Moral: Wherein we leave Ben alone for awhile and see what ought to be important to the future so that we have the best for the most.
As in, no economic torture (one type), for one thing. There is a lot more to look at.
Earlier, we mentioned a few blogs. We have some on a blog roll. Today, via the CACM (member of ACM since the 1970s), I found another that I'm adding to the blog roll: econfuture| Future Economics and Technology.
The topic of the blog, Economics and Technology, deals with important issues. The particular post that I first saw asks this question: Could Robots and Automation cause an Unemployment Crisis? The post has a link to the CACM article (nice, thanks).
This post is mainly to point to the blog and to change the subject of focus, for awhile. I worked in applied AI (think of this being analogous to applied mathematics) since the early 80s. The particular discipline was Knowledge-Based Engineering (I consider myself a KBEvangelist, of sorts - except, perhaps, I've broadened the basis, of late). I was involved with a wide-range of applications, heavily involved with applying mathematically-based computing. From this, my look at truth engineering was a natural flow.
Aside: My degrees are in economics during which study I emphasized the overlap between economics, mathematics, and computing. The leaning toward AI came from an interest in the development of cybernetics. See this little section, that I wrote, about some thoughts on where KBE might go. Note, please, that engineering is being looked at as applied science (yin/yang). The computer? It does a lot of water muddying; essentially, things get topsy-turvy, thereby (see quasi-empiricism, operational aspects).
So, let's end, for now, with the consideration of near zero being said as of importance. That is to show, of course. Too, all this running after computational assists is problematic from many senses and sides. We'll get to that, folks. In other words. the economy, as defined by markets (especially those of the chimera type), are a house of cards.
Now, one future employment opportunity will be to ride these things. Think of it this way. We have idiots now, pushing out what they see as advanced systems, who have no idea of the side-effects of these things. You see, as long as it fills the pockets of the right people, then who cares? Or, who can fight big pockets?
Aside: Being, which currently is being suppressed in these realms - as in, no consideration given, thereof, always wins. This is not metaphysically driven, either. It's the reality that has not allowed itself to be over-layed with our mathematical constraints (we'll get to this again).
Now, the issue of who will the be bull rider is complicated. There will be a whole lot of intuition involved (trained, of course). Too, though, there very well will be non-elite players. You know, what I am referring has not been recognized, nor looked at, except, perhaps, for some little nuances being looked at by forward thinkers. My hope is that the likes of the elite (of certain types, for now), like the Harvards, will get into the game. To do so will require them to consider that autodidacts aren't silly willies crying "wolf" (or bemoaning lack of genetic makeup, educational opportunities, and the whole list of other things what can lead a person's life to the less than desirable).
As we have seen with the web, all sorts have made money, and success (other types), without the imposition of the top-heavy academic regimen. Non-elite contributions will become a central core issue.
Aside: Any consumer driven economy must allow for means for those consumer's to do their thing without the load of debt (that, folks, is a side-effect of the current regimen that went (ought to have gone) out decades ago).
02/26/2014 -- Acknowledgements for Lucio Arteaga.
08/05/2013 -- Let's see. Financial Engineering needs some attention. Perhaps, with the likes of MIT involved, this discipline can learn to lead the way out of the morass. Expect more on this topic. If things continue as they are, markets will be pure chimera (as in, ca-pital-sinos). Investors? We'll go on about that, too. It's guaranteed that most in the equity markets will lose. Why is that not talked about by those heads we see daily yakking on TV and newer media? No, they would rather go gaga (apologies to the Lady). So, we'll have to address this issue: the point (price) at which loss outweighs any gains to date. All cannot sell to make a profit. Now, there is a way that all could sell high (government as the buyer of last resort - Ben has been doing this, albeit with bonds - yet, it frees up money that can go to equities -- government? of course, taxpayers). We'll have to look at the misuse of mathematics; plus, doers need to be brought back to a respectful position.
07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.
07/30/2013 -- Oh yes, Watson, and its ilk, will require some thoughtful consideration. You know, that whole thrust makes the human-oriented issues more important.
"Do People Really Downsize?"
3 hours ago