Thursday, December 24, 2015

My Sorry Social Security Return

Moral: Wherein we look at a prevalent view.

The title of the post comes from an Op-Ed published by the WSJ, Moday, 12/21/2015. The Op-Ed was written by Jeremy Spiegel (a frequent contributor) of Wharton.

Now, in his opinion, Jeremy would rather have had the money that he and his employer put into the Social Security Fund under his control. Remember, Bush, the son, wanted this, too.

The following compares his numbers (US$) on retiring at 70 with the maximum payout (if he lives to 90) from Social Security.
    Soc Sec, 840K
    Stock index fund, 2, 270K
    U.S. Treasury bonds, 1,280K
We will ignore that the difference goes to support many others who have not been able to pay in, such as the disabled, etc.

But, there is another issue. The stock fund would have been using the magical multiplier in creating funny money. And, out of this type of bucket, not all who have ownership can extract to the full amount. Jeremy ought to know this. The current method favors the few.

Now, can this funny gaming change? Yes. Who is thinking along this line?

In regard to the U.S. Treasury approach, yes, this can work (see experience with Saving Bonds). But, bonds can change value, too, based upon the state of the current game.

Besides, how does Jeremy know that he could hold the bonds to maturity? Even if he could, how well could we expect the majority to do in this regard?

So, not picking on Jeremy, but there is a whole lot more to the issue than he allows for. But, then, considering the larger issues would detract from the message.

Since Jeremy is in finance, a professor, I would like to know what is the basis for the gaming that goes under the guise of financial engineering, albeit we already know that greed is one motivation.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/23/2015

12/23/2015 --

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Spigot opened, a little

Moral: Wherein we acknowledge the change.

Ah, so late. We looked for this back in 2010, then 2012, then ...

And, at various places, you see the rhetoric of the addicts who, unfortunately, get more attention.

Can savers breathe a sigh of relief? Not yet.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/17/2015

12/17/2015 --

Monday, November 30, 2015


Moral: Wherein we look at Quora, briefly.

A question came up: Why does it matter that the Fed hasn't raise interest rates yet?

My answer: Why-does-it-matter-that-the-Fed-hasnt-raised-interest-rates-yet/answer/John-M-Switlik


So much to discuss. The big boys and girls run with their fantasies intact. As in, they shuffle numbers up to their little platform in the cloud (no, not talking the modern theme - it's more like Mick - please get off of my cloud). In doing so, they step on the myriads.

That is my view. Looking up at the idiots. Yes, you people, mathematics does not save you. Not so does computing, either.

Janet is looking at her numbers. Why cannot we get a systems person there rather then one who has been lulled (by the fat cats and their money) into keeping the chimera going?

Remarks:  Modified: 11/30/2015

11/30/2015 --

Thursday, November 19, 2015

FED warp

Moral: Wherein we see one view of unwinding.

Unwinding? Our note, 08/24/2009:
At the time, we were all expecting some type of normal withdrawal from the addictive ways. But, the addicts won out, and savers became more flayed than sacked.


Recently, a WSJ opinion brought this back to fore for me. How the Fed Has Warped the 401(k). The image is an excerpt.

Be sure to read the comments. A lot of these are people talking about their strategies for beating the system, in the sense of not losing their money and obtaining some type of gain. Remember, we have quoted Niels as saying that the only way to not lose is fiddling (insider info, etc.). 

What we need for savers is the savings bond, rather than the market chimera, that pays interest over time. There is much to discuss in this regard. 

Remarks:  Modified: 06/13/2019

11/20/2015 -- Taking winnings (?) off the table. 

06/13/2019 -- Recent Quora activity which was a comment on a 2015 answer (Is there a way to hedge 30-year fixed mortgage rates?) got me to relook at this post as it is concurrent with the answer. This post referenced a note that was made on 08/24/2009. Where was that comment made? Well, this post: Savers, who the heck are they? It's from way back, too (17 August 2009).

Friday, October 23, 2015

Sustainable and near zero

Moral: Wherein we acknowledge Fallows' look at Gore's view.

Yes, we're still here, though a little quiet. So, Janet and company are stiffing the savers. I could (would) say theft, actually. We are being pilfered so that the markets can run their crooked games.

Al Gore does not like all greed. Only the short-viewed type. No, he likes long-term greed. That is nice, Mr Gore. I like your emphasis on sustainability, but with your being so close to the players you may not be able to be aware of things that are amiss.

Listen to the little guys. Not those who can belly up with the $3M that you want for your investors.

So, this is about Fallow's article: The Planet-Saving, Capitalism-Subverting, Surprisingly Lucrative Investment Secrets of Al Gore (there are plenty notes, to boot).


What Al and friends do is broaden the scope. We all know that the quarter-reporting view is just too limited. Or, rather, it reinforces the gaming. And, little people, like the savers, lose out (we can go on about this but won't, now).

So, they add in environmental and social issues to the equations. Nice guys/gals. You do not take it far enough. And, that is where near-zero comes in. I want to see a proper/in-depth accounting (yes, I know, tilting like the Don). And, I know that I have a long way to go to make this more clear.

In the meantime, congratulations, Mr. Gore, on your success (huge accumulations). Your work, at least, was a little light added to the darkness of the greedy times. Did you really have to use that concept?

Did Al Gore 'invent ' Sustainable Capitalism?
What ;we see from this newsflash is that Blood and Gore have their critics. Look at the notes associated with The Atlantic's article.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/28/2015

10/23/2015 --

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

Billions and billions

Moral: Wherein we mention that Ben has his book and that Janet still does not see a bubble.

Yet, we see this story. That is, the financial firms (according to an article on Yahoo) had profits amounting to multiples of billions in 1/2 of the year.

Now, juxtapose that with the latest that I saw from a bank visit. Savers are getting 0.08% for their money. That is less that 0.1% which is as close to zero that you can get.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/06/2015

10/06/2015 -- Now, remember our put on "Beyond your wildest dreams" from earlier this year. Yes, those who run the financial realm rake off of the top. In essence, they de-cream so that we all get less of the fat.

Thursday, October 1, 2015

Quora quarter

Moral: Wherein we pay attention to passing time.

After all, today starts the 4th quarter of 2015. What happened yesterday, with the 3rd's close? Was not paying attention. Why? Well, was doing some Quora work. I had run across the site earlier; but, this summer, I paid closer attention. And, got pulled in. Below, I'll sketch out some thoughts related to this blog.

The first entry for me was in the latter part of July, so that makes it about 10 weeks. I could get the specific date in order to have the quarter by that. But, on second thought, July was the first month of the 3rd. So, I'll just say that I did two months and a week (or so) on Quora. Or, I could say that I got started a little over three weeks into the 3rd quarter.

Aside: I'll to a recap on all blogs, but, in general, Quora stimulates the brain in a different way than does blogging or other types of social media that I have used so far. We will look at that. There are the usual trivia questions; or, students try to get you to help them with their homework; or, inane topics and responses entrap the unwary. But, overall, it is a good experience.


In terms of Janet and money (why not use water as a basis?), a recent WSJ book review motivates the following bit of contemplation.
  • Markets, et al, are game based. How this evolved needs some explanation, but we're not going down that path, presently. 
  • As such, these markets reinforce the male-dominance pattern, as if we need this. Look, guys, and gals, we do not need that metaphor realized; as in, ideas procreate. 
  • So, prior to the advent of the computer, things got to some balanced point that was directly related to ability to dominate, as well as the agility in screwing over others (which is subterfuge, not domination). 
  • Since the computer, technology has been exploited to fill the pockets of those who run the game (which Ben and Janet support). 
  • Technical approaches, such as linear methods, made great way in this scheme of things. 
  • Then, techniques out of AI research came to fore. The book was touting backward propagation in the situation of neural networks as a means to implement inductive processes. 
So, as said earlier, none of this was foreseen by Adam Smith, our friend, who is rolling over in his grave due to the claims being put upon his name.


