- yet, knows the importance of a quasi-empirical stance) which then reduces a whole set of people into uselessness?

At the same time, though, what is consider sub-human, touch labor, has been given to imports who will work for slave wages. And, infrastructure has been allowed to decay. Go to any city and try to not puke (it is sickening - and, we think that we're the epitome - we go around the world and try to impose our views -- wake up, please, POTUS, et al -- as if we're that which mankind yearns for - that is, until they get over here to see the reality). Look at the status of all that work done by people (the ancestors of current Americans) in programs that were meant to keep people employed while improving our living situation. These people were not, nor were you, the progeny, degraded by this honest type of labor. Sheesh!

---

My pity go to those who are so rich that they can't smell their solid output. Please, go live, without any assistance, sometime, in a hell-hole of a barrio, slum, or what have you (which, we might say, was created through the actions, and decisions, of your ancestors). To be reasonable, let me re-iterate that near-zero applies here (yes, your gain came at the expense of many others -- including the planet itself -- oil companies thinking that they own this natural resource -- pure crap).

By the way, we'll get back to looking at this using symmetry in an unorthodox manner.

---

Rick mentions his thought that virtual manufacturing could help. My caution would be to add constraints that prevent us from driving people like machines through computational models. In fact, this already happens.

Picture this! Sitting at a tube is someone who could not lift a 50 lb weight, yet that person is allowed, through scheduling and other means, to guesstimate how long a physical task will take (mind you, never having done that thing his/her self) and to plan some sequence that is outrageously inhumane and categorically stupid.

Actually, yes Air Force. A corollary is someone sitting at a scope, applying gaming skills, and offing people (yes POTUS, et al, that is metaphysically atrocious, from several angles). Then, we give them medals?

---

I'm not a Marxist, but that guy had some things right (the twerps who run businesses, many times, are without any talent beside the ability to squeeze profit out of the workers and the customers without any thought for tomorrow -- and our great-grandkids' future) in several cases. He, by the way, used creative destruction. Somehow, the right-wingers usurped the thing (ah, interlopers everywhere one looks).

---

I haven't seen it, but we need some type of solution to be defined that makes sense in creating a balance. One would work with one's mind and body, every day. In fact, the latter would be done on something useful, not running to the gym and wasting one's energies. Then, the lower safety net would need some attention. However, we also need limits on the uppers (yes, like Warren, et al). Now, any type of coercive approach would be problematic. So, providing the ways to view this, with wisdom, would help some see the errors of their ways. Warren gave away a lot of his money. My question to him would be this: does he think that this act counters the karma (not strictly used, rather a commonly known term that suggests the reality) related to all of the near-zero side-effects that his decisions have accrued over the years? Same goes to Bill Gates. I've already brought this up to Jobs.

Well, I'll ask Mitt about that, too. Bain? Oh, I keep reading bane (especially, hedge funds).

---

We can look at Wichita, KS for an example of disrespect. Boeing is pulling out. Some say that the withdrawal started when McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing. Their head, Harry, didn't like KS for some reason. One thing in the later 1990s demonstrated this. He was actually booed by his workers at a meeting where he was trying to argue against the union's attempt to extend their services to a larger set of workers. Some remember the threats to pull out.

Turns out that six years ago, a few local managers allowed the beginning of this by helping with a buyout (private capital). So, a whole bunch of Boeing was sold off. The unions were toyed with. Thousands lost their jobs and pensions (that's a story for another time). At that time, many workers fled to the Boeing side in order to not have to deal with the new company.

Over these years, the tanker deal was worked out. Remember that Boeing was able to get the Air Force to withdraw its contract with Airbus and its American partner? In the rerun, Boeing won. Of course, KS people worked on the contract and expected to be part of the resource mix. Turns out, of late, that, no, there won't be any work at the Wichita plant.

