The ideological errors of capitalism, VII -- wealth

Moral: Wherein we consider that how 'wealth' is handled can be problematic, yet it will be, by necessity, a very important factor in any attempt to frame a better basis for capitalism.

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism,
VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

What exactly is this 'wealth' that is referenced? Remember the train that was mentioned earlier? Some think that this mythical train carries the wealth. However, near-zero says not.

There may have been a lifting of the markets, in response to the efforts of Big Ben and others to shore up the game. As we all know, the Street was given life support by Main Street and the people (such as, the savers who were sacked, severely).

Now, the merry-go-round is brightly shining again, attracting more money. You know, that fills the pockets of those running the game. Ever heard of the advantage of the house? Somehow, the system, and the thinking, behind the chimera took on the flavor associated with Las Vegas without any peep from the populace (or those who are to be watching out for the populace).

---

Everywhere one looks in the US, debt is stacked up. Except, for those who were able to grab assets. Some of these were just smart and live within their means. Others, the few, gobbled while things were good. The many? It is seriously bad, folks. However, the situation is not without some type of remedy, if proper choices are made. For one, the daily dancing on the merry-go-round needs some serious attention; that is, that which the moneyed do not want is what needs to be looked at closely. How?

---

So, again, what is wealth? It might be time to tackle that subject, but, first, let's review the litany of ideological problems in reverse order of the original posting.

• Classism - There is nothing more autocratic than a large corporation's thinking about its employees (ah? detect some notion of corporate as a being? were we not told that by the Supreme Court?). You see, employees are mere labor. It's the fat cat, with the capital, who is the sum of all things in this paradigm. Of course, those who tout progressive ideas say that everyone (or, anyone), then, ought to own capital. The problem? The takeaway nature of the underlying game is heavily weighted to those who skim off the top.
• Ill cultured-ness - So, not only are workers exploited, many times it is in unconscionable ways. For instance, what cry was raised about conditions that led to I-Phone suicides (mentioned briefly in the New Yorker)? Wait, come to think of it, except for the show about the under-cover boss, who even cares about the daily toils of the multitudes who create the life of ease?
• An abundance of absconders - As mentioned above, plenty do attempt to rise out of their straits yet fail. You see, pilfering (in terms of organized 'ponzi'ed' schemes) abounds. The real grief is that the malfeasance is couched in terms that dishonor mathematics (there are many to blame for this -- essentially, those who are without innumeracy, that is, they of the best and brightest (supposedly) have superpositioned idiocy (this will be explained fully, in time) on the rest of us (let's say, a numerant can understand 'being' which innumerant, okay?) while those who ought to know sat on their hands).
• Prevalence of shell games - Street corner tactics, many of which are illegal (would have the keystone kops after there perpetrators), have been allowed under the guise of business as usual (as if that whole set of darwinian notions was strong -- who is there who is not blinded by the sirens of wealth, money, etc.?).
• Unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith - Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well. He knew a lot more than that. Ought we to think that those who argue the 'invisible hand' are in mind to simulate that via computation (controlled by themselves - with appropriate skimmings, to boot) and funny money (gab standard and all)?
• Ca-pital-sino - How is it that the guise of business, as usual, has turned to gaming as if this were the epitome of the long trek to civilization for which our ancestors labored so hard?
• Gravy train - The spoils go to those who take risks, we were told, within a framework that allowed essentially silly ideas to be cast forward as brilliant. Yes, bet the dinner, as mommy/daddy will clean up the mess. Did we learn anything from our recent exposure to downturns (bubbles popping)? Well, some things came to fore: privatization of gain/socialization of loss, ...
• ...
• A new game -- this was written on Sept 22, 2007. What was the smell then? Were there early warnings of the downturn? The focus was on using a real project, like a new airplane, to talk about issues of economic systems (those things manipulated by the cream skimmers, okay?) that turn out to be so deleterious to the common man. That type of query, naturally, leads to issues like the cyber-physical. You see, money is more cyber than physical (those bills and coins are mere artifacts, worthless without the underlying system).

---

Albeit, some of the problem is that computation covers a whole lot of mischief. Made-off is our best example of this (how many years did his silly, in retrospect, bluffing win out (we need to get into the psychology of that whole bit of idiocy)?).

Guess what? Computation is the core; unfortunately, that core is more of a utility than has been realized. Right now, it's a pot of gold into which are thrust several hands (yes, goldman, your ilk) daily extracting out mountains of cream for the elite.

• Aside: From 07/31/2009 -- Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

The necessary functions will require the stamina of one who has taken a vow of poverty (let's, for now, use simple living) and who is not seduced by the sirens related to high living (as in all of these financial centers in the world full of those who are not to run the core system).

---

Market holidays, such as today, afford us an opportunity to look at the game for what it is.

Let's put it this way. If we built houses as we allow the market to be built (inflated by air), we would have to re-build quite often. We can attempt to put a timeframe on how long a house stood by looking at the crashes of the past 15 years.

Granted exogenous shocks were a large factor. Yet, it's like the child's story of the wolves blowing down the house.

Since we do know how to engineer, we can apply this knowledge to the economy. However, folks, it would not be 'financial engineering' (not in its current manifestation - sorry, professors, your best-and-brightest are one big problem to the rest of the populace).

