Alan's reign

Moral: Wherein we look at King Alan, as he did reign for many years, probably too many. Everyone seemed to hang off of his words, as they do now with Ben, the saver sacker.

---

Alan comes up now since he was holding the rein for so long, and he appears to be unapologetic. Except, he did admit that his worldview was shaken (in particular, his belief in banks doing their own self-policing); that was earlier this year. Now, he's back with his message (see Tech Ticker).

So, before any discussion, let's start by reviewing the references that we have made to Alan. We thought of him early on as this mess unfolded.

• Time goes on (Jan 08) -- At this time, the analysts were trying to describe all the types of financial instruments that had been spawned in the Greenspan era. It was quite a bucket of acronyms, many of which turned out to be toxic, and still are of concern. Oh yes, Alan was consulting with the quants.
• What can we know (Jan 08) -- Gosh, Ben renewed our suspicions that the Greenspan put was still alive and kicking. Sheesh. Yes, finance as fiction through gaming (later known as casino capitalism).
• Economic groundwork (Aug 08) -- Going back to the foundations would allow us to tell Alan and Ben that it's crap that we cannot see bubbles when they are there. Much of the opaqueness comes from efforts to keep the playing field unlevel.
• Savers sacked (Oct 08) -- Yes, Ben did us in by going even lower than Alan.
• Fairy dust (Oct 08) -- One affect of the gab standard is that the FED's aerating words cause market reactions. One thing to analyze, did Alan's dust impact his own view?
• Who's to blame for the economy (Dec 08) -- Alan is on the list.
• More on culprits (Mar 09) -- Alan said, don't blame me.
• Minsky anew (Apr 09) -- Can this gaming be controlled? Essentially, yes. We need to get a better handle on the computational issues. They have run a muck, essentially.

Well, as Alan is saying, it's true that capitalism's take on the market does allow human characteristics to emerge, some of which may not be desirable. Near zero, when shown, will suggest that there are better ways for us to go.

Note: That finance could be run by those who do not salivate when money is passed beneath their noses is still to be considered. Of course, with the devaluation of the dollar, thanks Ben, we might get to the stage where our beloved buck is only play money in the US. All sorts of things to consider here, with Alan's reign as one factor.

Remarks:

10/21/2013 -- Alan has a book coming out. Ben still slaps savers silly; a new day is coming.

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.

02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

11/26/2010 -- On the Greenspan Put (Rolling Stone).

11/02/2010 -- Over a year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. But Big Ben continues in his ways. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/29/2009 -- Time calls Ben an uber-Nerd.

12/28/2009 -- Ben was named the Time Person of the Year. Nice. We can't call him 'King' as we saw with Alan's 'cult of personality' reign.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

12/09/2009 -- The Street loves Ben who loves 'em back: The Street utterly loves the Fed's largess, earning massive profits from trading unstable currencies, the carry trade (borrow short-term dollars near zero, buy longer-term assets abroad), and the high-margin process of transferring America's capital abroad.

11/20/2009 -- To quote: Abjuration and Recantation. Yet, Alan and Ben, at best, can just spit in the wind, as long as the standard is gab. Our trust? We want to put those inclined to malefaction in a sandbox.

10/06/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of. It is clear that Alan and Ben act on our behalf, though one has to wonder what 'our' means as it sure is not the little guy. Finance, people, can be (probably ought to be) run as a non-profit affair. AND, the CEO (or whatever the titles at the top) would not make $1M! That is absurd. We have people who put their lives on the line for this country and its ideals for pittance. As said before, we really need a national service (Remarks 09/03/09) experience for the young'uns, especially for those of the privileged classes.

09/15/2009 -- Lessons, one year after Lehman. Also, Time on culprits. Ben is happy-talking, again.

09/10/2009 -- We'll tell this tale further. The trader guy on firstbusinessx says that it's hard for a trader to make money in this market. Yes, indeed. There is a whole industry that rakes off the fat from the labors of others. It's like this, folks, a gallon of milk (the cow did the labor) has only so much fat that is easy to skim off (cream - ah, that's the role of golden sacks). Then, with a little more labor (secondary), fat can be extracted through modern technology. Eventually, the residue is colored water which may even need some boost by added nutrients to be considered food. Well, the economy is a lot like that. We've had a generation or two of the best and brightest go apply their brains to gaming, essentially. Some of this was encouraged by Alan and the FED. That will be part of the analysis. What's left is the watchword; not much of value, under the current scheme of things, is the answer.

Modified: 10/21/2013

Alan M. Turing

Moral: Wherein we get back to some technical issues that imply limits.

---

The motivation is partly celebration of the 100th of Alan M. Turing. The March ACM Communications has a series of articles. We'll use one of these. To be brief, Turing's work was seminal to computing; yet, some, like the quants in their race for profit, ignore some basic issues. Then, we, the populace, bear the costs. Too, economists have migrated toward 'modeling' as a key method; they, too, do not seem to have paid attention.

---

But, first, a comment is in order. What we have in the world are two things: those who use these limits to sustain their intake (Made-offs and those who game the system and more) and those who let themselves be led by the nose (as in, the stupid, the Made-off victims, et al).

You know what? This has always been the case. The problem now? Computation. It is not as robust as we might be led to believe.

---

One of the ACM articles is by Prof Cooper (of Leeds, UK): Turing's Titanic Machine? The Prof looks at the background and provides some insight into the current debate. But, we might ask, what debate? You see, many operational stances have been able to skirt around the issues. That ability, itself, can be seen within the contexts we obtained from Turing's work.

For now, let's just look at the categories of adaptation to the reality. That is, even if one has not read Turing's work, dealing with computation causes one to broach upon this subject, by necessity. The Prof has four categories (Note: the order does not imply ranking). We (perhaps, tongue in cheek) could add more.