---

To put that in context, remember that there were thousands, many of them good, workers who gave heart and soul to the Company. Everyday, we have people in situations where their love, in this sense, is unrequited (managers love a company, or is it the money?). For many, financial independence is far from their grasp. Why? It seems that the cards are stacked against this. First of all, going into a company is analogous to becoming an indentured servant. Then, whatever creative talent that you have is grabbed by the company as if it owns you as chattel, almost. That's understandable somewhat (isn't the argument, they make the job available, you don't have to take it -- disrespectful view, that it is), but then when people are squeezed dry, they're plopped out on the street.

With the recent downturn, we saw many who lost employment in their later years; building an adequate basis for the older years is something that needs to be done throughout a lifetime. In many instances, recovery after losses (the whole idiocy of 401K dropping their value is one thing that did not have to happen) is not possible due to several factors.

---

Boeing, of course, has a right to move. Yet, one wonders if there were any lessons learned by managers with regard to ethics (problems splashed across all of the papers, at one time). In 2005, the ethics consultant was touting this as the basis for ethical behavior. Guess what this is or was? I don't know if the consultant is even used nowadays. Some seem to think of ethics in terms of case-based considerations (situational, in nature) that are hard to pin down. Well, 'this' was the golden rule. Yes, imagine such a business environment (we could actually get to something similar with a Magna Charta, with labor getting more respect).

Remarks:

01/17/2012 -- Yesterday's USA Today had a good editorial about private equity, motivated by the interest in Bain because of Mitt's prominence. We'll have to look more at this. They (the pes) make their money,  oodles when things go well; they make a little less otherwise (but, in this case, the cost is offloaded to all of the workers who lose jobs, pay, pension, and insurance. The atrocity? The pe techniques can actually end up eating away pensions of the little guy!) Hawker, in Wichita, is a recent example that is still unfolding. As well, the issue mentioned Apple's problem with sweatshops. What was Steve thinking? 

Modified: 01/17/2012

Coherence?

Moral: Wherein we start the year, as we ended the last one, by looking at posts that are being read.

---

Why? Is it laziness? Well, not really. As one progresses through time at a keyboard, stuff accumulates. Now, on the web, it seems to just continue to flow (even in nature, one doesn't find continuous (see below) eliminations - err brain dumps) without any thought (this is a very demonstrable, rather than just arguable, remark). Where are the editors?

So, since coherence is one goal with this post [blog] (and its relatives), we'll take some time to review past positions [posts and their content] in order to make corrections and to form a more firm foundation.

---

Aside: the past few weeks have been spent following threads that results [resulted] from Christopher Hitchens' departure. As you would expect, that trek [reading venture] wandered across many loci in time (and virtual space). One thing that will be forthcoming, soon, is discussion about why business cannot be more like science. Now, wait! There is a serious overlap between these two. In fact, business exploits science more than vice versa. Too, any scientist who goes after greed will not be a good scientist for long (yes, lesson there for Jamie (yes you, guy, the last man standing) and his ilk (the bane of the earth)). See Last Man April 1, 2011 (unfortunately, these people are not April fool's jokes (wait! that's it - they are puns on us -- actually, scourges and a daily source of pain) whose mischief is limited to one day a year.).

---

• Ben, da man -- Nov 2011 -- Yes, Ben may irritate in his efforts to appease the bankers (and their ilk). But, they have the money. So, it's understandable. This year, we'll be a little more circumspect with regard to the impossible task (set, of course, by the idiot politicians who salivate at the thought of money) that he has taken on. 

• Gravy train I -- Jan 2010 -- Saw the reviews of McDonald's book which motivated interest. It is nice to see an insider's view. Yet, we're going to have to go back to an even lower basis in order to correct these problems. How long will that take? Those who can (small set) have always screwed the others (the very large set),  when allowed. We need to bring in a Magna Charta for these jerks. By the way, Harvard, you are going to have to accept some responsibility at making things more sane. 