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/20/2011 -- Simple living (see Remarks 04/15/2011 - game theory), as opposed to greediness.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care?

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

Modified: 01/08/2019

What is truth?

Moral: Wherein we continue to ponder questions of truth. In business?

---

Ah, is truth found in the accumulation of wealth?

---

Well, folks, the truth is that what we know about the monetary system is much less than all of the daily clamor seems to indicate. We cannot even ask for an honest assessment that we might think is due to the populace nor can those, who are responsible for the task, perform to our expectations.

For one, the growing presence of computation makes the basis even more shaky than we might have allowed.

---

So, human cleverness will continue to win out. But, does it have to conclude with fat cats getting fatter to the detriment of the most?

Now, where is that class of people who will be effective and who will not exploit the situation? Yes, we will look at this further.

---

Big Ben, thanks for cow-towing to the fat cats while you ruin the savers, some of whom then get into trouble, unnecessarily.

Remarks:

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

01/01/2011 -- We have two last posts of December under our belt.

01/01/2011 -- The truth? Folks, those with the means have been allowed to rule the markets as if they can untangle themselves (and their money), and they did this mis-using mathematics and its computational basis. And, those who were to referee, like Big Ben, threw in the towel, for several reasons. Either they think that the big boys are the key (yet, the biggest part of the equation is consumption -- how can that be done without income (from jobs)?), or they play into the market economy (ca-pital-sino) thinking that Smith, et al, is behind them, or they're just into the role and its accruals, such as we saw with the partying King. Now, it is (can very well be) a fact that those with the proper views (such as, inclinations for simple living) are as smart as (perhaps, smarter than) the best and brightest and that they could help develop the framework for the future. This will be discussed further.

Modified 05/25/2011

Who tells the truth?

Moral: Wherein we start to ponder the question in a couple of contexts, namely finance (a game of idiots who want to mostly trash us) and engineering.

---

Well, Martin Weiss asks the question (Isn't there anyone left who'll just tell us THE @#$! TRUTH?). He lets Mike Larson remind us of many things, but here are a couple.

• Yes, Big Ben has increased our basis of money by almost 1.2T (trillion!) over the past couple of years. Gosh, the weight of that is more than we can handle. Yet, he was re-appointed (anointed)?
• Big Ben put the taxpayers on the line for 1T in toxic assets. They are still there, folks.

These finance guys do take us for idiots. Martin & Mike tell us that we have 2,000 banks on the s@#$!t list. Bank of America is one, thanks to the former head. What is behind all this new chatter of a 14,000 DOW?

Look, people, that whole financial thing just pushes around the same bit of bits. Big Ben just upped the set size, to allow greater returns (as in, increase of amounts that could be siphoned).

Did that really help what is the economic basis?

---

Now, in terms of technical issues, to whom does the public turn? There is no one, folks. Everyone seems to have an agenda, even within science. Except, now there is an effort to remove the political influences. It's nice to see 'integrity' used; let's hope that this is real.

Remarks:

06/11/2013 -- CDOs and tranching, once again.

03/11/2012 -- We need to update this, especially with a nod to Alan M. Turing.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

01/01/2011 -- We have two last posts of December under our belt.

12/20/2010 -- Not only do we need to ask who tells the truth, we need consider what 'truth' might be. A recent New Yorker article is of essence: The truth wears off. The few sentences of the article says this: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean that it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe". I might add, whom to believe. A similar article appeared earlier in The Atlantic.

Then, that same issue of the New Yorker has an article about the hypocritical mantras of 'free markets' that we're subjected to (Enter the dragon).

Modified: 06/11/2013

The real basis for capitalism, II -- knowledge

Moral: Wherein we continue the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which we all hope is fair, thereby, hoping to honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

This topic will take some time as 'knowledge' includes science and engineering, as we would all expect. Too, there is that which has been seriously misconstrued, namely agents and what they (can, think that they, ...) know. We started to look at some issues related to analytics and will get back to that due to its importance and growing presence (ah, that overlord of the mindful).

However, there is another: philosophy. Ah! In the modern age? Well, consider David Hume who was mentioned before as an example, but we'll get back to him.

---

The New Yorker's review of a book about Adam's work (the review mentions Hume) is worth a read. Notice that Adam knew that 'free markets' lead to the type of state that we see now: a few very large critters owning a very big percentage of the goods (or, in other words, fat cats of small cardinality (LT 0.1%) have their fat hands on the majority of the goods (GT 99.9%) whilst the remainder of us split a very small piece). Adam actually suggested that government has the role of keeping the playing field level.

Free men may gravitate toward markets, yet 'free' markets are not such, for long.

That is, folks, the ca-pital-sino that chases after trains that leave the station is not what we need. Nor is it something that Adam would want us to endure. No, what we see is a gravy train for some.

---

Consider an old Chinese thought that is the inspiration (basis?) for lazy fare that is so appealing to some. How is such a wonderful, and subtle, idea turned into that twisted idea of those libertarians who want to mangle the works for everyone but themselves?

