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: 10/01/2015

10/01/2015 --

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: 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 --