• Reductionists -- characterized by confidence, these apply what they know. Is this the most? Wait? Isn't this operationalism, at its core? Or, in economics, making money if one can. 
• Impressionists -- now, this mindset has become aware of the limitations of science (ah, is this where quasi-empiricism first come to fore?) and knows that we need philosophical (just keep from becoming too meta) bridges. Wait? Perhaps, the economic schools, and the debates thereof, crop up. 
• Remodelers -- ah, hypercomputationalism or perturbations, one might say. Or, there looks to be something parallel to what we see with the interpretations in the realms dealing with the quantum world. In economics, is this where we have the interminable experimenting with our lives? 
• Theorists -- ..., sloughing off a whole lot of detail, let's just point to Chaitin (pdf), for now. But, one could ask? Where is our meta-economics? 

---

To reiterate the importance of the subject, we can use a phrase from the Prof's article: In 1970, the negative solution to Hilbert's Tenth Problem when combined with results from classical computability arising from contrived priority constructions, circumstantially pointed to a very rich infrastructure of incomputable objects.

Which means several things that ought to give one pause. Of course, we can (ought to) go ahead with innovation. But, letting the best-and-brightest experiment real time (and consideration of the side-effects, thereof) is not something to take lightly.

---

We'll get more into the Prof's notions. However, for now, contemplate the fragile state, please.

Remarks:

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

08/04/2012 -- Alan will feature in coming discussions.

05/01/2012 -- We'll get back on this theme: Technological singularity (note, not too late, page dates from late 2010). This is put here as Alan argued that computational intelligence might exceed human talent (true, in many cases). Yet, I need to ask him: Alan, how are computablity issues to be resolved within the computer? You see, this is what the role will be for humans: cut out of the fog, essentially. The argument will ensue at some future point, and memes will be on thing to consider.

03/16/2012 -- Computability's definition (yes, used in the context of this post) will need to cover some notion of the delta (difference) between expectations and delivery, implying (yes) the importance of the user's values. That is, the providers (ISPs) are servants, not the other way around. Utility, if you would.

03/12/2012 -- Related organization (CiE). They'll feature Alan this year at their meeting in Cambridge.

03/12/2012 -- Prof Cooper has an interesting mathematical pedigree. With two advisors, he has two 'grandparents' of note: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Wiki) and Alan M. Turing (Wiki). The blogger does not have an advisor/parent, but he claims a heritage via a cousin and an uncle: Carl-Wilhelm Reinhold de Boor (Wiki) and G.H. (Godfrey Harold) Hardy (Wiki).

Modified: 12/13/2012

Map and territory

Moral: Wherein we consider these two concepts, further.

Why? Alan Greenspan's (King Alan's) new book (soon to be released) uses them in the title. Nice. See pre-Review at WSJ.

---

Alan (the awakening?)
from WSJ review

We first broached the subject in 2007, under the auspices of 7oops7: Territory and map. Essentially, the problem causes lots of oops. You know what? It's not a simple little thing, rather the subject deals with the basis of our knowledge and effectiveness (has from the get-go, actually the topic allows to address broad-ranging issues that are of great depth - you see, the modern ilk with its computational frameworks (and money searching) tries to normalize, reduce to nothing the related complicated set of issues).

That centrality is why the next usage was under the umbrella of Truth Engineering: Territory, map, truth. Our effectiveness principally encourages hubris, it would seem. But, folks (especially the rich ones), there is more to the reality (if you don't know of near-zero, it's time to discuss and learn). Notice, too, slogans (Joel Orr is the source for one of these) can apply.

---

Now, in the context of FEDaerated, we have brought up the subject a time or two. The intent is to keep the discussion going, due to its importance (the whole issue is further troubled by computation, which is a bane of the worse sort).

Here are the posts, in reverse order.

• To computational hell and back (May 2013) -- Depicting a type of hell that results from several things, but two of the largest contributors are: over-reliance on systems to the extent that the map becomes the territory, inordinate chasing after the buck causing shortcuts to become the norm for systems.  
• Money and value (Jan 2010) -- Fiat money is an issue. Human nature is problematic. Where is the glimmer of sanity with regard to money (which could be a simple matter with the proper viewpoints allowed to surface)?  
• Year-end recap (Dec 2009) -- One has to ask: is it the best-and-brightest set, and those with numeracy abilities, that is more prone to the idiocy of map-territory mashing? Yes, Harvard, come talk to me about that. 
• Why not? (Sep 2009) -- Dealing with fundamental issues that some might see as a closed case. Ah, is that not hubris talking? A little while ago, risk managers were making claims about their prowess. Not long after, the mess started from which Main Street has not recovered, as of yet. Were lessons learned?     

---

Now, at the level at which Alan reigned, we see politics as being more important than reality (Oh, polls are supposed to be as strong as sensor input? By the way, markets have the same fallibility, though their usefulness has been demonstrated (without proper delineation of the limits that are necessary) somewhat.). We'll have to look at that in depth.

So, I'm looking forward to reading more about Alan's side of things. Of course, it can be fun to run after money, and big bucks. But, that is not the smart thing (yes, the Warrens, et al, notwithstanding) by necessity.

As I've said before, the whole financial thing ought to be run by people who are money-driven (just like the military is not run by the power-driven) and for whom morals are more important than big pockets. And, we can do this, despite the fact that those who lean to fat-catted'ness have run things (amok'ly) from the beginning.

Remarks: Modified: 10/27/2013

10/22/2013 -- Three articles of note: Interview with Druckenmiller (hearing the 0.001% talk about ill-begotten gains, not his, of course), HFT Algorithms (on bragging about short holding times), Barbarians at the Gateways (contrite?, but without mea culpas).