---

One thing of note, that will be discussed in depth, is agent as a member of a system. Now, Adam was right to focus on the roles of the agent. Take his example of the coat and all that went into its creation and use. Namely, he stressed that the 'invisible hand' comes about from the actions of the many, mostly with them following the urges of their own self interest. This is a bottom-up view.

But, as we know from science and engineering (middle out), we need top-down. From whence this? Well, the system provides that. And, just how is this defined? Adam would probably say that it's the government's role (however government is defined).

We already talked about how some capitalists think of Adam as the Prophet of their religion of greed. This, folks, is a degradation of that great mind. Let's set things straight, shall we? The fat cats invisible hand is really in a raking mode, from the hapless who are the many to the pockets of the few.

Who has looked at the 'system' aspect? It'll need metaphysics (yes!) as well as neurophysiology, and we'll get there (in our own time).

Remarks:

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

04/20/2011 -- Simple living (see Remarks 04/15/2011 - game theory), as opposed to greediness.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

01/03/2011 -- Ah, how timely, a Roadmap for Growth. Yes, the golden people demand. Where is our Magna Carta to protect ourselves against these folks?

12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino

?11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging.

11/02/2010 --Ludwig, being a product of his time and locality, seems to have thought that the 'elite' would lead the way. Oh, guy, did you really think that? Do we not see that the best-and-brightest are more couple with perdition than not?

10/29/2010 -- Bookstaber on Reich's book. Wonderful commentary, to boot.

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind).

10/27/2010 -- Well, we're not the least corrupt, thanks to the screwed up capitalistic framework that has been imposed over the past half century.

10/26/2010 -- One way to know, the media.

Modified: 09/21/2011

Ergodic hypothesis

Moral: Wherein we start the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks and, thereby, honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

Ah, did we ever say that we have the answers?

Last time, we were looking at a constructive basis for capitalism; that goal is still there. However, a couple of concepts ought to be introduced into the argument. These are the ergodic hypothesis and fixed point issues.

• Ergodic hypothesis -- We mentioned this as a comment earlier, while talking about the problems brought on by misuse of mathematics by the 'quants' view. As the article said, Samuelson noted that bringing in this principle was needed to make economics more scientific. That is, we can solve the game of risk, it is thought.
• Fixed point -- Deep with the thinking that would apply the ergodic principle is some notion about convergence that may be stronger than warranted. In the large, we do not see much that is really divergent. The sun rises. The car runs down the road that is usually passable, without overly large potholes, and so forth. But, in the small, convergence relies on equivalence.

Now, given that we mentioned equivalence, please note that this is not an easy problem. And, I'm not talking about what 'is' is. You see, any equivalence decision will have been set up within a predefined framework supported by axioms, and other assumptions, in an operational sense. Yet, in order to attain an equivalent choice, all sorts of, supposedly, unimportant properties are thrown out or trivialized into a type of norm.

What do I mean when I say that 'equivalence' is hard. Firstly, the problem is NP of some sort. We looked at that earlier. Secondly, there are undecidable issues involved related to the context.

----

The basic problem that needs attention is that concepts, like Arrow-Debreu equilibrium, furthers the delusions brought on by mathematization via computation. But, perhaps, that was inevitable; the latter progresses so the former would try to make use of the new facilities.

In short, though, not only do we not have 20-20 foresight (and hindsight) due to undecidability (and more), some things cannot be computed which begs the question of the Church hypothesis which will have to be addressed, to boot.

Remarks:

02/02/2012 -- This post's subject motivated the Ideology series.

04/02/2011 -- Weierstrass did not banish the motivations behind Berkeley's concerns.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

10/13/2010 -- We'll get back to our itemization, soon. But, cannot resist mentioning that the foreclosure mess is indicative of the types of problems that 'capitalism' will face, especially as it facilitates movement of money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats. As well, analysis of Paulson, and how he benefited Goldman Sachs - who were rolling in the dough while others lost their livelihoods -- with his actions, and inactions, pertains to the next Remark.

10/07/2010 -- You know what is funny? Those who tend to ca-pital-sino laugh about State planning, to wit the failure of the USSR, etc. You see, these people claim, models, like the Input-output model, are touted as the means for that type of planning. Who can think of handling all that is necessary? But, then these same people see 'the market' as the means (look at the Arrow-Debreu view) based upon what (as in, what the hell is that? the money-sucking methods of Wall Street?)? The invisible hand?

Wait! What's the answer? Well we're getting there, albeit without any compunction about when.

Modified: 02/02/2012

The real basis for capitalism, I -- imperatives

Moral: Wherein we turn away from belaboring the error of ways and start to honor Adam Smith by having another look at the appeal, of capitalism's message, even to those who, currently, are exploited by the ideas.

---

For one, we all know that top-down does not work. We saw it in the family. How often was your mom or pop able to get your little behind to behave? Always? Oh wait, many were angels from the get-go!

We saw with certain 20th century experiments, that state planning does not work. For the most part. And, many took great pleasure in that. But, hey, capitalists, show me something of yours that has endured, other than exploitation of labor (see Image).