All along, the markets could make use of technology as it because available. In some cases, they may have driven the improvements. Not usually, though, as their whole thing is maximizing gains from the intake (as in, profit). And, the old guys paid and benefited. It was the younger set that brought in the stuff. The book reviewer said that he lost a student (machine learning) to a well-paying job. Turns out that pattern recognition has come quite far. Has its limits, though (to be discussed).

One thing the reviewer wrote was that the back-propagating neural network had lots of data to work with. Yet, from the underbelly up, the whole things stinks. This big daddy data could not tell you.

Remarks:  Modified: 11/21/2015

11/16/2015 -- Question: What are the most shocking truths about macro economics at the global level?

11/21/15 -- Why-does-the-Islamic-banking-system-not-charge-interest-on-loans-and-advances-What-are-their-alternative-sources-of-revenue?

Monday, September 14, 2015

Basis for money

Moral: Wherein we consider a new basis for money.

We have written about money here, quite a bit (here and at truth engineering). Too, we have looked at the inequities that are not natural which come about since there is no way to model or to think about these issues except from a very unstable, abstract basis.

There is much to discuss, but without further ado, we want to propose water as the standard for money. This can mean many things. For one, yes, its use would be analogous to having gold as the standard. We would not need Fort Knox or equivalent.

The thing would be more closely tied to what we have seen with bitcoin. But, it would be more rational.


Some of the discussion will be on Quora: What-would-happen-if-the-entire-world-got-rid-of-money.

My suggestion, very briefly:
    I would like to propose water as the basis for a monetary system for a number of reasons. Money ought to flow. Its use can cause growth and cleanliness. Too much can lead to rot and decay (have we not seen a whole lot of that?). Then, banking would be like plumbing. The gaming, now called investing, would be such that we would have a clear pool - and, it would be for fun, not of any consequence. Now, we don't know how much water there is. What is the upper limit? Well, you see, at least we would have some physical notions behind the modeling. What water? Would that in the clouds count, too? Yes, nice to think about? As, who does not like water?

    For the technical, I am proposing that water be used like we did gold. However, it would be more a modeling scheme, better than bitcoin. Along with this would be a change in the viewpoints to account for flow, usage, etc. Even, storage. What we would not see would be gigantic accumulations and the like.
The difference between this and gold is that the latter has a long history related to avarice. Water is essential to life, as is money.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/01/2015

09/14/2015 -- Henry Ford thought that energy could be a basis for money.

10/01/2015 -- For awhile, I have pondered on what elements might be a good basis for money. Gold and silver were a default since they were used for currency (loose meaning) due to their intrinsic value (socially determined). Some have proposed an approach based upon nature, such as thermodynamics. We could have number of elements proposed. Now, water? That gets us to two, both of which are important to life. The systematic methods for doing this type of basis needs some attention. Needless to say, bitcoin, as said, offers an example of a non-traditional approach.

Tuesday, August 25, 2015


Moral: Wherein we look at the mess of the Fed.

On Quora, there was some debate about whether one could use an in-the-large characterization for undecidability, namely the halting problem of Turing. In essence, sure it can be used; even though the problem has to do with whether we can know if a program will find an answer (okay, every man's view?), it does apply to the larger picture.

What gets me is that theoretic views (logic, computer science, etc.) know about this problem. But, you get cowboys (business people, financial wannabes, and such), like Ben, making decisions and changes on the fly to something that is very much driven by computers or which has a very large component that is computationally bound. These best-and-brightest types are just digging a bigger and bigger hole for all of us.

We talked, here, about unwinding a long time ago. He and she are several years late.

So, the halting problem as far as the Fed goes is this: Will Janet halt the flaying of the savers? There is a lot to talk about, but some views of late are encouraging.


First, this WSJ op-ed is right on: A Fine Fed Mess.

Then, Fiscal Times had a little article. Essentially, the headline said: The Troubling Truth Revealed by the Stock Market’s Nosedive. We find this chart provided by Alberto Gallo.

Ah, see the halting problem?

If Ben had done the deed at the time of the taper tantrum, we could have been better off. But, alas, no, he did not. Now, he sees some need to go negative on interest. Let's hope that Janet is not listening to such a siren call (perhaps, she's immune). 

Remarks:  Modified: 09/13/2015

08/25/2015 --

Friday, August 14, 2015

Timmy and friends

Moral: Wherein we talk about different things.

Of late, namely the past three weeks, we have been on Quora. Yes, we did get to use the magical multiplier, and such. One question dealt with whether Quora is the modern day Northumberland (say 700s?). We all know the the Magna Carta look back this summer.

So, we'll be getting to all of that.


Of note, too, is that Timmy gathers some of the higher-ups to Yale where they discussed what needed to be done to bail out the financial crowd (beyond changing diapers and wiping their arses). We will get back to that. Ben was there. ... Exclusive bunch.

Probably, thanks are due to Yale for sponsoring the thing.

Remarks:  Modified: 11/16/2015

08/14/2015 --

Wednesday, July 22, 2015

Google as poster boy

Moral: Wherein we allude to several possible hints. Poster boys do not have to be rogues.

Let's see. So many examples of late that the world has dropped on our lap.

  • The golden sacks guy as a poster boy for the 0.01% (I have seen up close some of their dealings). 
  • Trump, as in the Donald, as the poster boy for flim-flam. We cannot blame the Donald; he just represents that ilk (not meaning Republicans or Conservatives - Dems have their oligarchical (it's an attitude, people) folks, to boot). Flim-flam? Yes, see one article on the determination of total wealth.
  • Which brings up the so-called market with its inflated status (oh Janet, I thought that you would not have the male blindness). 
  • So, finally, on the Google pop the other day after which the press has gone on and on, and on and ..., about the $billions increase: a very small amount of shares outstanding were involved in the activity that caused such an increase. ... Ought we use, priming the pump? Getting the suction going so that the pockets of the hapless are (will be) emptied? ... Not picking on Google; it is just that they make a good poster boy for this issue (of which, the Fed is (has been) an enabler).
  • ...
Rather than dampen, we will start to think temper (perhaps, anneal). Actually, what I have in mind goes far beyond the little stress tests that the banks have gone through (thanks, Timmy - remember him?).

Remarks:  Modified: 07/27/2015

07/22/2015 -- Some of these were rogues.

07/24/2015 -- Now, we must add Amazon. They had a big pop after hours, yesterday. The press is exclaiming about them being more valuable than Walmart. I don't think much of the Waltons, but this whole bit sounds a lot like 1900/2000, when the nebulous futures of the so-called future companies of the web were seen as more valuable than brick and mortar. Now, on the other hand, Amazon has been building centers (computing, distribution). But, he, meaning the joker in charge, does not take care of his people. No, he's taking his wealth and meddling. Bought the Washington Post, for instance. ... So, these two can stand out. There are more to add to the list. From these occurrences, we can paint a good picture of the problems with the current financial mess (er system). ... Looks like 10M or stock are active (as in, what's report by volume). Of how many outstanding? 500M or so.

07/24/2015 -- We'll be re-looking at the "new royalty" issue. Ought those who get benefits from riding the magic carpet with the fat cats worry? Yes, sustainability cannot be attained with these types of methods. Adam Smith has been mis-used for too long. ... Near-zero, in that the most pay, through the nose and worse, is a key issue (the Jokester of Amazon knows this).