10/27/2013 --Ben has sacked the savers for years now, slapping them silly. Why? A WSJ article looked at high-class pawnshops a couple of days ago. These fill the need for people who need money but cannot get it from the banks (stupidity there, too). So, they use collateral for a loan and pay high interest. How high? Some pay over 200%, per year. What is Ben paying or having banks pay their savers (customers)? Way less than 1%. That is the best example of being out of whack with economic realities that one could ask for. Yet, does the Fed see? Why is the interest low? To push savers toward higher risk? To appease the gaming crowd (most likely this, as these are big-pocketed folks)? To help people afford housing (on someone else's back?)? ... Janet's take on this is unknown, but she has to know that they're looking like idiots. You know what? Most of those loans are paid, even with the high interest. And, still, Ben slaps the savers (King Alan mentioned saving, of late). We ought to ask the Fed, what happened to prudence or does it like to reward profligacy?

Map-map

Moral: The effect of Janet's reign is coming clearer?

We finally heard from King Alan (more below). Prince Ben's take will be forthcoming shortly.

Yellen? Inconclusive, as of yet. Except for one thing that I noticed. Yes, the savers have been flayed. Will Yellen cut into the muscle (Moral) next? There are some stirrings of such.

Which brings us back to King Alan. He used map-territory in his title (see Summers' comments). The guy has to realize that from where he sits, he cannot get past map-map. Nor can any of those whose sole worldview revolves around money and measurement by money.

Oh yes, we see the takes gloating in their large pockets, enormous yachts, gigantic castles, and what not. Too, they can enjoy the size of the unfortunates who have to dependent upon their largess (by the way, only Ben has been noted for that, to date).

---

We have been mostly silent, of late. Actually, the tact is to get more universal and proof based. Yes, indeed. Meanwhile, the machinations daily, from the providers and players, of the cheshire-chimera's playground are not of much personal consequence. Not even jealousy (as some cohort mentioned was his little sin for the day).

---

So, back to map-territory. Is there territory that is real enough for us to grasp? Yes, as any mature, effective human knows, and they are legend (myriad'ly speaking). As said before, we're moving forward. Snail's pace? No, considering things that are "hard" (those things overlooked by the current thinking and modeling that casts off to the hapless all of the costs beyond a mere handful -- look, how else the big pockets? near-zero, indeed).

---

In brief, Alan used the right words. Can an economist (even a behavioral one) really get to the essence of the problems without serious adjustment of worldview?

Remarks:  Modified: 09/17/2014

05/20/2014 -- Of course, a question is begged: can we ever get beyond map-map? You know, some wise guy (not Jobs by the way) might tell you that just recognizing the problem might suggest a first step toward seeing the territory (you see, that chimeric is normal gives those who can (ability) and may (access) the means to rook the system - one little example). 

05/20/2014 -- The markets were down (DOW 130+). Some talk chatter of rate rise. Of course, Janet will coo-coo just like Ben did. That is, talking soothing to the addicts who are rampaging over the economy with their inflated (via the Fed's largess plus fiat monies) gaming. ... Today, a report that millions of households are still under water. Let me remind you, too, the Fed is hold toxic assets from the recent barfing time. And, those millions are paying their mortgages; let me add, at a higher interest that those getting the goodies now. Sheesh, Janet, go, at least, to 1%. King Alan, see above, says that savers are the key. Was he referring to Ben's largess and the continuation by Janet? One couple has bought a new house. They said that they'll rent out the underwater house until the price gets to where they can think about selling rationally. Those are anecdotal, I know, but the idiocy has gone on now for years (and years) such that only a certain class benefits.

09/17/2014 -- The coo-coo, goo-goo goes on. The landscape is strewn with the lifeless bodies of the savers. Thanks, Janet.

Miscellany

Moral: Wherein we look at what will change in the future.

Of course, Ben will go; someone new will come in. Janet? My question is, will that person know the importance of savings? Right now, we can find high-class pawners who get 200% or so for providing money to people who need it. And, people who generally pay it back. Why is this necessary? Bankers are not doing their business. Where the hell is the old banker who was the upright citizen of the community and who helped people with cash flow?

He has gone the way of Jamie, I'm afraid. Or, the way of the Jamies of the world. Which brings up the first point: Made-off's two-decade reign. Hey, King Alan was there. USA Today reminds us that some are still looking for a payout. Is JPMChase culpable? Them and who else? Made-off could not have pulled this off, for so long, without some one somewhere smelling the crap. You see, though, money filters the bad odor. The more money, the more perfume comes in.

But, that perfume is deadly, for several reasons.

Aside: In the King Alan post, note the Remark (yesterday) that considers how Ben broke the buck. USA Today also copied a Fools article about what not to do with your money. Buy into a CD's strangle'ment is one (as Ben will slap you silly). But, we ought to be able to get a good CD. Ben prevents this. Let's take $100 that we would put out as a pawn broker (high-class type). We could get back, in a year, around $200. Nice, right? Except, ill-begotten, for several reasons. What would Jamie pay us for our $100 (the last man standing)? Less than a buck. Coins, to be exact. How many? We would be lucky if it were more than a dime. Ben, Ben, what the hell economic world are you inhabiting?

---

We have another point. USA Today's Wolff talks about CEOs not knowing technology. Of course, we have all sorts of technology a lot of which is loved for its own sake or for its ability to be cool. Even Obama falls into the trap. Mind you, Obama is more than a CEO, yet the attributes of those realms are similar. Obama has a nation under his feet (what about the servant thing, of the people?). CEOs might be geographically spread, but their domain is different.

Still, those in the upper echelons expect others to know the details and nuances, as says Wolff. But, Wolff also quotes the Google guy as saying that Obama smugly (quote-unquote -- we'll get back to this as Obama might be used to represent the realm that needs more explanation - than has been done to date from a techno-fluent viewpoint, okay? ) asked about something. Yes, hubris abounds in the CEO realm, even among some in the tech world. Why wouldn't it with people laying money at their feet (like twit-ville's 1B plus evaluation, some think)?