You see, the ravages of improper handling of undecidables, plus the fact that decisions are not made EVER with 20-20 foresight (despite the ASSumption by economists of rational (hah!) agents with perfect knowledge; that is beyond words - we cannot fathom such idiotic thinking) makes things fuzzy (at best).

Also, some have taken a firm hold on private property, and individual motivation, to support their laissez faire ideology, but that is not as strong as these think.

Adam and David might have been concerned about motivations (Keynes, I ought to use John to be consistent, used a metaphor of animal spirits). Yet, this, too, can be misconstrued. Perhaps, an update, using modern existential verities, might be a good way to start.

Hence, imperatives. However, we're not starting categorically though, at some point, this may be of interest. Way to go, Immanuel!

---

No, we can start with imperatives in a biological sense, yet with a human orientation. Every live entity subsumes its own piece of space, has its own metabolism, and such. Though, we may come to see parasites as something of interest to the discussion.

So, individuation is one concept that applies within all sorts of contexts. Independent agents, in other words. Yet, how many workers, especially those under the cloud of indentured slavery that is the modern corporate experience, consider themselves independent? Hey, if you take exception to that, look at any non-disclosure agreement forced upon the workforce and tell me that it is otherwise.

----

Yet, there is also the team requirement, in more than the military or athletic context. That is, no one is John Galt or Atlas, for that matter. In other words, the degree of individuation, economically (as in other domains), would be a spectrum. You have those who are bound into some type of group (by the way, how many of those high-class families could provide someone who could endure the enlisted man's burdens?)

Then, there are those who are free. Mind you, we think of this as the monied state in the capitalistic world. Yet, those who live simply are free, to boot.

That is, what is required to meet imperatives? You know, eat, sleep, ... Where in the list does one find this: have a huge mansion, with countless servants, in an area of utmost wealth, and such?

Aside: just as some cried over missed bonus money (even when their actions led others to states of extreme deprivation), all through history, we have had the takers and the doers. We'll be talking more about those on the take and those who actually do useful things.

----

If you had not seen it coming, we contend that capitalism is the way for us to have a more just society. But, not for the reasons put forth by those under the influence of the libertarian world view.

Let's get back to individuation and motivation (from biological imperatives and their social superpositions). You see, the former is one source for the arguments about private property. Oh, yes, accumulation to the max. But, just like the deleterious effects of too much fat on our bodies, there is a bad side of too much accumulation economically (oh? you might ask, why so? - ah, we'll get to that, too). Actually, near-zero is the concept for us to discuss here.

Now, given that property acquisition comes up, is it the key motivator? Well, that may be for some. What about doing a good job (the lowly worker who puts his heart and soul into performing well for a heartless company run by a soulless slob) which can be psychologically pleasant (actually, it's related to neurotransmitters - yet, a simple accomplishment can be as effective, in this manner, as the accumulation of billions of bucks - remember, near-zero)? There are other motivators, including those related to big-T issues.

---

Actually, it looks like accumulation is part of a measuring scheme which itself will bring in some type of palpable benefits. Is accumulation there by necessity? If you look at the majority, in the capitalistic sense, the accruals have some future goal. For many, just simple desires for a healthy and happy retirement.

To wit, though, we have to look at how many of those simple goals were trampled under given our present capitalistic makeup.

----

The following list of future topics is not a complete.

• labor, it's a role, folks, not a class, and consumers must have some resources
• we'll take a re-look at markets, as necessary, unfortunately we have only seen ca-pital-sino, so far -- not what is needed
• private versus public needs some more attention - public goods may be handled by private hands (with caveats and by those who live simply) but ought not be privatized (someone will own the earth? hah! they don't own their own shadow!)

Remarks:

12/13/2011 -- Pavlov and dogs. May seem appropriate, yet dogs eat mostly to live (that is, we're talking about Pavlov frustrating a biological imperative). We, on the other hand, do not need the ca-pital-sino (invisible hand? -- fantasy).

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

01/03/2011 -- Ah, how timely, a Roadmap for Growth. Yes, the golden people demand. Where is our Magna Carta to protect ourselves against these folks?

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino

11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging.

10/26/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/22/2010 -- We need more Orwells and Tolstoys and Perelmans.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

10/13/2010 -- A couple of recent items were talked about here several times. For one, foreclosures are under scrutiny, again. Now, that some legal processes were less than sound and true is coming out. Perhaps, 'real capitalism' does not need any legal intervention. (See Remarks) Secondly, Paulson, from Goldman Sachs, helping GS with his decisions. Ah, love it!!

10/07/2010 -- Several principles need to be explored, such as the ergodic one.

Modified: 12/13/2011

The ideological errors of capitalism, VI -- classism

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely, ill cultured-ness, abounding of absconders, prevalence of shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino are not sufficient. We need to look at its classist's basis. Image: see Carnot on Motive Power (capitalism's view of labor?).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

And, how do we address such a complicated subject? Well, let's start with a few remarks that are disjoint, yet potentially coherent, looks at themes which can then be discussed more later.

---

It was almost inevitable given the framework in which the ideas developed. At the time, there was little relationships between the upper and lower classes. In fact, the middle class was always squeezed.

Oh wait, the lowers had no rights (until the Magna Carta) and were basically exploited. That continues to this day.