• Continuous and discrete -- Aug 2009 -- Ah, yes, the numerant[s] have taken their little bit of understanding of the thing, with the aid of the artificial beast (its been said many ways here -- to be made more cohesive, this year), to extremes that are far beyond their control (again, to be updated this year). 

• Ben and Timmy -- Aug 2011 -- Yes, if only that biological part of [the] equation dealing with the 'act' (yes, the male disinterest in anything beyond conquest) were not the thing brought into business. See above comment about science. Because [as] 'truth' (but, not necessarily 'being') comes to fore (usually), there is less of the contentious mating calls. (Aside: Jamie, are you up to changing the game?) What about the care and feeding (and, a whole lot more! like seeing leveraging as the games of a male teen's brain (yes, you guys, smell the roses) -- this just past go-around extremely exacerbated by computational mischief - ah, the gaming generation's debut)? By the way, we're going to look closely at the decision of Boeing to leave its 85-year relationship with a mid-western city as an example. Ah, that is going to be fun!! Talk about sucking a place dry (tax breaks, jilted lovers (as in workers who put their heart and soul into the place) -- Jim M's brain could not even start to grasp at the reality. 

Remarks:

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.

01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?

01/15/2012 -- It is or It is not. Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/14/2012 -- One thing to do this year will be to move pointers to a more permanent site. That is, new feeds, like Yahoo's, degrade. Just updated Last Man. Fortunately, the feeds copy part of the title and identify the source. But, sometimes the original article leaves cyber space. Even search sites have links that are of no use. Some make a copy, but that requires space, etc.  

Modified: 01/27/2012

Posts of interest - 2011

Moral: Wherein we stop to the most-read posts, as opposed to looking at past December posts, while everyone relaxes in preparation for the coming year.

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• -- Computation, finance and engineering -- From 2009. This post hints at our major problem, but it does not offer near enough emphasis on solutions. That'll change this year. In fact, in 2012, we'll respect Ben Bernanke for undertaking an impossible job; we'll admire Timothy Geithner for being in the hot seat while being cool; and more. Yet, the blogger knows about the issues underlying computation; he wonders how far amiss we have let the younger folks range just because the some only wanted to fill their pockets (see Quants series). If we are to let markets determine truth, then we need transparency (yes, Hedge Funds, you're culprits, too), and a whole bunch of other things.  

• -- Harvard, value and quality I -- From 2010. Ah, this was almost two years ago (give me a break). Now, I hear that some at Princeton are supporting the 99% (God bless them). So, can we ever expect Harvard to revert from its switch toward the secular (mis-guided, which we can show) and allow just a little morality into the equation (they have already started?)? By the way, this year, this blog (and the related) will lay out the foundation'al framework that will support such a view. 

• -- New royalty -- From 2010 . Has it not been the case that American capitalists (and others) have continued to exploit the energies, and the dreams, of workers around the world? Sheesh! They even did it with Communist partners (you guys and gals have any semblance of true humanity in your blood?). At this point, I'll just point to St. Margaret who exemplified how royals ought to be (yes, indeed). 

• -- The ideological errors of capitalism II -- Adam Smith redux -- From 2010. Phew!, where did that title come from? Well, Adam has been the focus for a whole lot of bad thinking. That is not his problem. But, who is there to argue in his defense as he rolls around in his grave? Adam was of his time; we're much later and need to read him with the proper filter. His 'invisible hand' was imaginary (some seem to think of it as actual, it would seem). Self-regulation? That only applies with internal governors (systems). How many seem to have allowed them to reach for states of no restraint? Too bad that 'invisible hand' can't slap these types silly (or until they awaken to their proper senses).  

Aside: the blogger was in the military (ground troops) decades ago as a seventeen year old. Hence, metaphors, and such, are flavored by experience, though some may have been influenced Hollywood-style (media have responsibility - beyond what might have been appreciated in this regard so far).

Remarks:

01/13/2012 --  First post of 2012. 

Modified: 01/13/2012