07/25/2015 -- Gosh, another poster boy (WSJ on 78-year old). He is an inspiration, in a sense. His choice is problematic from another. Why does he not put his brainpower toward resolving some economic issues (like the madness of the market, and proponents thereof) rather than just pilfering because he and his kind can and are allowed to?

07/27/2015 -- Today, things started downward. But, I noticed that both Google and Amazon were roaring up (small number of shares involved), again. Someone priming the pump on this Monday morning to get things going? It seems that the exchanges hit a bottom and are going up. ... By the way, there are limits set that stop trading on the downside. Have you ever seen this happen on the upside (to wit, the pops of last week)? -- Will use Quora to explore things further. --- Also, we will be getting back to the Quants and issues related to their roles.

Monday, July 6, 2015

Piketty, again

Piketty? Yes, the rage a year ago. The Economist, recently, summarized Thomas in four paragraphs. This deserves a more thorough view, but on a quick read, there was one reaction. Besides, I like their Brit humour, so, no doubt, this summary is precious.

Quote: And today’s super-rich mostly come by their wealth through work, rather than via inheritance.

Not true. The wealth of the super-rich comes from the magic multiplier having a larger basis, in general. So, those who got from what "papa may have had" were able to preserve (some kudos there). For the newbies, like Zuck, the multiplier applies to (rests upon) that collected from the dreaming of many who buy into the future (not bad, in principle, but who thinks about sustainability - I have not had a FB post for dinner). In this latter case, those who bail out early get the goods (think of all of the MS millionaires, for one of many examples).


"work" could be demonstrated to those who sit at tubes (or carry mobile platforms - i for idiot?) by pulling them away from their false reality (we will get back to Zuck talking of telepathy - plus his 31-year-old's viewpoint - ah, where is the wisdom in the modern age? ... money does no buy wisdom - see below, Aside2, about hard problems) for a period of time. None of the CEO class works (a multitude of those under him actually work under conditions that would make most CEOs melt or go running to mommy).

Aside1: People already read others. That is one factor behind sucker-hood (hapless victims). However, superficial looks do not encompass the totality (to be discussed) of the person. In fact, many in the quagmire, unable to rise out of bad situations, are held back due to the influence of others, part of which is non-verbally (all sorts) manifested. ... I know that Zuck's parents are into mind science, yet I will have to see what insights they might have attained into the "human" aspect that everyone is dancing around: as in, human as made in the likeness (read as you wish - what needs to be known, in this day and age, is that most do not need intervention twixt themselves and That Which Is - and FB does not facilitate truth in this sense as fully as some seem to think or to wish/hope for).

Now, coding as work? Laughable (from an old guy who has been there on many levels for many decades). Of course, some may very well be challenged (see Aside2) by situations thereof.

Aside2: Facility and accomplishment might pertain to superiority (the supposed best-and-brightest who have led us down perdition-laden paths). However, if you look deeply, those who rule do not get involved in the details. How does this work (pun?)? ... Take hard problems. The notion is that it is harder to find solutions than to see if a found solution is correct. Okay? Existence views, basically, note that a solution exists; normally, there is little hint in how to find such. ... Now, for the ruling class, they may not know how a solution was derived, but they can check it or pay to have such checked. ... There will be more on this from the truth engineering aspect. ... In computation, one can test (or prove or ...); in any case, automated facilitation may develop (bringing its own issues - our problem is that too many have swept these under the rug (old saying) - to wit: ah, too many to list, but auto (as in, those things driven) come to mind, ...).


Now, Yellen is going great guns, as did Ben, in perpetuating the myth of the multiplier. At least, she ought to allow that a few types of future payments ought to be based upon some view that is beyond the chimeric. How can this be? That is the "work" (pun) to be done. ... Fortunately, there are people like Thomas, albeit his view is only partially complete.

Look, everyone tries to find some equation that subsumes the reality, ala Newton and our old friend, Albert. But, those little things are easily misunderstood; however, some intuitive takes might hold grains of truth that ought to get some attention. To get to the meat (and I do not mean: regression to the mean - puns?), though, requires digging into the whole of the equational mix (which can be work - I will admit, but it does not decimate the physical self to smithereens - metaphorically, of course, have you ever talked to someone who has done manual work - by the way, those grammar snits ought to see if they can get over their superior selves enough to "listen" - by the way, if we looked properly, we would see a whole bit of peripatetic knowledge being wasted which is closer to what the real worker sees - ah, the ignorance of humanity).


Nowadays, I get offers of zero-interest credit cards plus leading statements offering rewards for buying. Sheesh. Where is there the rational look at a proper foundation for those who do not need material things or who ought not be playing the silly games of the ca-pital-sino which is abetted mostly by male fantasies?

Remarks:  Modified: 07/06/2015

07/06/2015 --

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Ben's blog II

Gosh, Ben is finally starting to sound like a blogger: Say it ain't so, Jack. In fact, I have to admit that I'm impressed.

Aside: I would be more so if he could see that some of us are "appalled" at some of his decisions from which we are still (and will be for awhile) suffering.

Now, you see, Ben's early things looked more like publications. How much help did he have? Well, actually, did he actually use the keyboard on this last effort?

From the beginning, here is the post count (all 2015): March (3), April (9), May (1), June (4). I read the first few (see my Remarks). In April, I had asked how long he would do this (well, he did wind down shortly after). But, as all bloggers know, this stuff takes work. Unless, one is just spouting off (to what audience?).


Wait! I started going back. He wrote on baseball, yesterday. Okay. But, then, the prior one is related to a story that I read. Yes, unfortunately, people have to spend oodles of time trying to second guess the oracle who has no clothes. What a sham!

But, he know the technicalities. Thanks for setting us straight, Ben.


Now, in the prior post, Ben talks inequality. Does he even know the word? I would argue that, from the position of near-zero, one cannot consider these matter without first addressing the conceptual basis of investor and stockholders as of primal concern. In my post, I skirted around many issues; with time, I will get to the proper discussion (for now, Ben says that he got stocks back to their trend; nice, Ben, but you did throw savers under the bus - this paragraph admits that).

In the meantime, keep converging toward blogger-ness, Ben.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/27/2015

06/27/2015 -- In his post on inequality, Ben gloats, almost, the he got stock back to their inflated state. Earlier, I had said that he liked his index fund, way back in April of 2011. But, surely, Ben knows of the chimeric nature of the ca-pital-sino; or, does he? With his remarks about savers losing (which he admitted), he said that the pain was relatively less. Oh gosh. Ben, if you have $1, it would hurt worse to give up $0.50 than if you had $10, or $100, or, like we see with the fat cats, $1,000,000. What does 1/2 a buck mean to them? Ben claimed that interest bearing income was a small percentage of a retirees mix. Given that, then he could make his policy take that little bit. But, Ben, the future? Heard of that? Nice steady returns can build (to wit, my experience with Savings BondsA set of savings bonds that was bought in the year of 1980 and cashed out in 2010 would have returned 422% based upon the purchase price of the bond. ). But, Ben nipped that. Fortunately, those bonds had been almost 30 years in existence before his ways drained, or started to drain, off the gains, minute as they were anyway -- Ben, gambling for the future? - Nash, you know, is not the oracle of all.) ... So much more to say. Ben really needs to consult with the likes of me (I know as much economics as does he - too, my world experiences are far beyond what he, nestled in the realms of power and academia, ever faced. --- Yes, the real world, Ben, that suffered under the downturn and then under your policies.).