Aside: King Alan bemoans the lack of rationality. But, don't throw in the towel, guy. Get a grasp of the situation with the proper approach which we'll help you lay out.

But, technology is like a ball and chain, to boot. Ah, let me explain this ad infinitum (I am old and have years under the belt of this stuff - hands on, mind bongle's, etc.). You see, Wolff uses clueless. However, in a sense, we are all clueless - it is quasi-empirically imperative that we are so. Hubris gets people to run amok (and, Facebook, et al, needs more scrutiny in this fashion) despite their failings. Hugh accumulations of money seem to smooth out rough spots, somewhat.

We'll have to point to 7oops7 discussion where the original impetus was related to an extremely challenging set of technologies going toward something real (not bits on a screen - mobile device - that mainly titillates - in many senses of that concept).

---

These are a couple of points motivated by recent articles. The tone seems to have changed in many cases so that necessary ideas can be expressed and that concepts can be discussed. That is, we have to get beyond rhetoric, grandstanding, and such.

Why? We have let several genies out of the bottle; handling these appropriately will be crucial. What genies? For one, letting the Internet loose (we'll have to do an exhaustive look at the associated billionaires - as in, those whose fortunes come from exploiting that which was let loose) without sufficient thought to consequences. The besieged DOD is one example (tsk, tsk).

Remarks: Modified: 10/31/2013

10/30/2013 -- USA Today, recently, had an op-ed piece about the website issues and how expectations were too high, partly due to inordinate pushing by the political agenda. They use the experience of South Park (which missed an air time deadline) and GTA (release being delayed). But, there are many others (just recall all of the delays that we have seen, over the years, with MS). Nowadays, some things are pushed out with the user community expected to adapt (but, the whole thing of requirements is another issue). The fact, though, is that computation has a shaky basis that we work hard to keep stabilized. For one thing, trying to do complete testing (proving) is prohibitively expensive (if not downright not possible) due to inherent complexity. But, we can all learn to live within the limitations; also, we need to know when limits are coming into play (safety nets, for example, come about from knowing these). For one thing, phasing in can be a good strategy; too, hard dates need to be met way before they occur (as in, you fuel the plane long before the scheduled take off time). In general, it's nice to see these considerations being presented in a public forum so that we can have a discussion that removes us from finger-pointing and other worthless stances. Hardness (of problems) is what it is; we need to respect that. At that rarefied level of managers, saying that something should be does not get the thing done (those at such heights are "clueless" of more than technology's details).

10/31/2013 -- CNBC article on the aerated market situation.

10/31/2013 -- Finally, a voice of reason. Just the headline tells the tale: Tapering without tears - how to end QE3 - by Ronald McKinnon, WSJ, 10/28/2013 (PDF is at Stanford - the WSJ version is locked down for subscribers only). Essentially, going to zero was an error. Thanks, Ben. There are too many negative effects. Besides, trying to control unemployment with that little knob (which Ben dialed to the maximum, early on -- see "out of bullets" discussions from 2008/9 -- which, by the way, was untrue as Ben creatively ventured into new areas, taking us down the perdition path). Actually, what Ben is trying to do is push string (try that for ringing a bell -- push needs to be changed to pull). McKinnon uses 'fetish' in relation to the monetary illusion related to interest rates (that, essentially, have been used the past few years to slap the savers silly).

Ben, Ben, ...

Moral: Wherein we consider that Big Ben really does not understand.

---

The big guy said yesterday, among a whole lot of other things, that he was going to keep the interest rate low for a long time. Yes, the guy is actually quite adamant that he would rather continue to sack the savers (trammel the old folks -- and hock to the hilt our future generations) than to cause the Street people (of all ilks) any grief in their daily gaming of the money system.

---

I have wondered motivation, truthfully, but learning that he's into index funds sort of answered the why. Not entirely, though.

Ben, you're the man. Obama could have removed , but did not remove, you when there was a chance. Are you not ever going to talk ethics to these people?

Of course, how would things have been different with someone else? We'll never know.

---

As as aside, being an oracle must be some type of existential peak, with most (of certain types) hanging off of the words of those who play the part, such as Big Ben and King Alan.

---

Nor will we have learned the lessons of taking the nationalization step when it was possible. Rather, those who feed at the money trough just got fatter. In essence, Big Ben carried on with the put that was so important to King Alan.

No doubt, there'll be some big money job awaiting Big Ben after he leaves the FED. My question to him is, will he have left the position with any improvement over the errors of the past?

Some talk about the ballooning FED balance sheet. That move has not helped the savers at all.

What is so important about the savers? Seems that the intellectuals have forgotten. It has to do with the problem of not consuming beyond some sustainable threshold. There are many ways to characterize this, however my explanation will start from the necessity of simple living.

Of course, I'll have lost the interest of the fat cats immediately, since their whole world view is based upon taking (by definition, divinely ordained), luxuriating upon the backs of the many, and much more.

---

I know that these are age-old problems. Also, Big Ben is on the hot seat. And, he has to worry about the reaction when he leaves the position (King Alan was perturbed that his name was taken in vain, for instance) where he will then be exposed to serious ex post facto scrutiny.

---

However, too, how can we get away from funny money that is so easily aerated?

Remarks

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

10/24/2012 -- Ben is sticking to his guns. Lucy people like myself will continue to pay through the nose. Thanks, big guy.

04/03/2012 -- Response 1.

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

01/27/2012 -- Ben will continue to sack the savers; he must love the ca-pital-sino.

12/05/2011 -- Now, he's giving money to Europe, on the backs of our savers.

09/27/2011 -- Yes, Ben, keep steering us toward those who pick the pockets.

08/03/2011 -- Today, the DOW is at 11.7K (hey, let it go to 8K) at mid-morning. Ah, whatirrationality lurks? Yet, Big Ben wants to continue to sack the savers while being ultra-charitable to bankers (like Jamie).

