Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Ben, da man

Moral: Wherein we put looking at the human conditions on the table and get back to Big Ben.


Ben who? Ben Bumblebutt. Obama had a chance to give us someone new. Oh well. That opportunity passed.

Thanks to Bloomberg, we see that Ben had a conduit from which the big banks could extract as they wanted, without much accounting, and enjoy as a privilege, since they are so 'special' (too big to fail, being a culprit is stylish, I suppose).

So, rather than 'nationalizing' these types, as he ought to have, he played funny games with us, the taxpayers and the savers, and our money. Savers? Those whom Ben has sacked for over three years now.

Yes, he likes to rub elbows with the likes to Jamie and others. Too, he likes the Tetons. Well, he has provided to the jerks the biggest nipple possible (ah, we had to see them get suckled, plus we had to clean up their messy diapers - no wonder the OWS).


All the while, the banks froze up. Main street suffered. What we heard about then were the precious bankers missing their big bonuses (which, many times, were based upon gaming techniques that are not necessary for a sustainable, international economy).

And, savers got 0.2 % or less for their monies. Think of the myriad retirees who had to trim their belts; and, this for no reason other than the foolishness of those who seem to be so Lordly (give me a break).


Let's pause for a brief look at numbers. Say that some retirees have $500,000 (amount used for its nice rounding features -- too, it's a basis for discussion, see Remarks: 11/29/2011, below) with which to fund about 30 years, or so, of whatever is needed to sustain their lives.

As well, let's look at three interest rates 5% (about what Ben had to start with), 1% (Ben, this ought to be your basis -- big guy, talk to someone outside of the Washington and the academic crowd, please, get your head out of the '30s -- by the way, you need to temper Jamie's influence on you -- too, Ben lose your love of that market chimera whose sirens can allure, big guy), and 0.2% (using a larger number than Ben wants paid).

So, using 5%. That $500K start would accumulate an additional $78K over three years. Not a lot, but sufficient to help with the bills. Guess what was the reality 0.2%? A whopping $3K. That is, the savers paid Big Ben's pals $75K (now, people, multiply that over all of the savers -- we have given a lot to the likes of Jamie). At 1%, the accumulation would have been a mere $15K. Yet, Big Ben could have used his moral arguments (albeit, hypocritically since he was rewarding morally hazardous behavior. Ben, do you know the word or concept of morality?) to persuade the saver that they were helping the economy.

But, Ben's jawboning runs empty (or worthless) when he continues to only confab with the rich and powerful (hah, they have no power over the human spirit).


This post depicts renewed zeal to bring to fore a better method. Who has defined such a thing? Everyone, it seems, has wandered off after the chimera. How do we get back to the basics of banking?


By the way, the WMDs are still there even though Warren has looked away. In fact, he's jumped into the pool, it seems, with the rest. Shenanigans, indeed.


08/27/2013 -- Ben has slapped the savers silly for years now. At the same time (or during the while), he has played goo-goo with the nursing addicts who line up to his large teat (conduit).

12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time. 

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

02/08/2012 -- Ben has fed the stock market recovery.

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?

01/13/2012 -- A re-look at this.

12/09/2011 -- See Taken to Task series.

12/08/2011 -- Shocker? Not really. Also, Big Ben has our interest near 0%. Then, he gives this to Europe. Their low point? 1%. Does Ben want ours to be negative?

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

11/30/2011 -- I wonder what kind of thrill Big Ben gets when the markets move like today. The DOW is up over 400 points just because Ben offered to give them newly printed dollars (mind you, the savers here are being further sacked). As this article describes, it looks legit (is somewhat), yet the whole thing is a shell game of moving numbers around. The ploy here is to keep people's expectations up, even though the reality is that we're kicking the can down the road for future generations to worry about. Where is 'value' brought forth? Not with financial gaming.

11/29/2011 -- One wag is saying that 5% on a portfolio will be what the upper echelon sees for some time. The old adage was 8-10 percent. And, hedge funds want 20+, even up to 40%. Returns, like 40%, are only done with very illegal (illicit in any reasonable society) means (this we could (and will be able to) show at some point).