Too, those who might have been lucky to ascend from out of the lower realms mostly quickly forgot, by design, their origins. Looking at this might be interesting but distracting.

---

The modern conceptual frameworks, that were not available at the time of Adam Smith, can refresh the capitalistic outlook. For one, rather than class, there would be roles as the focus. That is, take labor. The current situation allows serious exploitation of those in this role, as we've seen with the colonization that outsourcing is.

Jobs? Ah, many are without. How can there be offerings of roles that would allow people to take care of themselves and their families? Consumerism, in the sense of 'c' being the largest part of the macro equation, demands this.

---

'capital' itself needs to have another look. Now, it seems to be more analogous to crown jewels than not (to be discussed). Ah, how many kings can this poor world, and its miserable masses (nope, not Marxist), support?

---

Private ownership? We need to look at this in a more enlightened fashion. Given the current vogue, one could very well imagine someone 'thinking' that they own the planet. Oh wait! Was not a lot of the conflict on the poor suffering earth just to show who was boss?

As well, given the advent of mutli-national firms, especially those who have a heavy footprint on the cyber part of our cyber-physical existence, we see ownership that does encompass something that is world-wide.

Ownership, in terms of roles, denotes responsibilities. Unfortunately, what we have seen has been efforts, albeit successful to some extent, to shirk responsibility.

Mind you, did we not just see, up close, privatization of gain and socialization of loss running rampant? Those dynamics still exist, and in more than just the issues related to the toxic assets that we have laying around like mines in a field.

---

What is private? Ought what is a 'pubic good' (a long list, arbitrage, etc.) be put out to the private realm (whatever it is?)?

Many roles, that are not of necessity (we can drive an equitable economy with those who live a simple life and who do not succumb to piggishness), currently milk the system filling the pockets of a small set. It has to be small, as only a few can exploit the situation.

And, any glorification of the role as being the essence of capitalism really ought to wake up the the ca-pital-sino and its emergence. Yes, this was accelerated with improved computational prowess.

---

Management. Ah, the lords and their royal-ness. Consider that computational frameworks could provide 90% of what is required by that role. However, that said, there would still need to be sufficient human involvement to cover undecidable issues (below).

---

One almost hears rings of empiricism (realism) as a major attribute of the capitalistic heart. That is, science and capitalism go together. Somewhat.

Actually, we could probably scientifically show that 'greed' is the larger essence.

Why did evolution produce these types except to support the first wave of capitalism? Is it not time to re-address this issue?

---

Too, innovation has been associated with capitalism. Yes. But, have we not seen bad effects of this along with the good? Science, and its reality, would help temper this, folks.

We could start by putting the markets on a more sound basis.

---

The way that finance, and markets, exist now, there is no science. Rather, we see real-time experimentation and recovery. Oops following oops.

That undecidability is not a prevalent notion needs to be addressed. In short, this notion could be said to just denote that no one has perfect foresight. The truth? Who has perfect hindsight?

How did you answer? Well, do not forget underdetermination, please. What we see in economic affairs is that capitalism handles these issues a little better than do other ways.

Yet, there are many downfalls that we need to fix for sustainability.

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

09/01/2015 -- This was written five years ago. That was before QE infinity. Back then, any one who had gone through this before was looking for an unwind. But, that did not happen. The Fed doubled down, then tripled, down, then ... So, the addicts ran things to an inflated state (yes, appropriate usage). When Ben did mention some taper, they had a tantrum. ... So, here we are, in a corner, into which we have been painted. What will be the end result? Meaning, when things finally unwind? ... What we know is that Main Street did not benefit to the extent as did the pampered of Wall Street. Too, we see that computation is being exploited by idiots. The WSJ, on Saturday, mentioned one area. But, who is talking anything about moral hazards, these days? Well, you did read it here and ought to know that we have not forgotten its meaning.

05/11/2012 -- Rick getting grief from quoting Marx.

01/13/2012 -- We'll go more into why the need for the Magna Charta, this year.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Charta, the celebration thereof.

09/27/2011 -- Recover the image.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides

.01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types

?12/05/2010 -- Raj Patel has the proper grasp on the 'financial madness' that is threatening us.

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind). Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/22/2010 -- We need more Orwells and Tolstoys and Perelmans.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

09/24/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

09/19/2010 -- England is in the dumper due to its assumption of the aristocratic notion that people who do are not of any use. Hah! God, how many royal pabodies are we expected to kiss what with these people who wander after abstraction (error) or who somehow think that they are the best class (and worthy? - ah, please give us a break)?

Modified: 01/08/2019

The ideological errors of capitalism, V -- culture

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely absconders, shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino are not sufficient. Culture, and the lack of a Magna Carta, need attention.

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

Yes, culture has run amok. Capitalism grew up in an environment that stressed gaming since players (serfs) feed their earnings to the lords (fat cats). Then, when the computational came more to fore, machinations that are counter to a sustainable future got more reward than did reasonable considerations about issues, such as undecidability, or did honest labor.

What? We need to look at 'must and may' in this context.

Yes, it's time to bite the bullet and discuss how overlaying our realities with models, abetted by our beasts, is problematic from the get go.