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

05/05/2011 -- Roosevelt Institute.

04/30/2011 -- FT take on the talk.

Modified: 12/13/2012

Ben's put

Moral: Wherein we look at Ben's largess (or his Put following Alan, of course) and at how it relates to the chimera.

---

Ben's Put
Seeking Alpha image via Bing

We have been doing a lot of reading lately and have collected notes (later post) without feeling any urge to expound, as of yet. But, today, though, we ran across this commentary (Bernanke Put to Expire Worthless in March - Yahoo link that will decay) on Seeking Alpha which motivated a response, or the start of one. Seeking Alpha has an interesting viewpoint as it comes from a quantitative focus about which we have waxed several times (quants). The image is from the commentary and is discussed below.

In essence, John Early tries to show that there is little relationship between Ben's efforts and the bulging markets. That, of course, goes against the grain. True, his analysis might show this. But, arguing from a more multidisciplinary approach, one can state that there is a very strong functional relationship. We all are trying to discover what this might be, exactly. Ben ought to know. Perhaps, the financial community will allow us some visibility to their thinking on this matter (that is, going beyond statistics and its specious appeal).

--- My response, put here since to do so at the Seeking Alpha site requires me to join (which I might do) ---

• This analysis misses the mark a whole lot perhaps due to the simple-minded approach. The pattern in the first chart would come out with the proper view. What is that view? Since I can only comment, for now, let me use English to describe what is there.
  
  First, though, if Ben were to take away his put (let him, please, raise the interest rate and do a very large reduction of his balance sheet), we would see a serious reaction (highly correlated) come to fore. Essentially, a drop of major magnitude. What we don't know is how long of a lag there would be nor do we know where the floor (which would come about several ways) might come into play.
  
  Too, the following in no ways argues causality; however, it does suggest that a means to do this analysis is extant and ought to be put into place.
  
  Let's start with the giant red jump. It occurred in the midst of a drop in the black. Now, of course, after the large red jump, the red would start to rise more slowly. The black essentially caught this life line thrown by the red, bounced a little, and started up. Even with the comment related to uncertainties about the data being acknowledged, these two relate strongly with a twist (this is a hint) after that.
  
  Of course, the black curve leads at times. Enthusiasm bounds off until control get reestablished. Ben put the damper on, so to speak, many times (albeit, just a little). Hence, the red line went down (followed by the black).
  
  In these black turnarounds, the reality of Ben's aeration came back into focus with its pause almost by necessity. Somehow, the glee (on the upside) of the black rise seems to make the unrealistic notions multiply, to boot (hence, Alan's use of irrational).
  
  Ben kept his little feet to the pedal (yes, gassing us all) this whole time so as to lift the expectations. And, eventually, the black curve came roaring back in response after every little downturn. Pedal (you push it down, the fuel increases, and, hopefully, you go faster - but, not fast enough to get a speeding ticket)? Yes, there are links (multivariate spaces) that we can establish that would show what might be thought of as a "cause-effect" (albeit, some of it may be more wishful thinking that not -- dismal science, remember?) relationship (albeit with some transitivity, just like the pedal which isn't the reason that the fuel increases - it's rather an action (command) whose intent is to increase velocity -- lots happens before the fuel actually increases).
  
  Hey, we have been watching this little bit of playing around for the past few years. To argue that there is not a relationship that we ought to understand better is not what I expected at the Alpha Seeking site. Ben has been experimenting real time on us and our lives without the proper framework. Why is he allowed to do this? Politics, of course.
  
  Ben got his wish. He has aerated things (and the bubbles have started - are we going to see them this time around?). Now, the problem is that people are going to flock back into this chimera which is bolstered with his inflationary put; they will lose again. Oh well, many financial types will benefit, immensely in many case.
  
  But, isn't that the point? Finance's utilitarian role could be done with a mere 1/2, probably less, of the resources devoted to it. 

Of course, we all know that statistics, when used correctly, don't lie. Yet, we know, too, that data can be used to show all sides of an argument. The whole notion that Ben's influence will expire, and without pain, is to ignore all of those negative effects from his deeds of the past few years.

Unwinding will be problematic and full of angst for many. Many reasonable minds will attest to that. Some will not suffer, though, to whom Ben pays more attention, evidently. Who are those some? Comparatively, a small set who will not endure the reality of the pain. We will, of course, go on about that.

Remarks:

12/05/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow.

05/09/2013 -- Ben needs to take off the training wheels and let the markets go where they may (falling mode, most likely) and let the seniors have a little stability (Slapped silly, again, yesterday).

03/05/2013 -- Ben reigns, but the savers' faces are bruised from his slapping.

03/05/2013 -- Ben's QE Infinity is paying off. Too, like we saw last week, Ben's words pushed the buy button. From the panicked start to now, he has wanted to bolster finance, though his argument is that he's trying to lower unemployment. Of course, the finance that he wants booming doesn't mean much to the saver types. Now that the game is getting hot, can we really get an accounting? From whence all of this money? For that matter, what motivates the selling? Ought we care? Ben said that he doesn't see anyone taking risks. Does that sound like Alan's plea back when? The student loans industry, the privatized part (albeit, that is small compared to Federally-funded loans), is playing silly games. They have many buyers lining up for the tranches that will be the first to fail. That is, those with the higher rates and risk. Anecdotal stories abound: one with student loan debt is paying his loans but is funding his living with high credit card debt (how long can this go on?); another says that he'll never be able to pay back his loan (he's an accountant) given his current situation. These are the basis to support the financial instruments that seem to be so desirable. Sounds almost like gold-plated crap, to be crude. Wait, hasn't there already been a society that honored such?  

02/27/2013 -- Joined Seeking Alpha: Aroound the Bloock (oo? with our prowess being rewarded (why is this? hint: effectiveness of mathematics), we see objects/operators coming to fore as a prime way to model - note Rick's post).