Thursday, June 18, 2015

Yellen is thinking, mainly, of stockholders?

Moral: Wherein we consider how things unfolded to now.

Yellen speaks; the markets inflate. Someone is priming the pump today; the main problem is that mom and pops are getting screwed (will be burnt). ... And, savers? Oh Lord.


First, we'll collect material, by type and time. Actually, Drucker (2011 article) discusses how this bit of insanity came about.
    2004 - Tangible versus not - 62 to 38 vs 16 to 84? Change in percent of tangible to intangible from 1982 to 1999. [stale link]
    2011- The Dumbest idea - make money or create a customer? No, cook the books (thanks, Jack).

    timeless - Investopedia - of course, we know, a priori, how their view will go.

We have to do more than just dampen the magical multiple.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/13/2016

06/18/2015 -- So, Yellen talks. No rate increase. Then, the markets jump up. Too, the wags (shrilly) start to say, come into the ca-pital-sino. We have several months of rise. ..., So, someone pumped (as in priming) up the system, today. And, we know that the huge leaps are the mere artifact of the accounting. ... Too, we have "investors" who are the focus (supposed). Good companies have gone toward a more balanced view in which customers get a lot of attention as do the workers who get things done and make the customers happy. What the hell does the investor do? Sit on their fat arses and give us attitude, as in, I'm entitled to this. Says who? Oh, Adam Smith (silly me)? ..., So, much to discuss in order to get a better framework. ... The WSJ recently quoted Friedman (the monetarist) who talked greed, this is the way, etc. Almost barfed, quite frankly.

06/22/2015 -- However far from effective this post might be, the message will improve. Just as we see Ben moving toward blogginess.

12/13/2016 -- New link from TradingSim (does not imply endorsement).

Tuesday, June 16, 2015


Moral: Wherein we consider two seemingly disparate (but, not) views of current matters.

As an aside, Morgan Stanley is quoted as saying that it's tough to beat the S&P for several reasons. Their research says that only 20% of the actively managed little bundles of money were successful in 2014. ... You know, one might say that it's also a small percentage (overall) who can take out "gains" during boom times. When we have downturns, losses are general.

So, that may call for some dampening notions.
    -- Now, for the first issue, someone used "casino" in reference to the millennials. The article called them, the Ben Franklin Generation. Too, though, they will be the youngest set when things do return to normalcy (euphemism for a reversal). So, we need to keep them in mind, as a separate group, as we discuss matters. Their emphasis on technology is short-sighted, however, when things do fall apart, we will be able to, then, get some attention upon the important issues. Which are? Well, they're scattered, by reference, throughout these posts. In total, the view is coherent, albeit integrative work may be necessary to bridge what might seem disjoint to the casual view.  
    -- So, let's get to the real issue. Here and in the other blogs, we have used undecidability a lot (especially, in truth engineering). Basically, think of it as this issue: unless we have experienced a situation before, we have very little clue about things that are involved. Or, much of computing is repeat (actually, it's one of the big frames in science's process) - and, I am not talking, in particular, about issues related to deterministic views (an important concept). 
    Rather, there is this proclivity toward "vertigo" that is overlooked. Why? Cleverness, essentially (a really simple analog is error-correcting code). ... Now, computation has been more of a boon than a bane, until now, for many reasons which we will go into. But, the bane aspect will become more prevalent, and I am talking more than "data-driven" hell  (Janet needs to exude the "wizard's" aura). ... So, much to discuss. But, in modeling via computer, cleverness entails compactification of sorts. Call it closure, if you would. 
    The motivation is to allow decisions to be made (albeit, default reasoning can go a long way without contributing more problems) via various intricate means when normalcy will not allow itself to be found. ... In many cases, some type of thing (one might call it a node-it-all) finds itself as the basis - whether asserted or inserted, it does not matter. This "thing" has all sorts of looks; in some cases, it's hidden via a mathematical system definition. Using "node" is meant to imply an emphasis on logic and decisioning. 
    And, to equate (associate), in your mind, "node" with "knowed" (yes, true, simple past tense) is not off the mark (we have a whole lot to say about that - let's, for now, defer this discussion of blindness vs delusionality. Okay?             
Finally, there has been much allusion to Facebook (FB) playing all sorts of roles in the discussion. Now, we can offer some hints. FB cannot be a node-it-all; nor, can using FB allow one to attain this state - actually, we don't have to go far beyond the "feed'ing frenzy" examples. Nor, I might add, can anything created (ah, yes, infer here as you wish, we'll get to this). That we seem to have all of this success is due to a lack of proper insight (and hubris); some say that "karma" might apply, as a concept. I say, just wait, the unexpected will bite you on the arse (do we not want that for fairness many times, albeit that we see some who seem to "play with fire" without getting burnt - how many hapless might, though, suffer from the actions of those who play?).

Remarks:  Modified: 12/28/2015

06/16/2015 -- We will start to expand upon the theme as it relates to truth engineering (concepts essential to a balanced proliferation of AI - that is, safe for all of the people, especially the hapless). ... So, what is "eating the world" now? Marissa agrees with Marc that it's software (see Marc's slides at Slideshares - there is a transcript). Some say data. ... We'll weigh in from the viewpoint outside of the mobile mania. ... Eventually.

12/28/2015 - I started using Quora in July 2015. Quora answer using know-it-all (Do-female-users-get-harassed-for-the-question-answer-they-posted-on-Quora/answer/Annika-Schauer) which state implies some type of closure (compactification). When such is displayed in science, and other realms of study, it can be very much problematic.

Monday, June 1, 2015

Dampening the magical multiple

Moral: Wherein we drop the first of several hints.

One step toward a more balanced financial situation would be the following:
    Take some of the computer power that is being "wasted" on algorithm (and high frequency) trading and apply it to lowly bookkeeping (databasing). 
    That is, each financial entity would be addressed and tracked, individually. That is, for the millions of stock for a company, we would track the sale history of each item (piece of paper). 
    Oh, that would lift the transaction details so that we could see a history of who bought and sold? 
    The goal would be to remove the cheshire multiple's gaming effect which started before automation. At that time, the current peanut-butter way was all that they could do. 
    Since computation has come on the scene, it has basically been applied to serve the 1% (and less) in gaming the system rather than to do a proper accounting. The progression of increased assists by computing during the past thirty years can be related strongly to the emergence of troubles that are far more complicated than we saw in the earlier markets. 
    Vested interests argue for their necessity (job security in the longer term) of their convoluted schemes (say, dark pools). Do we need those who are big takers (say, upper east siders)? Do they not see the riches acquired via gaming the markets as an entitlement specifically for them?)? 

It is too revolutionary to (attempt to) do a proper accounting from the beginning? Can we say that the markets have not devolved with a continuation of age-old gaming the influence of which has worsened the economy? Is the bifurcation of haves and have-nots of an essential nature?


What is the cheshire multiple? Magical multiplierLet them eat cakeBeyond your wildest dream.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/22/2015

06/08/2015 -- Yes, the underwear of the benefact'ees of the bifurcation is showing. No, they're not naked; their exploitative ways are very much skyclad, though.

06/18/2015 -- We have to see how this insanity got its start. Then, we'll see why most do not get their money (the value is strained out daily by those who run the game). Everyone, it seems, has bought into the game (but, we're not tilting either at an illusion - despite having used chimera).

07/12/2015 -- We saw a couple of things today that did damper. First, we saw companies (very many) in China stop trading on their stock. How can this be legal? However, it does suggest that the real buying and selling of securities ought to be handled by companies (yes, they would bear the cost). That is, get rid of the fat-cat middlemen. Second, we saw the NYSE's computer go down. For hours. That halted a downward slide. Very effective, as the traders had to cool their heels. ...

