Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Secured payment

Moral: Wherein we just reiterate the chimera theme (as in, if all pulled their monies simultaneously, there would be payouts only to the first few in the line -- vapor, essentially, for the rest).

People, and businesses and governments and unions, cannot run themselves solely on gaming. Oh, I know, the intellectual view of the world says that we're all in this big game (in actuality, a fault of hyper-rationality). Now, of course, that game abstraction might have its usefulness, such as in discussing near-zero (briefly you win, I lose, which has morphed to this: heads, I win; tails, you lose) as the reality, with greed in the game, but it does not come near to the truth of the matter.

Truth? Yes, we'll defer this (remember, all modern arguments, like our debt, gets punted down the road), but every living human knows her/his being (wait! that's not entirely true in some senses, but it is from the sense that we'll expand upon in time -- pause, to nod to a niece's thoughts on Baruch: I feel, therefore I am).


Intellectualism has thrown out intuition which is one of our best characteristics, in some senses (pun intended). It ought to be trained and is in special cases. But, we need it to be more generally used (nose to smart device is not it, folks). The role of intuition (think nose - so that we can smell rats and crap and such) has been subsumed under a mathematical cloak that leads us only to perdition-laden paths that are associated with uncontrolled, and uncontrollable, computational states (in the many senses, to boot).


Anyway, we need some speculation as the limit of prediction. But, forecasting can be more robust than not. In terms of money (finance), we need to listen to Minsky's notions.

That is, speculation leads to froth (and the rich pulling off the top), by necessity (we need to understand these phase issues -- which seem to be like the physical types with which we are so familiar). For most of us, we need to know that we can get what we need when we need it, assuming the monies are ours or due (even something deferred from before (see comment on unions, below) -- we need to get the sticky fingers out of the pot, yes fat cats, namely you). And, the other side of that is a sure, small return beats a large uncertain return any time (except for the lucky (very few) who ought not be considered examples to follow, by any means). What did someone at golden sacks say? Paraphrase: I would rather lose my reputation than my money; I can regain the former; the latter is gone (meaning, harder to re-acquire) if I lose it.


Speaking of the deferred, such as unions deal with, they ought to have a basis that can be actualized. You see, the fat cats get their take now (we'll explain why ad infinitum). Others hope that they can get their reward as promised (ah, so many issues here). It's something like this, now: promise the moon, but deliver a cow patty.

Pause, again, to reflect on 18K jobs lost. Too, the disappearance of a wonder bread, Nature's Pride.

Union guys/gals, tell me this: Why do your leaders live like the fat cat bosses? They ought to be in the trenches with the membership. Fact is, the bosses ought to be able to do the work that they direct, to boot (see below, about the O-series).


Unfortunately, we've put many people into the boat of losing (their all) due to the ignorance (or greed) of others who are not following any notion of duty, fiscal or otherwise, other than to their little selves (I say, draft their asses into the service -- enlisted, not officer -- this is a subject that I'll debate -- all officers ought to spend a significant stint as enlisted prior to their being ordained as the best into the upper class/crust).

The crux, in part? Simple living, for one thing (why is it that General officers think that they are Pharaohs or something similar?). Those whose outflow (as in, outrageous expenditures on their lavish ways) is way beyond anything rational always need to  have a crooked system (with risk in their favor) in order to get their large returns (hence, book cooking, et al). With Kings and bullies, of course, it was taking from the hapless (usually way beyond the person's capability for sustenance - the result, one less peon).

Yes, living within reasonable means is important. For another, no debt unless it's combined with collateral (of a nature that is not froth -- sheesh). There are more, of course.


It's crappy, people. Always has been. A mature human race would dampen that idiocy (along with a whole bunch more) which seems to be glorified. We'll get to that as there is more of this than those related to financial matters.


05/22/2013 -- Need to look at the cosmology of business (Remarks this day).

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

11/30/2012 -- Baruch's views can be used to help found the necessary truth engineering framework.

Modified: 05/22/2012

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Social'd media

Moral: Wherein we sort of start a side thread that will eventually merge back in.

Ben is saying that banks are being too strict. Well, Ben, Bank of America can talk about the billions that it has spent bailing out mortgages. What was it? The average is about $150,000. You know, it's coming from BofA customers, like myself.

My hope is that, at least, this is considered income for the person by the IRS. Probably not, though (not that I'm going to see if it is or not).


There are other things going on. The D.O.W. has been going down. How about 6,000? Well, as long as Ben keeps up with his free money, where else ought people go but to the ca-pital-sino? Is that not what Ben wants?

Speaking of which, savers are still being bullied about. Ben, Ben, ... We savers have another couple of years yoked into your team? We are the ones who are paying the real price. You see, we didn't ask for the financial community to go crazy silly. Ah, they are necessary; and, their computational prowess is enviable. Hah! They're gamers and extract far more value than is reasonable. Let's talk about that.


We do celebrate the newer ways, such as we see with social media of which one is particularly interesting.

This a.m., I saw a story about the guys from whom Zuck took FB, or something like that. Well, they got millions of FB stock and are holding on. Then, the story mentions that they have enough to be VCers.

One investment mentioned was SumZero. Now, the story said that it was a social media sort, like FB (the thing, not the stock), and was for the financial crowd. That got my attention.

The name was either tongue-in-cheek or a Jungian. Or, it might just be the in-your-face truth as we see nowadays with the relaxing (or unlearning) of social graces.

You see, near-zero has been argued here, for a long while, as the reality. Hence, it takes more than the market to get away from zero sum. But, how ought we get to this type of thing?

Not an easy question to answer, but we'll continue to discuss the issues here.


An aside: Earlier this am, I saw a story, a link to which I put on FB (since deleted). about this site at a news feeder. My first reaction had a ca-pital-sino flavor. Yes, the reality is that finance is more near-zero than anything that will support what we all think that we want (win-win). We know many make loads of money without contributing much (ah, I know, liquidity and other ephemeral goods) to progress. In fact, as we saw the past few years, bail outs are the norm because of a perceived necessity (that illusion is becoming greater with time) of things being the way that they are. But, there are many who contribute, real and concrete benefits, and who never get much help and cannot look to push their losses out to the rest. These things relate to an ongoing issue that is not simple, hence this link. Allows me quick access to material the analysis of which will help to describe better ways. Hint: near-zero's imperative nature.


12/12/2012 -- Yesterday, I read where a homeowner was forgiven over $370,000 (yes, three-hundred and seventy thousand dollars) on his mortgage. I think that it was BofA who did it. Being a customer, I want to know whose money went to that which has been multiplied many times. Thank you, Ben and all of your ilk who have sacked the savers. Now, Ben is saying 2015 or so, again. There is one added thing about the case: the homeowner is an immigrant. Ah, welcome to the great US. And, I'm still wondering how people can walk away from debt like this and start over. Used to be the albatross was there. That is, get into debt; then, pay it off. Not push the cost off onto others.

Modified: 12/12/2012