We like to think in musts, as in things being true or false. Gamers bring in 'may' from one particular world view. Thinkers note that the world is more gray than black and white.

One 'must' is what drives arbitrage's necessity. This ought to be a public good, not privatized (as we see with this example).

That we have to manage the 'may' aspects, and agree on the 'musts' set, is paramount. But, under what framework is this to be done?

Where did this 'must' and 'may' come from?

----

ACM published an article in its Communications that struck a chord (Intro, Article). The topic seemed to offer ways and means for discussing some of the issues related to undecidability. The concept was brought up earlier in the context of discussing the Vienna position relative to the mathematization of some markets.

Now, mind you, while reading on, consider how the issues related to programming might be considered in the small as opposed to what we as humans face daily. However, we are overlaying computation on reality and making decisions thereby. In a sense, we're limiting the larger world to what the computational model can handle. Also, if there are problems in the small world of programming of the computer, cannot these suggest that those larger world problems might, in some cases, learn from what we know of computation and, too, ought we learn how to know about the 'undecidable' analogs? It's that latter part that is some troublesome, mostly since people more easily adopt comfortably closed world views than not (case closed).

The article talks about the three main issues. Firstly, there is language. Of course, on the computer side, we still talk semantics. But, closure is easier to impose. What problems do we see from our big set of natural languages? Needless to say, right from the get-go, there is a big thing looming. Secondly, we see a bow to the notion that a duck test is about all that we can do in many cases (especially, politics - joke). But, the larger issue is that dynamic states are what we deal with more than any type of limiting static analysis. Does that not complicate things? Thirdly, we need to make decisions using our language, properties assigned to entities within the frame of reference, and some type of reasoning.

Now, for all of these, the problems in the small on the computer are much more amenable to solutions (to wit, the internet, et al - though, to be fair, you don't have to go far to see failures). In the large, things are much more complex. One benefit of computational modeling is that we can learn how to identify problems and put them into some mode for being solved. Computation, in that sense, is only a continuation of the western mind's orderly (oh, wait, not so orderly) progression along the axis of improvement (ah, arguable, too).

But, the article shows that, even in the small, things are not as easily handled as many think, especially the young (yes, you, Microsoft, for one, -- gosh, I argued with some of those young whippersnappers way back in the early 90s, ..., oh well). You can think of the 'must' and 'may' sets as depicting those things that must follow (either true or false) and then that big thing of unknowns and their may'ness (neither true nor false). Of course, the idea is to have a strong set of musts and an ordered set of mays, these latter, it is desired, being more prevalent to those almost 'must' but not quite.

The point, here, is that we'll continue to use the concepts in trying to lay out why capitalism stinks, in its current form, for everyone but those who are on the taking side (0.2% taking more than 99.9% of the income or some such inequitable, and non-sustainable, number). Too, some fields, such as those related to systems engineering and operations management, are looking at how to do things better (and Lean is a chimera, in some cases, which I intend to show). But, those fields tend toward increasing the overlay. I say, to those folks, hey wait, in the small is loaded with problems. It's to be willy-nilly imposed on us?

Ah, yes, the miracle of superposition.

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

09/01/2015 -- This was written five years ago. That was before QE infinity. Back then, any one who had gone through this before was looking for an unwind. But, that did not happen. The Fed doubled down, then tripled, down, then ... So, the addicts ran things to an inflated state (yes, appropriate usage). When Ben did mention some taper, they had a tantrum. ... So, here we are, in a corner, into which we have been painted. What will be the end result? Meaning, when things finally unwind? ... What we know is that Main Street did not benefit to the extent as did the pampered of Wall Street. Too, we see that computation is being exploited by idiots. The WSJ, on Saturday, mentioned one area. But, who is talking anything about moral hazards, these days? Well, you did read it here and ought to know that we have not forgotten its meaning.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

07/28/2011 -- Cambridge non-commoners.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides.

10/26/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

09/16/2010 -- So, ill-cultured-ness came from the classist's basis.

Modified: 01/08/2019

New royalty

Moral: Wherein we muse about topics that are old yet always seem to have a new place at the table due to open issues, such as, only the favored (not any more royal than any of the rest) getting a fair (supposedly) deal. Image: King John signs.

---

As Jim at the New Yorker says, the very, very rich (0.01%) are pulling away, in terms of accumulative multiples, from the very rich. What we need to look at is the reality of near-zero (excessive takings, of any type, are lop-sided and are really not much different in character than exorbitant taxings (used to support the leisurely life of the royal set, in many cases) - not arguing against a larger percentage tax for super earners, by the way).

This blog is about the dismal field that is so little understood in practice (yes, theory abounds, that there is a lesson) as to be comical (think Keystone cops) except that the consequences suffered by some is dire, indeed. Those in control are looking at each other wondering how to get things moving; there is real pain at the main parts; and, has anyone seen an end to the mess?

By the way, what is a 'royal' in the discussion here? Anyone with an out-sized sense of entitlement; the 'new kings' are more in the set than the lowly worker trying to make a living (usually subsistence). Again, reminder: those dealing with money, and its control, ought to have taken some equivalent of the vow of poverty (as evidenced by simple living).