07/22/2015 --  On the Google pop the other day after which the press has gone on and on, and on and ..., about the $billions increase: a very small amount of shares outstanding were involved in the activity that caused such an increase. ... Ought we use, priming the pump? Getting the suction going so that the pockets of the hapless are (will be) emptied? ... Not picking on Google; it is just that they make a good poster boy for this issue (of which, the Fed is (has been) an enabler).

07/24/2015 -- Last night, we had an Amazon pop based upon activity of about 10M shares out of 500M (about) outstanding. Then, we have the media bragging about the Jokester's big payday (which would require him to be able to sell at the price) all day. These little games would be okay if they did not help preserve the less than 1%'s ability to suppress the remainder. See Remarks (this day) about the incident.

Sunday, May 31, 2015

John and his friends

Moral: Wherein we stop to consider, very briefly, the Magna Carta (WSJ overview).

Yes, the 800th anniversary of the first sealing comes soon. It will be a big deal for a lot of people.

For all? As the bifurcations that we see all around show us, many (most) have had minimal (or no) comfort from that long ago bit of activity and angst.

John and his friends
After all, a few generations later, we found major conflict between bickering cousins (one example of many).

Has that sort of thing become less common (has it been made worse by modernity, through means such as game theory?)? Did we learn from the war to end all wars?

Remarks:  Modified: 05/30/2015

05/30/2015 --

Tuesday, May 26, 2015

JFN, Jr.

Moral: Wherein we acknowledge that John Nash was a central figure in applying mathematics toward that which has over-laid our lives in ways that, perhaps, need to be (seriously) reconsidered.

Who?  John Forbes Nash, Jr.  There has been a lot written about him. There was a movie. This PBS page provides a brief bio, with photos.

For some reason, I, recently (before Saturday 5/23/15), re-looked at a book that I had on the shelf, for awhile. And, what was that? Siegfried's A Beautiful Math. I got it via a book club that required so many purchases a year. It went on a shelf after it arrived in the mail.

On the first look, on that day of re-acquaintance, I had to keep from barfing since the author was heaping praise on game theory and John, to the high heavens. In terms of the former, "game theory has applicability everywhere" was one theme. Okay? In terms of the latter, if you don't buy the ideas, you're dumb, essentially.  But, despite that visceral reaction, I did start to look at the book's message more closely that I would have a few years earlier.

Too, I pondered my state of Rip-Van-Wrinkle-ness. I have written elsewhere that with the downturn coming to light (say, 2007 timeframe) I started to look at the state of things. "What did the idiots do?," was my question. Everywhere I looked, more and more stupidity (then, we had Made-off). Well, we are far after that bit of things; the savers are still being flayed.

But, with John passing, I will have to pay even more attention to the whole affair, even to the technical aspects (which I started on Saturday, 5/23/15, with a respectful mindset - mind you, I was academically exposed quite well in the 70s, so no need for lectures - remember, autodidact). After all, the notions (in my blogs - they're there from the beginning) behind the arguments to consider quasi-empirical issues (much more involved here than many might think, see the Wikipedia page) are motivated by those ideas/concepts so much loved nowadays (without due regard, in too many instances - yeah, cloud'ers), part of which is the game-theoretic thread. So much to say, here.

Given that Siegfried's book is on-line, we can reference it and its sources. But, again, when this? Well, as said before, that is not known, as of now.

Remarks:  Modified: 05/30/2015

05/26/2015 -- For starters, Blaise (yes, a friend) needs to have his outlook updated so as to show how strong it is. Of course, in reference to Siegfried's look, we're talking Chapter 11. As an aside, I do like the tie in with Asimov's fictional sagas.

05/30/2015 -- We will get back to the technical issues.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Most cannot and never have been able to

Moral: Wherein we state the obvious: most (way above 50%) cannot (and never will) get their monies out of the ca-pital-sino due to many reasons which we will enumerate (ad infinitum).

Give us time. Essentially, the equity propaganda is based upon faulty models. The whole framework looks at the winners (one side of near-zero). In actuality, that very much larger set of non-winners (no, not losers - it is not a closed situation) is more important on the whole.


In essence, someone of Janet's ilk needs to realize the importance of a reasonable interest rate applied to instruments that are safe and sound (in so far as is humanly possible to attain). To bring that about will require a re-look at the current basis of belief (of course, the accouterments that accompany the big pockets and "winners" in the current system make it difficult to get the conversation going in a proper manner - worse than a catch-22, if you would).


Now, to be technical, for a moment, there are all sorts of analyses going on everyday. Much of this it yapped about ceaselessly all day (Lord, deliver us - yes, Cramer, you, too).

One that came to mind was Tobin's q (he is the Nobel winner). Skirting for the moment all of the questions of defining, and determining, value (about which we have been writing: 7oops7, Tru'eng, FEDareated), Tobin would have us relate the total sum of assets to the current market value. If the ratio is above 1, then things are (may be) puffy (as we see now, where bubble is more appropriate).

But, you know, the magical multiplier would have to be collapsed in order to get the proper market value. And, that, then, would settle the issue.

Tobin's q and
Market Cap / GDP
And, too, the whole notion of most not getting their claim comes from that little sleight of hand that has been accepted as the only way to do things (complete misuse of Adam).


The VectorGrader site provides a graph of Tobin's q since 1950. But, notice all of the other valuation charts that are offered, like Market Capital to GDP which looks similar. For each, there is a brief description of how the chart is calculated.

Also, provides a nice summary and discussion.


So, let's back up. The motivation for this was a BloombergBusiness report about Tobin: Nobel Winner's Math is Showing S&P 500 Unhinged From Reality. The report discusses the case that the markets may be frothy. In doing so, it covers the following topics:
  • Dissenting Views - one of these says that worrying about the "q" would have kept one out of this market. Oh yes, that is the point being made here (if you got in, you have accumulated ill-begotten gains (enjoy them, quiet (if you can) your conscience) - not available to everyone).
  • Slow Spending - and we know about this; cutting costs (removing workers - working the remaining to an inch of their health) and hoarding money (also, buying your own stock to keep the price up) and ... What is equity for, anyway? The basis for gaming (financial manipulations) or a means to support real economic decisions?
  • Mean Reversion - Ah, investors? What about the people being screwed who are those with their hands in the dirt, who are keeping things afloat for the fat cats (riders of the system's magic carpet - coddled to the max), ...?
  • Bond Yields - oh yes, no where else to go but equity markets? Not. Somehow, a real economic view needs to be expressed here (Janet, et al, are too much of the game as defined to try to grasp the issues - Ben could not see the last downturn when it was starting to happen right under his nose -- but, he showed us that he had not run out of bullets - did we really say that?). 
All in all, it was a nice article, however it does not address the real issue. For that matter, who does (except for this blogger)?


Too, we need to look at whether markets can be fair or not. Oh, sure. that argument reverts back to the fantasy of "efficient" market. While people argue and nitpick about that, others slave away or starve.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/18/2015

06/18/2015 -- We have to see how this insanity got its start. Then, we'll see why most do not get their money (the value is strained out daily by those who run the game). Everyone, it seems, has bought into the game (but, we're not tilting either at an illusion - despite having used chimera).

Monday, May 18, 2015

Does it or does it not?

Moral: Wherein we start our own analysis, albeit that we had a big bubble day (with the DOW, et al, hugely inflated from Ben's/Janet's largess).

