|DC and its CherryBlossoms|
Adam could not quite grasp what he thought that he was seeing (many factors, to be considered, are involved with this). But, he is much chagrin'd at all of the misinterpretations (malfeasance under his name, so to speak).
Aside: A focus on people does not imply anything like a consumer-driven state of affairs. Wise people know that controlled spending portends more to happiness than does spendthrift'y ways even if you can afford it - can't buy you love.
So, the new economy? Well, this post is motivated by Rick's thoughts. There is a lot of uncertainty about what we might know as it pertains to our influence on the future. After all, have we not, meaning mankind, screwed things up royally (in the past, now, and, definitely, into the future)? One could be bleak in thought, indeed.
Aside: Google or Amazon or whoever in control of our minds and lives and selves (yes, the all-knowing friend says Scientific American - we can broach this subject from a more healthy framework)?
And economics, in particular? Why can't we get it right? In regard to good times and bad, some argue for creative destruction's necessity? Ah, again, that proposal was a sign of a time. From another view, in essence, growth ought to be as natural as the expectation of spring on a snowy, cold day.
And, just like our model Earth shows us, we would have cycles, yet all would not be in dire straits at one time. Too, as we know how to endure the challenges of winter (think of Prince Harry traversing in the cold, to the south), we would master the cyclic reality of things economic.
Wait. As the financial people demonstrated recently, too many abusing Adam's thoughts, and more, can bring us to the brink. So, how can something so basic be out of whack?
Aside: As Bohr suggested awhile ago, only finagling makes for endless winners (as in, bungling biases to be in one's favor). Of course, we all know that (hence roles like Rick has at the moment).
As we have said, before, quasi-empirically, mathematics, as misused in computation, is at the core. Ah, we can remove biases that we have learned over the years it is argued. Yes, expect us to get into the fact that biases streamline decision making in ways that we ought to be more insightful about. Too, we can model without waste. Again, let me show you things like engineers feeding output from one model into another as if the data were obtained via senors (or other measurement).
By the way, that last remark is about one large fault of economics. Being dismal (we all know that - yet, there are sciences that can close the gap - we'll get to that, too).
Also, Ben, and his crew, keep talking that they are data driven. Ah, guy, where's the wisdom? Big data is a big mess, afloat. Give us a break, please.
Someone (one of the big bankers who is worried that their board was basically thief laden - meaning, no thought give to ill-begotten) was bold enough to use moral in the context of finance, this year. That will be part of the discussion, to boot.
Remarks: Modified: 12/16/2013
12/06/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow. Or, say a little mea culpa.
12/16/2013 -- HFT's contributions to the turmoil'd (froth'd) markets.