Now, as to the $500,000. It has several uses which are listed below. Actually, it can help us discuss requirements for planning for future payouts. Bankers were supposed to help with this; but, they, and the insurance bunch, wanted more to line their pockets (forgetting fiscal responsibility).
  • Some will have multiples of this; others may have fractional amounts.
  • For any, you can think that this is what you'll need for $1K to $2K, per month (depending upon what rate was used). In other words, your future demand will require current assets.
  • As opposed to the strategy of small assets, expecting big returns. Usually, this is attempted through leverage. We've seen the downside of that.
  • Those who push to pay low lump sums will try to push upward the expected return. Why? The higher the return, the less the payer has to put out.
  • Or, as we're seeing with many pension funds (mostly public), less is in the coffers now than will be needed to cover the requirement. The Post Office is caught in the reverse situation where Congress is asking them to have too much on hand, now, which lowers funds available for operations.
  • These things are easy to figure mathematically. What is hard is setting up the model. Now, if you add in malfeasance (or just plain bumblebutt-hood) on the part of those who handle the technicalities of money and distribution, all bets are off. That is very unnecessary, folks.
  • How did it come to be? Computationally enabled gaming, yes, the ca-pital-sino. Plus, a mindset that has put this type of idiocy as the foundation for our world view (give me a break, again). Why have they been allowed this success? Flim-flam mathematical ontologies that essentially snow any rational discussion (limited management views using sophisticated schemes that are way beyond their comprehension except from a mere operational (meaning, me-me-me) stance).
  • ...
Modified: 08/27/2013

Saturday, November 26, 2011

Rank and file II

Moral: Wherein we take a further look at the human conditions with which we are all familiar.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III


That is, those who could (or who were allowed to) have made the rules (any different now) and have defined the culture (throughout our history). So, we have had two sets: the minor minority who exploited and the vast majority of the exploitees (even to the extent of carvers and carvees).


Of course, there was the set who withdrew from the gaming as set by the exploiters. Some were quite successful with this. If you have a question about how this is or can be, we can explain. Is not this third set the one that is the most progressive?

You know, for awhile, there was a nobility, priesthood, worker split. Usually the nobility was small; some cultures had this set with a larger cardinality. In a sense, the nobility is the top of the top-down. Of course, the workers are peasants to be exploited. The priesthood? Well, some of the more organized situations were of the two sets, too.

However, there were sufficient of the priest (minister) type who really were effective at rising above the fray created by the malevolent. Too, though, we'll have to admit that those who were most effective were martyred (all sides have their own -- we ought to respect that).


Clarification: nobility/priest/peasant (the rest) -- this was there for some, for awhile, made up by the toppers, of course. On the priest, the above is by no means meant to imply that we need this type. Rather, adult humans who are effective, don't harm others, and contribute to the well being of all is meant.

Clarification, further: the mature humans are to be recognized and encouraged, as opposed to the sniveling, snotty toppers who want us to clean their diapers (oh yeah, I've known many -- will characterize at some point). These toppers are not mature; rather, they're exploiters of many ideas, such as those of Adam Smith (oh yea, capitalism as the savior, the epitome of the human race --- give us a break). This would only be true if it were couched so as to enhance the lives of all (that would include those who labor (many definitions) as the real basis).

Clarification, further, again: of course, we have those who think that the ways of the vikings/mongols (that is, takers, trashers -- we can point to clans that did this) is the way for a male to go; that is, destructing as a way of life; the adage to apply for these types is that it takes much longer to build something than to tear it down; so, there is no glory in destroying; of course, some of this set act thusly just in reaction to the snottiness of the toppers.


So, we're talking the top-down view, that seems to think that there is a passive bit of idiots (of endless count) beneath them who love to be trod on, who just adore their masters, and who exalt in being a slave. Yet, from time to time, that seeming mass of humanity rises and throws (or attempts to throw) off the yoke (then, we get those waiting in the wings -- essentially, latent dictators awaiting their chance).

Nevertheless, the ultimate drive to a middle-out then advances a little. What is middle-out? Essentially, that which is at the core of successful engineering, product'ing. and more.


As we know, bottom-up leads to chaos, always. There has to be a tempering. Even science knows this. Without theory, to what would the lab effort lead? Too, though, we know that theory, alone, is a mobius situation of nose to rectum (image: a circle of elephants, nose to tail -- mutual admiration society, in other words).


The bottom up can endure for awhile. Not for long, though, as the top-down force is powerful, indeed. We'll have to explain why (it has to do with that which some of the intellects strive hard to deny - as if their denial weighs on any but their own being). For one thing, class structures were always top-down affairs.

And, as said before, the rules and definitions come from the top. But, there is more. The masses energy dissipates without focus. This is nature (ah, too, the importance of earnestness, essentially the imperatives in action).


We are seeing, with the OWS, an attempt to use the web as a coordinating agent. This may have some effectiveness, but the power of being is way more than anything captured by the abstractions founded on the web. In a sense, the social media is top-down, too. The social media cannot trump being, as we'll see when the infatuation wears out for this current generation who has gleefully taken to being collective idiots in public display (the nerve).