And the question? Look at this from a recent USA Today article: Despite tumult, stock-market tenets still ring true (which they took from the AZ Republic).

Oh? I am not picking on them. WSJ, too. Everyone was writing due to a report. Which was?

Ibbotson's. This thing that looks at a hypothetical $1 from 1926 or so and carries it forward. Say what? I wrote about that type of thing in March: FED gives Wall Street its wishes.

So, because of this Morningstar report the talking heads say that equity reigns. Why do they say that? Especially, when we look at ca-pital-sino, chimera, etc.?

Three years ago, Waggoner was saying that bonds had beat stock for the past 30 years (USA Today, again). Of course, who saw the bubble (many still do not)?


One reason that there are such large collectors of bucks (and the resulting bifurcation within the populace in terms of pocket size) is that the game is stacked in the favor of the few (to be defined further - the masses have never been able to (in fact, cannot) partake in the growing economy - want to talk take-a-ways, for example?).

How can we show this illusory state? Well, give us time (I know, I don't have eternity). The thing is that most cannot take from the market scenario without there being serious depletion that results in the popping of that which is entailed by the magical multiplier (fictitious capital? know said that?). This needs to be explained in a way that everyone can see the truth of the matter. Now, per usual, there will be sides to the argument. At least, we can expose the "fraudulent" claim that these financial machinations are good for the populace, in general, rather than being mainly for the fat cats.

By the way, this is not to pick on anyone in particular. Did you know that a major brain in the early part of the 20th century said that there is no way to win in these games without insider information and manipulation thereby? Who? Bohr (on funds, and more).

So, how can a just society/economy be built upon this (type of) silly game?

Remarks:  Modified: 06/18/2015

05/20/2015 -- Well, finally, no, it does not. And, most cannot and never have been able to get their hands on that ephemeral bit of stuff that is so important to the fat cats.

06/18/2015 -- We have to see how this insanity got its start. Then, we'll see why most do not get their money (the value is strained out daily by those who run the game). Everyone, it seems, has bought into the game (but, we're not tilting either at an illusion - despite having used chimera).

Thursday, May 14, 2015

Dire, indeed

Moral: Wherein we let Steve do the talking.

See, 7'oops7, Talking to the choir. Without knowing the particulars, just look at the image, as if it were the psychological blot test.

Hey, that might be a good little exercise. As in, collect reactions.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/18/2015

05/14/2015 -- And so, after the post and content has been digested (does not imply absence of forethought), then epilog bits come to fore. The first half of that letter is what resonates. Then, Ben&Steve talking "incredible returns" in the stock market grates (harshly). For one, the thing, as run now, is a ca-pital-sino and very much can be characterized by near-zero (both terms have links in the text). Too, though, is the whole thing of the magical multiplier (wild expansion of value), of returns mainly for the early birds (connivers), and of enormous grabs (by some) that desires serious analysis (again, foreclosure - not in any way now profiting, nor in the past profited, from the gaming - whose main thing is to impoverish the masses). ... There will be a change in tone, thanks to Canfield (yes, he of the chicken soup thing). --- So, the diatribe series will stand as an example: so-called constructive looks, No. 1, No. 2, No. 3.

06/18/2015 -- We have to see how this insanity got its start. Then, we'll see why most do not get their money (the value is strained out daily by those who run the game). Everyone, it seems, has bought into the game (but, we're not tilting either at an illusion - despite having used chimera).

Friday, May 1, 2015

Near zero, again

Moral: Wherein we begin to re-look at an important concept.

Near zero? Yes, we first used that way back before Ben and Janet started and kept up their largess which Ben is now out defending (his blog and more - God, Ben, our view is from under the bus where you threw us - get off of your Olympian height).


Say what? Well, "near-zero" now alludes to the fact of easy money policies (with the resulting financial types just gloating while they explode like pigs in a poke). You see, the interest rate that is paid to certain types (via certain media) is zilch or about as close as you can get.


What I was using "near zero" for really has to due with the fact of the chimeric nature related to non-zero sum arguments. Yes.

Ben would need to have this explained to him in however long it would take him to understand. The bifurcation of the enriched versus the others has accelerated with his policy (well, he may not have started the split, but he sure enough worsened the problem - do they even see the reality of the people being trampled?). ...

We are now to where the so-called investors (meaning, of course, that the ca-pital-sino is more about gaming and gambling than investment - which does, everyone, have very much to do with the future -and not that immediate one of getting drunk/partying on gambling gains) are tightly bound to the teat of the FED. Janet is afraid to shake them loose.


Wait, there are some normative issues that ought to be looked at. True enough. The answers are not easily found, nowadays. Yet, Ben persists (his push back to the WSJ).


So, in essence, we will have to think up a better term (neo-near-zero?) for the concept first used in 2008 (a June 2008 post titled "counting oops"; place holder recognizing the use without definition dates to March 2009; a recap showing early uses in 2012). And, Ben (and ilk), it deals with a reality far removed from those whose hands never get dirty (the scum of the earth after whom the real people clean up - oh, but, then it's a job - yes, ..., that which Ben talks (as in, jobs) is a hold-over from warped capitalistic thinking).

Remarks:  Modified: 05/18/2015

05/18/2015 -- We have to include discussion of does it or not

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Lessons can appear everywhere one might look for them

Moral: Wherein we consider the "life and lessons" of a non-poor janitor.


The Washington Post, April 25, 2015 - column by Barry Ritholtz.


Lots to say, at some point.

In short, though, they better sell quick, otherwise the air will escape.

Remarks:  Modified: 04/28/2015

04/28/2015 -- Now, a few hours later. His collection would be a good basis for a study. All sorts of questions loom. Say, what if he had died at 84 or 85? One can always hold and hope for a good price, assuming that you don't have something like the Lehman Brothers bit that he bought. Then, more than 1/2 of the collection might be expected to pay off. ... The key issue is that equity collections do not pay off for everyone; this payout (it would be good to know the specifics of the accounting) is an exception. Has anyone done this type of analysis? ... At least the talk now is how we've seen these things go sky high with little participation. Yes, indeed. That is the whole point.

Friday, April 10, 2015

Constructive look at economics III

Moral: Wherein we can the bile (Const I, Const II) and start over, albeit slowly.

No excuse, Sir (but, must have been recoiling from Ben's somber tone).

We all know of bullies. You know. some of the bullied turn out to be nerds. Some of the bullied turn out to be CEOs. But, are more CEOs of the bullying type than not?

Silly question? Depends upon your viewpoint, but, consider that it comes from decades of observation (and involvement - actually, at one point, I thought they were all idiots - immature - look closely at yourselves, CEOs and similar ilk, ever notice that babies exhibit the same behavior? - but, who is perfect?). One prominent guy is called a wizard (some seem to see that as sage-like).

For any, I like to bring in "near zero" (have since the beginning) which enlarges the scope (yes, the types that talk "big picture" have many limits to their view - how to bring this forward to their attention?).

Well, we have a major brain now saying that mankind needs (must have) compassion (in order to cope with the future - have one, in fact). Actually, I was happy to hear that (meaning, I do not know the specifics but have pondered some of the inconsistencies that lurk). What CEO has a compassionate bone that is not tied to money or fame or other types of self-interest?

Oh gosh, Did it, again? Well, that was the last of it. Let's be serious.

You see, at the core, we have issues that are age-old, extremely gnarly, and seemingly more troublesome in this day of technology (and STEM). So, what are we to do? Sit and ponder (well, some do take that route)?

Go out and grab (well, that is the jungle way, is it not?)?