Those trying to create a proper economic realm could look at what a Magna Carta for the system's role players might look like. Workers would get more respect and support, perhaps lessening the motives behind unionism.

That focus would help alleviate some of the mania attached to capitalism (yes, Adam's little system, so much mangled). Also, the artificial (as in, that basis which has been allowed to grow under the guise of interloped mathematics) would be constrained. Currently, these systems, and those who ride herd for their daily takings off the top, seem to run things, mostly in an amok manner.

Labor needs respect; those who touch matter are of far more importance than the modelers, and gamers.

---

Each generation seems to try to relearn what was known before. But, were things known, or do we impose notions through historical, and other ex post facto, views?

The question ought to be pondered in the context, as an example, of how change has been the most prevalent component in computational spheres, with deleterious effect.

Ah, is there some type of slate that is wiped clean from time to time? Technology, and its progress, seems to have this type of effect.

Or, is it that we, as a kind, have never been successful, across the board, of inculcating the best into our progeny. Of course, there have been families that have excelled long periods of time. Can this be considered the norm?

Yet, the young folk, starting early, spend a significant part of their year, and each weekday, in a milieu, that does include some element of indoctrination.

What are they learning early of economic realities? How are they attaining knowledge that debt, and perpetual accumulation thereof (oh, yes, like the US currently), leads to the state not unlike that of the indentured servant, of old?

---

'Nothing new under the sun' is the adage. That events of 800+ years ago are still of interest, and utility (capitalism has usurped this notion along with many), will be a continuing theme. The 400+ of those issues being brought to this side of the pond is the motivation.

Remarks:

07/25/2015 -- We're about six weeks after the June look back at 800 years ago (Magna Carta). Too, though, poster boys have popped out of the woodwork, including Zweig.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

01/14/2013 -- Jamie, the banker, talked about some running around like children. Worrying about their career, when things fell out with the "whale" deal (remember that?). Well, Jamie, it's the childish stuff that pushes people to be like yourself, attention seeking, et al. How many really wise people rise to that level? Not, as it takes incompetence to even make the first step. Now, these folks are the new princes, princesses, and kings and queens. Yes, indeed. Their may be some necessity for the ilk; playing games is one of them. The more I read on the type (as epitomized in the royals of Europe -- elsewhere, to boot, but, let's just keep to one continent), I see fratricide, maniacal maneuvering, and more. Gosh, are we doomed from the get go, a cynic (which I'm not) might say.

01/13/2012 -- We'll go more into why the need for the Magna Charta, this year.

10/20/2011 -- The spawn'er of the new royals.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof.

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth and the CEO MVP.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

05/09/2011 -- This needs to be looked at in terms of doers.

04/04/2011 -- Need to look at some background.

01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types?

12/05/2010 -- Raj Patel has the proper grasp on the 'financial madness' that is threatening us.

11/01/2010 -- von Mises' thinking applies here.

09/21/2010 -- Facebook, as metaphor.

09/02/2010-- The FED just had their hoe-down.

08/31/2010 -- The chimera needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. Those running the money systems need to take a vow of poverty and simple living (period).

Modified: 07/25/2015

The ideological errors of capitalism III - Shell games

Moral: Wherein we look to a drive for high gains (greed) and to lack of oversight of the best and brightest (Lordly Princes) as the basic ideological problem of capitalism whose 'casino' is best evidence that this is not the way of reasonable folks, with all due respect for Adam Smith. Too, we coin the proper descriptive term, Ca-pital-sino (the system migrates to inflationary schemes to the detriment of the people).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

If the Street were playing its games on Main Street, with the usual setup of a card table on a busy corner, and oodles of suckers passing by, they would be arrested for public exploitation and fraudulent activity. That is, shell games are illegal, in most civic situations.

Yet, the Street (Wall, if you must ask) has been playing this type of game for years. How else the huge gains and bonuses? Too, this has been seen as progress. What?

Wait! The government has done the same thing, to wit, the Ponzi-like schemes (12/13/2011 -- do not the new players bear the burden of funding?) behind Social Security, Medicare, and more. These two, the Street (and all of its ilk) and the government (those politicos who salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose, individually and collectively) have led us toward perdition.

We can observe that there are mechanisms in place to allow several things. First, no compunction to establish value in a meaningful way due to fiat currency. Second, in-crowd manipulations since there is no insight, or oversight, because money has allowed itself the privilege of opaqueness. Third, gigantic PR spent glorifying the best and brightest and their mathematical malfeasance. Fourth, costs are pushed to other (what else is the motive for out-housing?) pockets including the mortgaging of our own progeny (indentured servancy). Fifth, allow the glory of big-pockets to cover the reality, near-zero, folks.

The people have awakened, with Main Street showing anger. For how long? NYU's Stern wants to move away from a financial focus. What took you so long, fellas? Stiglitz notes that banking is (ought to be) more utilitarian than not. Want to step up to replace Big Ben?

The goal here is to thoroughly deconstruct that which looks so glorious from a distance and to foster a proper description of how it ought to be (imperative for the continuation of the American spirit).

