What is truth?

Moral: Wherein we continue to ponder questions of truth. In business?

---

Ah, is truth found in the accumulation of wealth?

---

Well, folks, the truth is that what we know about the monetary system is much less than all of the daily clamor seems to indicate. We cannot even ask for an honest assessment that we might think is due to the populace nor can those, who are responsible for the task, perform to our expectations.

For one, the growing presence of computation makes the basis even more shaky than we might have allowed.

---

So, human cleverness will continue to win out. But, does it have to conclude with fat cats getting fatter to the detriment of the most?

Now, where is that class of people who will be effective and who will not exploit the situation? Yes, we will look at this further.

---

Big Ben, thanks for cow-towing to the fat cats while you ruin the savers, some of whom then get into trouble, unnecessarily.

Remarks:

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

01/01/2011 -- We have two last posts of December under our belt.

01/01/2011 -- The truth? Folks, those with the means have been allowed to rule the markets as if they can untangle themselves (and their money), and they did this mis-using mathematics and its computational basis. And, those who were to referee, like Big Ben, threw in the towel, for several reasons. Either they think that the big boys are the key (yet, the biggest part of the equation is consumption -- how can that be done without income (from jobs)?), or they play into the market economy (ca-pital-sino) thinking that Smith, et al, is behind them, or they're just into the role and its accruals, such as we saw with the partying King. Now, it is (can very well be) a fact that those with the proper views (such as, inclinations for simple living) are as smart as (perhaps, smarter than) the best and brightest and that they could help develop the framework for the future. This will be discussed further.

Modified 05/25/2011

Who tells the truth?

Moral: Wherein we start to ponder the question in a couple of contexts, namely finance (a game of idiots who want to mostly trash us) and engineering.

---

Well, Martin Weiss asks the question (Isn't there anyone left who'll just tell us THE @#$! TRUTH?). He lets Mike Larson remind us of many things, but here are a couple.

• Yes, Big Ben has increased our basis of money by almost 1.2T (trillion!) over the past couple of years. Gosh, the weight of that is more than we can handle. Yet, he was re-appointed (anointed)?
• Big Ben put the taxpayers on the line for 1T in toxic assets. They are still there, folks.

These finance guys do take us for idiots. Martin & Mike tell us that we have 2,000 banks on the s@#$!t list. Bank of America is one, thanks to the former head. What is behind all this new chatter of a 14,000 DOW?

Look, people, that whole financial thing just pushes around the same bit of bits. Big Ben just upped the set size, to allow greater returns (as in, increase of amounts that could be siphoned).

Did that really help what is the economic basis?

---

Now, in terms of technical issues, to whom does the public turn? There is no one, folks. Everyone seems to have an agenda, even within science. Except, now there is an effort to remove the political influences. It's nice to see 'integrity' used; let's hope that this is real.

Remarks:

06/11/2013 -- CDOs and tranching, once again.

03/11/2012 -- We need to update this, especially with a nod to Alan M. Turing.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

01/01/2011 -- We have two last posts of December under our belt.

12/20/2010 -- Not only do we need to ask who tells the truth, we need consider what 'truth' might be. A recent New Yorker article is of essence: The truth wears off. The few sentences of the article says this: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean that it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". I might add, whom to believe. A similar article appeared earlier in The Atlantic.

Then, that same issue of the New Yorker has an article about the hypocritical mantras of 'free markets' that we're subjected to (Enter the dragon).

Modified: 06/11/2013

Fragile, built on faith

Moral: Wherein we look at a missed opportunity that would have dampened high gains (greed), provided oversight to the best and brightest (Lordly Princes), and helped understand better some of the ideological problems of capitalism whose 'casino' is best evidence that this is not the way of reasonable folks, with all due respect for Adam Smith whose ideas have been used for building a Ca-pital-sino (the system migrates to inflationary schemes to the detriment of the people).

---

What was the missed opportunity? A chance to rein in the bankers.

Essentially, learning that the consequences of nationalizing the banks, at the time, may have been less severe than what we hear the experts argue. Why? The whole system seems to be for the fat cats.