Then, overlaying that swamp (all due respects to Mr. Wonderful and the shark mind) with technology brings things to a type of boil (yes, many connotations here) that is difficult to control. But, at the same time, technology is ridden with faults (oh, yes - is it hubris that keeps that from coming to general awareness?). Yet, given that a large set (still a small minority) reaps benefit. The larger set just endures and suffers.

But, compassion would make that apparent. Why does it not? Technology (STEM) also assigns a value of very little to those who do not fit into the mold (to be discussed). I know, how does one talk to a moron if one is of the ilk that conquers things like the SAT? Condescendingly, of course? Now, we can project, extrapolate and all sorts of other operations around that little bit.

In fact, part of the success of technology is that type of ability which maps well to the type of processing that computers can do. Talk about much "ado about nothing." We will have to lay out a careful explanation about this. Quasi issues are important. But, too, we have core and boundary specifics that come into play. I don't want to use "being" due to the bad associations that we saw from the mid-1900s in that regard.

We'll get back to that. But, for now, leave it that markets are exploitative, by nature. All of the machinations that Ben talks about (several variety, many dimensions) cannot do the trick. Even Janet talking the lack of ethics is not going to do it.

That is, what to do? Well, we can talk "near zero" for awhile. Any large accumulation (yes, Warren) comes from insufficient regard for true costs (what?). Ah, don't give me grief here, folks. There are so many examples of fat cat greed (and things like declining infrastructure) that the description could be fairly simple. Let's see if we can do that.

Remarks:  Modified: 04/10/2015

04/10/2015 --  With the tea ceremony, some felt that a spiritual basis could be established. That is, for the country (lot to discuss). What is the spiritual basis for the U.S.? For business? We have already seen animal spirits invoked (ala bulls, etc.). Given this early theme, mindfulness will come forth as something of importance, in this sense: running after money is not mindful (arguable point, indeed).

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Constructive look at economics II

Moral: Wherein we continue a constructive approach, albeit slowly.

And, while we do so, the world runs on. But, we are not dabbling, real-time, in experimenting with people's lives and well-being, either. Ben cannot say that he was not a cowboy with his creative financing/monetary schemes. Too, Janet cannot say that she has not perpetuated the errors.

So, what is the basic problem here, folks? Well, academics are running the show when it comes to the FED. That would not be so bad if it were science, but we are talking a larger set of issues. Now, business management? Well, that domain has its set of problematics, too. How did this focus on the pseudo-quantitative come to fore?

Well, even since Nash (we'll get back to this) and the advent of computing (ubiquitously so), all hell has broken loose. Not that it was better before, since before then we had mostly the politicos and their warped views. Democracy? Have you noticed that things seemed to have descended to a state of having re-election as the focus for these elected ones?

So, who's watching the baby in the bathwater? Not the academics, folks. They're after papers and fame.

Is it hopeless? No. We can start by trying to understand what is going on.


On the one hand, we have people, who are intelligent. All of them (even those of supposedly lower talents can, and do, know - we  need to get the academics/uppers to wake up to the fact that the universe did not give them brains (or whatever else is their talent) in order to make then the chief kahuna). And, these people (according to the US Declaration of Independence - if you say, it does not apply to you, then, just think of it generally) are endowed with rights, etc.

So, intelligence, and how we think of its use, needs some attention (later). Too, though, rights can conflict. That brings up an issue (the Wall Streeters have a right to get everyone else in hock - oh?).

Well, discussions about humans mostly devolve to idiocy (has always). When will we learn?

Some were happy to see STEM (and all things associated with it) advance in power (ah, politically oriented nerds - is that an oxymoron of some sort?). Yet, that which is behind STEM has problems. These are subtle, hence the conflicts that we see.

Yet, quasi-empirical notions are simple. We will start there. As, Ben has missed that boat. Janet seems to be wanting to impress the boys. Well, Janet, this boy sees those high-falutin' notions as suspect from a deep, foundation'al viewpoint. Of course, the FED deals with daily issues. Yet, it ought not do things like push us to a numeric purgatory (hell?) just because it wants to look modern and smart.

Same goes for the boys/girls playing with finances via computers. There are all sorts of issues that we need to recognize.

To wit: the idiocy of letting loose the wild-west of the web that led to commercial exploitation (all sorts of bad games - yeah, Nash) and insecure practices/states that entrap hapless people. And, a lot more.

That idiocy is not well understood but will be, at some point. That is, how can people who rate so well on standardized tests, and on other means of supposedly being the best, keep getting us, more and more, into more perdition-laden states?

Wait, there is an answer. But, later for that.

Remarks:  Modified: 04/09/2015

04/09/2015 --

Monday, April 6, 2015

Constructive look at economics I

Moral: Wherein we turn our sight away from the worries (and the game) of who's on first (actually, did we see a headline like this? Blog war, Ben and Larry) or who's on second, for that matter. The whole crust (uppers) looking at these issues is way off base (have been for some time)


Now, "constructive" has lots of meanings, such as starting over and building. Too, though, we will be defining how a sustainable economic framework ought to look if done properly. Now, fortunately, I can do this without academic support. Unfortunately, for many, this work is late as the gaming runs along five days every week down a perdition laden path (or paths) where the insidious effects just keep on getting thicker and thicker.

Aside: if you search on some of these terms in this blog (and in the related blogs: truth engineering and 7oops7) you will see that they have been used from the beginning.

This look starts from the initial state. In short, we have people (lots to look at here). Over the millennia (many, many), what can be thought of as "class differences" has been evident (since the 1630s, those heading toward Cambridge, MA versus going elsewhere, okay?). Early on, the hierarchy was based upon power (physical). The guy with the biggest stick was king (any different now? - oh yes, we elect these supposedly better classes of people who then take a crown upon their heads - ah, poor mankind).

But, even way back, the levels came about from types of ability particular to humans, namely intelligence. So, the smart guys got some dumb arses to do their dirty work of various sorts: knocking heads, providing meat, growing food stuff, ... You see, the recent off shoring was successful (actually not, near zero, folks) due to large pockets (existence usage, here) of people who can be exploited (for several reasons: they are, they do not have any power or means, they live under the cloud of the smart/capable idiots who seem to have the say and who leave the earth worse off when they croak - again, poor mankind).

Marx and others bifurcated this (type of) separability into capitalists (the smarties who pull strings) and labor (the puppets), but this little splitting (partitioning) is too simple (shallow). When one looks at the long history, lord/serf is a good characterization (age old). What is capital, by the way (actually, where is greedy accumulation seen as leading to peaceful coexistence?)?

Some MIT guy, recently, made a refutation of the french guy's little offering (twas last year - french dude wrote, in a sense, that things of finance always float above the real concerns - like, where the next meal comes from - ..., that statement is a good as any of the other arguments that I have seen). The french guy was a little off the mark, but his attempt was of an ilk that we need to see more of. I will get back to this theme since the retort has to do with land. Does not the economic view have dealings with the lowly earth's resources on its plate?

In the initial phase, we want to look at the actors in the scene, namely the people and the various mixtures that one can observe. For one thing, that statement about everything one needs is learned in early schooling (yes, interpersonal and social aspects) comes to mind. But, it is more than that. Some, like the smarties of Silicon Valley, want to get their kind duplicated artificially so as to rule. Yes, as if the knowledge of the more in-touch mind is worthless (ah, recall the above reference to leaving things worse off). Actually, even smarties (or talent holders) of the artsy type are seen as less than those who run after money and after automation for its own sake (but, again, lots to look at here).