---

Afterword:

Let's see, in the past week, we had several days slide of the Big Chimera. Then, there was an up day, then it started up today, and finally fizzled. Okay. What gives? Well, the Street vernacular talks 'The Market' as if there such a thing. Gosh, isn't that like saying 'The Economy' which we know does not exist?

Then, the uncountable talking heads and, supposedly insightful writers, all dispense their insights about why 'The Market' does this or that. Now, how many times do we have to see this to know that it's a crap shoot? Is this what we're supposed to build our future on?

Notwithstanding that near-zero says that gains in 'The Market' are suspect, we can still, and will, entertain notions about why such silliness has evolved as an epitome of the modern way. We have oodles of peoples every day (the above mentioned talkers and writers) offering their take on the matter. For all that hot air, and wasted ink, what was the contribution?

Yes, that is the question. We know that fiat currency is problematic. We know too, that gaming is not what you do with your grocery money. We know, three, that expecting someone to bail you out after you've gamed away your beans is the height of idiocy (and, generally, not allowed in polite society). We know, four, that the associated stupidities deal with leveraging and tranche-ing, to name only a couple of many. We know a whole lot of other things.

Yet, Big Ben, you seem to think that this is what we need. Wake up, guy. And, Mr President, work to have a closure of the market for a whole week. You have the power. Now, when and how to do that would be defined. During the downtime, there would be major surgery.

If you ask why? Well, why not? What has evolved is a sham on the face of the earth.

The metaphor? Open-heart surgery, of course. We would remove the heart of the beast that has been allowed to put its tentacles everywhere and put in one that is more amenable to advanced society (that is, who the heck needs John Galt?).

If you don't want to do that, nationalize the banks, at least. It's not too late. Which? Those who are deemed too big to fail.

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

10/16/2014 -- Silliness comes to mind.

10/15/2014 -- Today, the markets were down, again, as in, to the point where 2014 is negative in "gains" (I loathe to use that term for the ill-begotten takings). Now, of interest here is that the DOW got up above 17K hitting all sorts of new highs. The elation was continued even with a Fed head change, Ben to Janet. It was like a game, how high can we go? All bolstered by the largess of the Fed. Chimera? Cheshire multiple? Yes, all sorts of problems that are overlooked due to the power of those who run the game. Yet, the problems could be resolved via proper computation (and, by that, I do not mean algorithmic trading). ... I have to admit that I did lose the proper view what with the noise of the partying influencing the brain. But, I did not go in the rush. Nor do I bemoan the fact (as did President Clinton talking about his missing the upturn - actually, Bill, you need to talk to me about how that ca-pital-sino crowd is antithetical to what we need for a sustainable economy - okay?). Just watching was a conscious choice. And, we may have an upturn. What will be needed for that is uncertain? Is it within Janet's power to talk coo-coo, goo-goo to the addicts enough to turn around this thing? At some point, though, the underlying house-of-cards will, again, be problematic. Who will suffer? ... That enumeration is necessary.

08/04/2012 -- I can hear it: with the DOW over 13K, what are you talking about using 'chimera'? Well, look at the dire warnings, for one. Are you looking at FB as a poster boy? We'll get technical and explain the problem. Do we have a solution, at this time? Yes, essentially.

Also, the market pushers say that they need things like program trading, and whole bunch of other stuff that we'll get to. So, the idea is that we need computer-based 'gaming' in order to discover 'price' and to provide liquidity. Liquidity? Yes, like that put into the pockets of Zuck (see 7 points on FB) and his ilk after the IPO. You see, those who made money bailed when the price was high. It is estimated that if they sold now, the take would be 1/2. Notice that I didn't say return (for what? -- 'gains' obtained this way are near-zero). Whose to cheer that a few make some massive amount of bucks (well, beyond those personally involved -- even the bankers who put deals together)? This type of thing is capitalism? If so, do we really need this, folks?

12/13/2011 -- Pavlov and dogs. May seem appropriate, yet dogs eat mostly to live (that is, we're talking about Pavlov frustrating a biological imperative). We, on the other hand, do not need the ca-pital-sino (invisible hand? -- fantasy). -- On the Ponzi-ness: the basis has been spent (some see it as hand-dipping into a well-funded pot) with hopes for future funding; was that not the way? Of course, that brings up the serious issues of how do we ever obtain future payments with some certainty when so many obfuscate in order to rake off the cream (especially, those who run the system)? -- Belated nod to OWS, etc.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof. We need one of these for business. What would it look like?

Heard, from others, that the Wall Streeters jeer: we cannot help that we are good at what we do, find a job you lazy protesters. Oh, yes, Wall Streeters, you are good at what, exactly? Oh, yes, having defined the shell game, then you keep it running so that monies are sucked out of the pockets of the hapless.

08/13/2011 -- Banks still struggling. We could have taken them over.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.

03/17/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

11/22/2010 -- Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games.

05/25/2010 -- Who will (or can) lead out of the morass?

05/07/2010 -- Out of control, essentially, and not healthy for the backbone.

03/20/2010 -- The basic problem of capitalism is that the Made-offs are its chief representative.

02/01/2010 -- NYTimes reports that AIG's shell game wasn't on the fringe.

Modified: 01/08/2019