02/26/2013 -- Yesterday, there was a 200+ drop in the DOW. The talking heads used Italy for their explanations. Today, Ben talks his deal to Congress and justifies his viewpoint. Now, realize that "justifies" means that he uses the forum to try to explain the why and wherefore of his actions to those there and the rest of us but that we aren't claiming he was successful in his explanation. Except, those who play the money game pushed more money into the DOW which went up 120+. One would say silly, but for the fact that some make oodles off the game yet its negative consequences are never tallied (near zero).

Modified: 12/05/2013

Our basis II

Moral: Wherein we consider the economic (and other) agent as we try to understand the appeal of the chimera.

---

Earlier, we looked a little at human cognitive issues; essentially, the illusion of the rational agent needs to be explained. How awry has economics been due to that bit of irrationality? Too, we might look a bit at neuroeconomics.

---

Recently, neuroscientist David Eagleman has a must-read article, The Brain on Trial (be sure to see the Comments). David uses legal settings to demonstrate the genetic/environment (nature/nurture) influences on thinking and behavior. In other words, he almost argues that the 'rational' man is a myth. Yet, we all want to be capable and rational; along with that, we look to assign blame or reward.

Who wants to be considered a freak of nature? Then again, is 'free will' anywhere a factor in the modern, materialistic world (truth engineering topic that will rise to the fore)? Too, upon what can we put legal consequences, let alone matters of conscience, if we're all just neuropeptidergic messes?

---

Aside: some can claim morality without teleology (this topic will be addressed more fully, at some point, in discussing truth engineering's T-issues).

---

Our quandary rests in the fact that we can show how we can control ourselves and can teach this to others, to an extent. In some cases, there are metaphysical underpinnings that may need more attention in order to resolve some of the issues. In others, the framework is experiential-ly based and passed on from generation to generation (to wit: the military, corporations, families, ...).

Yet, any balancing act attained is easily disturbed (fragile, as we see with the market-theoretic viewpoints). In fact, there is a lot of science put into disabling people (black arts of defense).

---

Aside: failures in mind-control (note use of meme) ought to suggest something in regard to that which coherently pulls everything together.

---

The chimera, and all of its supporting casts (legions upon legions), assumes agents, with information, rationality, and more. From whence this, we might ask? That we see bubbles (sometimes, this seems to be the status quo - Alan wavered when faced with the fact -- yet, he did have a long reign) is almost inevitable.

What to do? Well, that depends upon several things which we'll get into.

Remarks

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

02/27/2012 -- This post was a continuation of Our Basis, concerning just how shaky is our perceptual being (from certain views).The 01/01/2012 Remarks (below) points to work by an Eastern European. A recent Atlantic article looks at protozoan influences that may need more of our attention. It's significant that the underlying work was done by a lonely scientist in an Eastern European situation. Western culture has much thanks to offer that part of Europe who bore the brunt of waves of onslaught through the past 1000 years.

01/01/2012 -- Recently ran across the work of Kazimierz Dabrowski. We need to pay more attention to his theory on development. Yes, CEOs (and other takers) as immature (seriously, so). 

08/04/2011 -- One might add that the medical field seems to have a split personality. We have neuroscience insights galore questioning the basis, yet the M.D. holder is considered to have attained the epitome of learning (and earning). To boot, hubris seems to abound in those realms. To wit (and, we'll be documenting some cases, folks; naturally, names will be changed to protect the innocent and not so innocent): subjecting patients to intolerable side-effects in order to show their prowess with bio-chemistry, cloaking euthanasia under the guise of geriatrics, and more. Yet, some efforts at preventative medicine (and improved conceptions of how this all ought to work economically) are very encouraging (M.D.s are not responsible for the bad behavior, and choices, of their patients -- oh, given the referenced article (above), the medical establishment will provide us a made-up soup of chemicals, with which to live, in order to improve on nature's (the Creator's) work?).

08/03/2011 -- Reading the comments to The Atlantic article brought out another meme: heart driven (ah, is busyness not the antithesis of this except for the capitalist? -- yes, unless they are exploiting 10s of thousands, and more, of people, they are not happy -- how did these guys/gals get to be such icons (idiotic, people) and have so much influence (oh, yes, money) on so many?). So, I'm happy to learn about HeartMath! The correct meme? A triad: environment, genetic, and heart (T-issues required, oh when will that be allowed?).

Modified: 05/01/2012

For starters

Moral: Wherein we consider this blog as necessary.

---

The topics will deal specifically with things economic, in both the macro and micro senses. The former covers issues like fiat money and government bailouts. Too, those who handle things financial are in the scope.

The latter deals with how we small people live, work, and spend the money. That can be quite a range, from small potatoes to very large situations, such as the corporate milieu.

Fortunately, economics is primal, perhaps even more so than physics, especially, given the energies that accrue from people. Take, for instance, the animal spirits of Keynes. However, my having mentioned that concept is not sufficient to pin the Keynesian label.

No, the blogger's view is more scientifically oriented, yet not to be constrained to behavioral or neural or gaming elements.

Economics is too grand for such restrictions. Yet, its epitome is not exemplified by those who take more than they are worth.

Finally, something needs to be said about the name. Of course, fiat money was already mentioned as it is our current predicament to find that the US buck has nothing behind it but the good graces of our government. Other currencies have the same lack of foundation in reality.

And, we have bubbles, seemingly following one another like waves. Why bubbles? Aeration, by necessity, due to the actions of the wizards who fairy dusts regularly.

We had Alan as the star of this show for several years; now, Ben is in the role.

It is apropos to this blog that Ben's future will be decided sometime between now and next January (2010). During that time, there will be a lot of discussion. One side will want someone new. Another will give Ben more times to blink or to continue the saver sacking.