That is, STEM is it (or IT)? Please note that "constructive" has usages there, to boot. In short, we will get back to looking at effectiveness and at how that arises (perhaps, we can do all of this without hubris coming in from around the edges). Sensitivity to "quasi" issues would, we would hope, dampen the cowboys (yes, Ben) who run amok with their experiments (yes, Zuck) on people because they can (are allowed to) and their, seemingly, heedless rush toward glory (and big pockets, different usage than above, if you must ask).

So, again, people, markets, etc. will be the theme for a bit, though there may be uncontrollable branching offs into the more complicated realms.

Remarks:  Modified: 04/16/2015

04/06/2015 -- Two books on labor economics reviewed by The Atlantic.

04/08/2015 -- The IMF weighs in on the side of Larry (essentially, a pissing contest). We really do need to get back to the basics (and, henceforth, I'll adapt a more serious, mature tone -- but, with all the screwing up going on, how can one keep the tongue from wagging? -- as in, the little people have always been trampled over the millenia; what has not been learned is how to have a peaceful, sustainable - and other words, supposedly from the flower power generation -- economy).

04/09/2015 -- We are slowly converging toward something or other.

Thursday, April 2, 2015

Good old days?

Moral: Wherein Ben's blog motivates a look back.

Ah, those days when CDs made something. Banks didn't slap you silly.  

A little bit on bonds was in order, too. Since 2008, they have softened quite a bit. That post had this:
    Let's start with a simple example. A set of savings bonds that was bought in the year of 1980 and cashed out in 2010 would have returned 422% based upon the purchase price of the bond. You see, those terms were the norm back in those days when bonds were still being sold under a patriotic guise. As in, every payday, whether you were already doing a payroll deduction for bonds, you would hear a spiel about the need for people working in the United States to buy and uphold the country.
Yes, that is right. Bought in 1980. Cashed out after 30 years with a return over 400%. Not big enough, you say? Oh, bought when the FED was trying to drive down high inflation (which is coming, folks) so not a good example? Ah, so many things to discuss here. 

Remarks:  Modified: 04/02/2015

04/02/2015 --

Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Ben's blog

Moral: Wherein we welcome Ben to blog sphere and ponder what that might mean.

Well, he has a book coming soon; and, the web/cloud has been a great avenue to get attention. But, it looks like he is offering his viewpoint, as well.

Plus, he is not (supposedly, as) constrained as before, to wit his lectures of 2012: Ben I, Ben II, Ben III, Ben IV, and, my Ah Ben. Gosh, it seems like yesterday that he took the time to tell us his view.


We, the savers, have survived being slapped silly, though. And, we will continue to tell the story from a position that is very much unknown to Ben and his ilk (albeit, they are more wont to smear over us with abstractions than to deal with the reality of our existences). Nevertheless, the view from the common man needs to be lifted to awareness (and, such a view is as educated, and can be as deliberate, as is that (those) of the ones who look down from their heights on the rest of humanity).


So, Ben blogs, early, on interest: Why so low?  Nice to see the comments that he got. We will have to see if he responds to any, specifically. The Brookings site says that the comment activity is high.

We will do our interchange via our own method, in this mode.

Right now, let's just introduce the new means to hear from Ben who has been away from our sight for a little bit. Definitely, his new way lightens up the landscape.


Note: the 1% and less (as in, that very small group) are more of concern to the Fed than the 99%. We will get to that. What happened to moral hazard (and how it might influence low interest)?


King Alan? You too old to blog (I'm over 73 myself)? We, the people, want to hear from you.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/04/2015

03/31/2015 -- Ben has a chart showing a decline in interest. Well, guy, that correlates, very well - inversely, with advances in computational mathematics and finance. You see. The computer allows easier gaming of the system, for some. Others bear the consequences. Like yesterday. It was a seeding day. Today, things turned around as those who can take their profits from the late-coming idiots. I can explain this in detail (and will, over time). Yes, the FED has to take normative stances. But, it, too, needs to wake up to the insidious cancer that comes from technology when it is let to run amok.

03/31/2015 -- Today, Ben gets to ruffle Larry's feathers. Four hours after his post, there were no comments. Technical glitch on the blog? Readers stopping to think (say what?)? The issue is secular stagnation. Janet is worried, says CNBC. Comments at the CNBC post bring in good points (that ought to be itemized). ... However, I'm stepping back so as to change the context. Notice that Ben has three objectives of economic (read, monetary) policy: full employment, low inflation, financial stability. Given his monetary leanings, how can he consider that the wizardry required (as now being attempted by Janet and her crew) is not unlike a planned economy (gosh, at the core, not unlike that attempted by the communistic/socialistic crowd)? ... For those who might wonder, think input-output model which is laughed at by the capitalistic (invisible hand - whose?) bunch. ... So, is there another view? Yes, that which embraces near zero as a crucial entity for sustainability.

04/01/2015 -- Larry's feathers are referenced in the 2nd post (see prior comment). Then, today, Larry responds. Plus, Ben goes on about the savings glut. ... Three major posts in three days. Well, that confirms that Ben is not the usual blogger, as in, sitting at the keyboard hacking out words. However, if Ben can show a better way to use the blog medium, I'm for that. How much help does he have?

04/02/2015 -- Ah, mercy. I was wondering if Ben would snow us with an avalanche that has been building for some time. Any bets on the next post and topic?

04/04/2015 -- Yesterday, Ben talked Germany's problem. My take before reading his post: how is it that such an industrious people have the rest of the community on their backs (some proverbial bit there?)? My take after a browse: infrastructural investment? How about suggesting that for this great nation's failing backbone? Ben needs to drive around, himself behind the wheel, and to take a close look at the erosion. ... There is a glimmer of hope; Ben talking socially-oriented steps (raise wages, fund infrastructure)? After all, my reaction comes from him having been installed by a Republican administration which does have implications about his view on the world or how his views were perceived (will we ever hear from Bush on Ben?).

04/08/2015 -- Now, the IMF weighs in (on Larry's side). Pissing contest? So, my take is to start from scratch and build something, constructively. I'll watch this from far enough away to not get splattered. Ah, males.

04/09/2015 -- Stability was Ben's topic on the 7th. I want to ask the guy how he sees such in the financial realm (irregardless of the FED's put) when the underpinnings are an amoral exploitation of mathematics and computation just because it can be done under various types of cloaks (proprietary, sleight of hand, etc.)?

04/15/2015 -- The last two posts were: Low interest #4 and Hiking wages in Germany.

04/16/2015 -- Monetary policy, what? This is last update here. We'll comment elsewhere, such as this bit in truth engineering.

04/20/2015 -- How long will Ben blog?

04/24/2015 -- The questions stands. As of now, the last post was April 14th. ... So, today, the NASDAQ was up in record range. Nice, Ben and Janet. Looking at the chart, we can see the drop after the tech bust and notice a little dip with the great recession (just past, caused by the finaglings of the finance crowd). ... The, straight up since the bolstering from the largess (all sorts). ... All on the backs of the savers.

05/01/2015 -- Well, Ben came back. Not for long, though: TaylorWSJ's view.

06/02/2015 -- It wasn't my imagination. Ben slowed down. He was going bonkers there for awhile. The latest post has to do with inequality. Ben goes on about "value" and how it has been used. But, does he ever think of the magical multiplier? That is, the financial scheming that is done daily is the direct result of "Fed" dalliances with Wall Street (and similar ilk). ... So, Ben, please consider that the ca-pital-sino, no matter what infatuation that you might have for it, is not how we ought to base the poor's future. Unless, there are gigantic taxes on "capital" gains, especially those of the "fictitious" nature (which is most given the current configuration). ... Gosh, they sure cut off comments soon. Is it due to an accumulation of critical reactions?