-------------
Or, as Mean Street says, the computers get to 'making ugly, messy love' while our money hangs in the balance. You see, the computers are driving the economy due to its increasing roles, and there will be side-effects not unlike we will continue to see with cars.
That requires a new type of thinking, folks.
Given that the streeters, such as golden sacks, seem to deal with 'truth derivatives' (see cartoon) of their own liking, upon what can we build trust required for a market economy? It seems obvious that ill-begotten gains are the norm as how can large bonuses be so usual without some sort of fiddling?
---
On another note, where does the money go? That is, when things roll downward. Today, many lost, yet others gained. That's called near-zero, folks.
Some argue that we can move away from near-zero, with upbeat outlooks, and such. Yet, there has to be a certain amount of accounting (and accountability) and auditing that stands up to scrutiny. That we're fiat'd in terms of money (aerated by the FED, in other words) sets the stage for all the bad stuff from the beginning.
Yet, even in the gold years, there were issues, as Big Ben can tell us.
It may be that the only way out of the muck is with computer systems and a proper playing field. Somehow, we need to get insights from improvements in engineering, such as cyber-physical notions, involved.
Smith and Samuelson would probably agree.
Remarks:
06/11/2015 -- Computers? Out of control, in more ways than one. Adam rolls over (again and again and ...).
12/22/2014 -- Nice to see the WSJ article use "sandboxed" in relation to the absence of "predict or control" within the context of computation (in a sense, we are already out of control very much in need of an economic sandbox). The issues raised in the article are central to truth engineering's core focus.
08/23/2013 -- Another example. Jon has it right: high-frequency to blame. Of course, there are several reasons for the market being out of control.
06/11/2013 -- CDOs and tranching, once again.
05/30/2013 -- We're being driven by systems and developers into a type of hell.
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).
02/11/2012 -- Example of the senselessness of the ca-pital-sino give to us by the best-and-brightest.
01/13/2012 -- We'll be coherent and thorough as we discuss issues (out of control) related to this theme.
03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.
11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.
11/02/2010 -- Over a year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. But Big Ben continues in his ways. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.
10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.
05/25/2010 -- Who will (or can) lead out of the morass?
05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy.
05/14/2010 -- NYT's opinion points toward algorithms which nowadays seem to have a panache that seems to need some scrutiny.
05/13/2010 -- Some of the 'out of control' is intentionally inserted, as that helps some make money. See Time article from 12 years ago in which it is suggested that a lot of 'high' finance is motivated by attempts to circumvent accounting rules. As a reminder, folks, the issue of 'moral hazard' consists of this: playing with other peoples' money (many of which are moms and pops just trying to survive their later years), not handling risk properly (hubris of mathematical prowess), taking off the top (privatization of the profits), expecting bailouts from the general populace (socialization of gain) when things go awry, gloating about being right (again, hubris, but this time it's probably male egotism). It's been said here before: we need people running finance who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose. Now, that set would not be exclusively female.
05/10/2010 -- Commentary, and cartoon, via USA Today is right on.
05/07/2010 -- Another opinion on the influence of computers in the market.
05/07/2010 -- As said before, politocos seem to be those who salivate at the sight of a buck. I should add that the thought of the buck might cause the glands to activate, too. Especially, it seems, according to this report, that it's worse than I could have imagined. Why expect more from these people? That ethics might come into politics approaches zero in likelihood?
05/07/2010 -- Basically, the whole model stinks and is very unstable. How did we get to where our lives are dependent upon this type of thinking? And, this is how 'capital' ought to be handled? On no. Have to consider that Grasso was right. Like they say, right message, wrong messenger.
Modified: 06/11/2015
05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy.
05/14/2010 -- NYT's opinion points toward algorithms which nowadays seem to have a panache that seems to need some scrutiny.
05/13/2010 -- Some of the 'out of control' is intentionally inserted, as that helps some make money. See Time article from 12 years ago in which it is suggested that a lot of 'high' finance is motivated by attempts to circumvent accounting rules. As a reminder, folks, the issue of 'moral hazard' consists of this: playing with other peoples' money (many of which are moms and pops just trying to survive their later years), not handling risk properly (hubris of mathematical prowess), taking off the top (privatization of the profits), expecting bailouts from the general populace (socialization of gain) when things go awry, gloating about being right (again, hubris, but this time it's probably male egotism). It's been said here before: we need people running finance who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose. Now, that set would not be exclusively female.
05/10/2010 -- Commentary, and cartoon, via USA Today is right on.
05/07/2010 -- Another opinion on the influence of computers in the market.
05/07/2010 -- As said before, politocos seem to be those who salivate at the sight of a buck. I should add that the thought of the buck might cause the glands to activate, too. Especially, it seems, according to this report, that it's worse than I could have imagined. Why expect more from these people? That ethics might come into politics approaches zero in likelihood?
05/07/2010 -- Basically, the whole model stinks and is very unstable. How did we get to where our lives are dependent upon this type of thinking? And, this is how 'capital' ought to be handled? On no. Have to consider that Grasso was right. Like they say, right message, wrong messenger.
Modified: 06/11/2015
No comments:
Post a Comment