In any case, the discussions will be interesting and of value to those who want that truth comes into regular play. Yes indeed, TANSTAAFL comes (or ought to come) to mind.

Remarks:

08/02/2019 -- We're still at it, albeit, we got off on Quora, for a while.

08/30/2011 -- Is the financial part of economics, by necessity, piratical?

11/16/2010 -- A recap of sorts.

11/02/2010 -- Over a year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. But Big Ben continues in his ways. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

11/25/2009 -- And, Ben.

09/09/2009 -- To look at some issues addressed here, we'll need to consider Alan's reign.

09/04/2009 -- It has been decided about Ben, the saver sacker. We still need to discuss the overarching metaphor for the economy. Quants are it!!

Modified: 08/02/2019

Economists, of course

Moral: Wherein we look at an important class, as least, they are so in their own eyes. Kidding.

---

This blog deals with things economic. And, those who study those same things offer us a science that is dismal, at best, and positively dire, at worst.

But, the discussions are always of interest. Take The Economist (please). Kidding, again, as I love the Brit humor. Buttonwood (Tied to the mast) covers some important issues, such as taxes.

Who pays for what is always a problem. What we've seen of late is a diminishing income for the majority of the people, while the giant sucking machines filled the pockets of the few. It's been said many times.

And, that mass movement of wealth was due to an economic ideology. Let us just say, that the best description is characterized by the old refrain: privatization of any gain, socialization of all loss. And we, the taxpayers, are put into the position of being the buyer of last resort, even with our minimal means (and beans). Too, one main property of the markets under this ideology is that any constraint related to 'moral hazard-ness' is relaxed.

Ah, that ideology, according to some, is now hiding in the corner. If only.

Methinks that it can be better. How to accomplish this will require that economists agree on a few things. What are those?

We can name a few with more promised at some future point.

• Labor is the core. How else will we get consumer spending? Thievery? Oh wait, that is essentially what the 'giant sucking' mentioned above consisted of.
• Knowledge, and capital, related to persons is key to stability. Adam Smith can (must) be updated; his times, of course, were enthralled with machinery.
• Markets are a means, not the end (see the above bullet for the end).
• Corporations are not persons, at least not totally. Nor does the Corporation over-extend the political will of the people. Oh, what is that?
• Money is another means. Our maturity can be best reflected in an economy using something beyond a gab standard.

This incomplete list is only a starting point.

Remarks:

03/15/2015 -- Finally, getting around to the pending business.

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

01/07/2010 -- We need to look at capitalism, closely.

01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.

12/29/2009 -- Time calls Ben an uber-Nerd.

12/28/2009 -- Ben was named the Time Person of the Year. Nice. We can't call him 'King' as we saw with Alan's 'cult of personality' reign.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

12/10/2009 -- More roles include the consumer and the economy.

10/29/2009 -- Bankers, Lawyers, Corporatists, Economists, and more. Roles abound.

09/09/2009 -- To look at some issues addressed here, we'll need to consider Alan's reign.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/04/2009 -- It has been decided about Ben, the saver sacker. We still need to discuss the overarching metaphor for the economy. Quants are it!!

Modified: 03/15/2015

Yellen effect

Moral: Wherein we look at what Yellen brought that might be different. Actually, it's too early to tell, yet.

Yellen is the boss;
she likes slapping savers silly

We can see what's up with this little thing from USAToday. It lists five reasons for the markets (investors, addicts, what have you, ...) feeling coddled. One is that Janet is a continuation of Ben (we'll have to look at that, at some point). Another is that she will keep slapping the savers silly (ah, that ilk, who cares about any "investor" who isn't into risky gaming?). Then, she's the boss; yes, we know that (it's now on her head that millions are being screwed out of their potential earnings - why is this allowed? - so that some "investors" (those who throw tamper tantrums) can continue to play the ca-pital-sino).

---

Earlier, there was Alan's put (yes, bail out at any time that he deemed necessary). Then, we had Ben's bounce (yes, lifting up to carry the markets when they were too weak to walk [reminder, weak due to excessive partying and screwing around]; then, placing training wheels so that they could continue to play their game of raking in oodles from the pockets of the hapless and of being those who milk the system). Now, we have the Yellen effect (which will be a focus for a long while).

But, big mama Yellen might wake up one of these days (we can only hope). When? After she realizes that she can move from under that cloud of puts offered, for years, by males who wanted to their buddies to dominate finance. At some point in time, she will hear the slaps (torture, really, being done under her reign -you did not know that, Janet?) up besides the heads of the millions of hapless.

---

We have these little reactions to the FED speak all the time (in fact, be truthful Alan and Ben, is it not downright additive? - such power (people eating out of your hand?)? - it'll be interesting to see how Janet handles that part of the role). So, there is a pop/fizz; then, a few days later, the dope (that which the FED provides to the addicts - what is in the punch bowl, by the way?) wears off.

---

Oh, for a mature mind that would consider a proper economic model.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/23/2014

02/12/2014 -- Because of Yellen, perhaps, the markets are up. USAToday has a headline (today, let's say): Dow has first 4-day winning streak of 2014. What? Winning? You mean more dupes came into the market. Remember, those who lost from this last drop (bought recently) have not recovered their paper loss. Other than some FED titillation, what was there that would cause anyone to think of "winning" as the proper word? Usually, teams have winning streaks from being better than their opponent in whatever game is being played. How can that concept be used here? Too, those supposed gains are chimeric, to say the least.

06/07/2014 -- The ECB beat Janet to the punch (not to the bowl).

06/23/2014 -- Yellen behind the curve?

Response I: Ah, Ben!

Moral: Wherein we start a response series to Ben's (Ben, Ben, ..., yes, opinion from over a year ago - prescience?) re-look at the crisis (Lecture 1, Lecture 2, Lecture 3, Lecture 4) that he cast'd in the light of his own image and likeness.