Some say that the OWS is over, has grown rancid (the Post, for one). The current thrust may have worn out (arguable). However, the reality (being) behind the thing is still there and will, in the end (expression only, as we're dealing with something that has no known completion state), prevail. We have seen this time and again.


Related to the motivations of the OWS are a whole of of financial shenanigans that need much further scrutiny and correction. Bush looked for WDMs in Iraq. He had them right there, under his nose, in the financial system that his views help propagate; these WDMs started to be problematic right before the coming end of his ruling period.


While looking at the grievance list of the OWS, it seemed to be a review of the views of this blog and its companions for the past four years. So, ought we do a mapping of the 20 points to posts over those years?


12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/30/2011 -- Uprisings have been there from the beginning. Wiki has a nice list (peasant revolts). Mind you, these are the poor suckers trying to shake off the yoke that was laid on them. Not some conniving aristocrat trying to usurp the power structure. Yes, poor people. The salt of the earth. Striving for something better.

Wait, isn't that the appeal of America? Or was?

After a revolt, things were generally worse for the poor suckers. In the collective genetic pool will be inhibitors for acting thusly in order to avoid the consequences.

Mind you, the U.S. start was not of this type. Not. After the fact, those of the top want to 'crown' Washington. Lucky for us, he knew not to want this.

How many after him thought that their role was indicative of some sort of coronation (leading to canonization?)?

As said before, bottom up can be problematic. So, what would be a good middle out system? Ah, so much to discuss.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

Modified: 12/15/2011

Friday, November 25, 2011

Rank and file

Moral: Wherein we continue a re-look at themes related to labor (persons), corporations (the wannabe person), lord-serfs, and much more in the context of the development since Sept, 2011.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III


Which development? OWS, of course. Their grievance list (image from that page).

Rank and file? Yes, denotes another type of split: leaders (and egos) and the rest. Other concepts, of the same ilk, are the masses, et al.


The truth? Within the 'ranks' are many who are more smart (in about any way that you want to measure - except for 'ego' and out-and-out amoralism) than those of the 'elite' classes that seem to want to differentiate themselves (mind you, that statement implies, in no way, any denigration of refinement, and its usefulness to help us relate peacefully).

In fact, some autodidacts (what is this? the anti-thesis of the lobbyist's ilk) may very well out-weigh the smarties in those esteemed institutions, which are supposedly the foundation of truth. But, such types of comparison can be counter-productive (except for those who want to rise above the rank-and-file -- where God is (as in, in the details)? -- thereby pulling away from any semblance of the truth -- the source of problems, in a nutshell).


If the best-and-brightest (their term) of the generation are led toward egoism and selfish grabbing, from whence will come any progress? Oh yes, they work to establish (impossible) a firm basis for gaming as the sole metaphor for us (yes, and, this take does not populist make, rather out-and-out realism -- same planet, the elite's poop is more rank (as in, odorous - due to the rarefied airs within which they dwell), et al, ..., and much more, of course).

Who is helping us look at near-zero's (engineering) characteristics and control issues (not command and control, by the way)?


12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/26/2011 -- Continuation.

Modified: 12/15/2012

Thursday, November 24, 2011

Themes and memes

Moral: Wherein we awaken ourselves from deep contemplation of the messes with which we find ourselves faced, economically and otherwise.


And, we do this in time for the Thanksgiving reviews. That is, are we not to be looking at what there is that we can be thankful for?


The related blogs have provided a short look at a couple of items.
  • - We ought to be thankful that we do progress, albeit at a slow pace. Fortunately, we got rid of the royals (oh?) and their influence; too, we don't draw and quarter anymore.
  • - Too, the common man can have some influence via the consumer focus of the modern economy (would not you think?); that is, if there were sufficient pay (the concept of rent applies, somewhat) to support purchasing. As we have seen, indenture'd-ness has been the game given us by the best-and-brightest. They have ensnared almost all countries, and their citizenry, into almost interminable debt burden. Smart, you guys! Anyway, Big Ben continues to stiff the savers (says that he'll do so for some time --- gosh, Ben, you haven't made the savers less thankful, but you sure have tried as you kissed up to the bankers); the local paper says that the banks are reeling in profits (very little lending, though --- strange state of affairs, indeed). So, we are thankful, for some little things, such as the fact that some retailers step up and do it right.

We have had recaps before on several subjects. Probably, another ought to be in order before going forward. As, memes do evolve with our predicaments.


05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

12/05/2011 -- We have a new meme. Rather than have/have nots (which is a moral split), we now have 1%-99% (a metrical space); that is, something within which we can maneuver and make decisions (any more meaningful?).

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/25/2011 -- We'll go into the use of theme/meme. Let's, for now, use one example: rank and file.

Modified: 05/01/2012