Oh, now we learn that they are 'fragile' (chimera) and 'built on faith' (ours). Yet, pay, again, is coming forward as an issue (those fatties will continue their ways until we wake up).

It was said before, several times, that we missed a big opportunity.

• Big Ben, again --Remarks, 11/02/2010. Such would allowed time to audit, analyze, pause, listen to the wailing of the fatties, and then restart. There is, folks, no sane argument that says that such an experiment would not have given us a big empirical boost in understanding better the current imbalances.
• Suckers and sackers --Brief mention of what we might have learned.
• Big Ben reigns --Thoughts on the subject around the time of the State of the Union speech.
• Gravy train I -- Asking the question: how else can we get the sucking pumps to cease?
• Ill-begotten gains -- Noting that what actually happened was a collection of returns gamed with our money.
• Bankers III -- Since the current bosses showed their lack of clothing, why the hell are they allowed to keep playing their crooked game?

---

Now, to be aware of the ensuing discussions, what exactly is 'nationalizing' and how would it work? Well, there could have been many flavors. As we move away from the time of the lost opportunity, we can look back at what happened, rue the continuance of the shell games, and talk about possible re-fits that would make more sense.

Thankfully, the forums for this type of discussion are open. What is wrong and what to do about it are not easy issues. Yet, we need to stop and mourn the fact that we did not get to see any other way pursued than that already put into place by the fat cats (who have been given free reign, it seems, to influence the future through their monies).

Those at the top are the 'best' of humanity? Give us a break!

Big Ben got an audit. Isn't that nice?

Remarks:

12/06/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow. He's helped the chimera unfold in unhealthy ways. He could, at least, say a mea culpa.

03/11/2012 -- We'll use Alan more this year.

08/05/2011 -- In case there is a need to be more obvious (the meme: the chicken or the egg -- below), which is the oldest profession: head-butt or mate. Note, if you would, that the latter is usually preceded by the former, in many cases.

08/03/2011 -- There are several ways to ponder economics within an evolutionary framework. However, starting with the two (no, not one) 'oldest' professions might be of interest: head-butting (see Remarks 07/29/2011) and, then, that which is usually cast as the oldest. Which came first (the meme: the chicken or the egg)?

04/20/2011 -- Prof Black, UMKC School of law, on the immunity policy. If these guys' thing is so fragile, why the hell do they pull out (greedily - every bank, and financial type, ought to have to take an oath of simple living (proxy for a vow of poverty)) so much money in bonuses and other perks? Jamie, explain that to me, please! ... We'll get back to the nationalization bit, and what it might mean, as we expand the technical framework. After all, the whole definition of money is based upon a governmental view (as Big Ben will tell you). Pursuit of happiness by taking from others was not what the Founders meant (apropos since now the buck is the de facto standard, hence, our principles ought to weigh in).

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

01/19/2011 -- For the most, things are dire, not by necessity.

01/01/2011 -- One basic problem is that systems are in place, and in development, whose consequences are not scrutinized beyond their ability to fill certain pockets. Oh, let the boys play. Is that the attitude? While, all around, our butts, and those of our progeny for generations, are sliding further into the mud. Way to go, smart guys and gals.

Modified: 12/06/2013

Raj Patel

Moral: Wherein we consider another for whom the sirens, related to the big chimera, have no hold. These are the 'real' kings (as opposed to the interlopers, supposed the new royalty, who are ruining everyone's world) and who allow us to hope that we can develop the real backbone of the economy which is necessary for our future and that of our progeny.

---

This time it is Raj Patel who did get his Master's indoctrination at the London School of Economics.

It was a real treat to run across Raj's notions, albeit that I learned of his work via a recent New Yorker article. How did I miss out before?

Raj's take on matters, economic and otherwise, comes the closest to understanding the realness of 'near-zero' than any that I have seen so far.

The question of how we got into this mess is partly answerable. The solutions for improvement of our situation are not (cannot be) easily grasped.

But, becoming aware of the true state of the problems is the first step. So, hopefully Raj stays the course.

Remarks:

12/05/2010 --

Modified: 12/05/2010