---

Thanks to George Washington University for hosting the talks. The four talks were very instructive in that they allowed Ben to lay out his thinking for us to see.

---

So, it's time to begin a response sequence. The thing is that Ben has no idea from whence comes my criticism as I'm too far removed from his world. Perhaps, though, my efforts can help explain the issues in a manner that is amenable to most and in a way that is too much overlooked as the larger-than-life pursue what is more illusion than many would allow.

---

So, Ben, your little joke (Lecture 4) about the printing press not being used (there are moments, Ben, captured on video of you, yourself, joking about your virtual press) as if to argue that those who dislike his largess are off the wall (it wasn't amusing, Ben). You see, people, Ben does not have real money anyway. Look at your buck. It's merely a promise for the Fed, and Ben, to pay something. Of what value is that little piece of paper? Well, considering that Ben opened the flood gates for a credit deluge, it's worth a whole lot less than a few years ago.

Too, Ben waved his hands about 'unwinding' (response to a question, Lecture 4). Oh yes, he knows that he can force those with the money to comply. At what cost to the rest of us, though, is the question.

---

Ben, too, tells us that he'll continue the 'put' made famous by King Alan. He says that we can't overlay all of this creative finance with anything rational (beyond bastardized game theory). No, there is no chance to try to be scientific (of course, we all know how 'dismal' is economics) he seems to suggest. Ben, you need to reconsider that matter. Of course, in doing so, would you go beyond the little world of the Fed and its funny money?

---

There is a lot to cover, but, for starters, let's just go back to three and one-half years ago. It was before the elections. Bailouts had started. Things were strange. Yet, the writing was clear on the wall. All three of these were written during September of 2008.

• Fraud and truth -- based upon an external view, as in, other than finance. As well, a view from the trenches, with an engineering focus. So, there was none of the mucky-muck influence. In essence, there is reason to 'hedge' (we all do it, in one form or other). Speculation, on the other hand, is grossly inequitable and is not necessary (except for the fat cats who need to continue to line their pockets, mainly so that they can farm out handling their necessities -- as in, those who sh** on the world, and its inhabitants).
• Doers and speculators -- there is more than one way to partition this thing. The point? Somehow, the modern way with  money (whatever it is) has allowed very unhealthy, and very unsustainable, ways to develop. Actually, they have gone way too far (and for way too long), most likely due to people not knowing what was happening. Some of the rhetoric of the 'occupy' set, though, seems to suggest that there is a type of cognizance. Yet, we deal with the 'lords' (all types) and their power in these matters. The 2012 elections, with open-ended influence by the richer, are going to be telling to observe (to wit, these posts were written prior to the last election). 
• The times -- yes, a brief list that is not so hard to understand. Nor, are these items without some means for their accomplishment. The real barriers come from those who are already entrenched in their goodies (and ways to sustain them) and their machinations to prevent what is required to come forth. 

The other day, Ben just winked, somewhat, at the idiocies that he sees. I would like to be a fly on the wall to hear his real thoughts. Ben, admit it. Alan loved the glory of the realm's guidance. I sense that you see a bunch of nitwits acting in a manner that is unconscionable. You know, you'll need to bail them out again (student loans -- sheesh, what a mess!).

Why don't you sponsor some town meetings related to why the Fed needs to change? It was nice that you talked to students. What about you talking to people who are not within those professional ranks that are responsible for the failing? Well, not talking. Discussing (quasi-academically, as we're not talking prof to prof, either -- autodidacts know as much as you guys do).

Remarks:

04/01/2013 -- Ben as the new Central Planner.

02/26/2013 -- What? Ben doesn't have any influence with his put?

05/11/2012 -- Then, we have Jamie.

05/05/2012 -- Related theme to explore.

04/27/2012 -- Obviously, Ben is on a roll. In his latest statement, he said that he'll continue his ways until late in 2014. That, folks, is another couple of years of savers being sacked. Again, who are savers? Mainly, those who have lived within their means, have means, use their means wisely, look to have something for a rainy day, and all of those other good things. In short, those whose efforts are needed for an economy much more than the services (ah, from him?) from the likes of Jamie. Now, how do we wake up in this new world to the fact that an age-old ideal has been trashed? Ben, give me time, and I'll explain this issue to you.

04/10/2012 -- The thing that Ben is after is the 'multiplier effect' taken to an unreasonable extreme. Let's say that fiat money allows a 'buck' to be re-used multiple times in order to provide a base for an economy. This type of thing is especially easy when the underlying framework is computationally-founded aeration. The 'shadow' (depending upon the focus) amounts to trillions (yes) of bucks founded upon a speculation-motivated game (with little accounting to map to anything of substance - you see, it's the playing that is the thing). So, we have trillions of book-based 'value' under which is mere billions of something that could be considered real.

The real sign of insanity is that Ben has to argue for those responsible to pull back from the precipice to which they push all who are more reasonable. Somehow, these supposed adults have atrophied cognition (yet, those who 'win' lounge in 'wealth' that is beyond estimation - yes, we really have no way now to assess, in these matters, what is real from not).

Yet, Ben helped the game by inflating his balance sheet with fictional credit. Ben, ever heard of the thing called hypo-critical?

04/06/2012 -- Yes, keep that debt window open. Here is a post, from Phil G' blog, that has a link to a comical video related to our current situation. Trouble is that the window was closed for the common folk, after they were heavily laden with several lifetimes of debt. In some cases, people walked away from their debt (allowed, it seems, for some types of housing finance). But, the window was cast'd open, on a broader scale, for finance types (see Ben's Lecture 4). Earlier, there were remarks about largess.

04/05/2012 --  Jamie got $23M. Savers got sacked. Yeah, Ben. His credit expansion has debt as its balance. The goal is to expand debt (and, nationally, we've hit the bell there), yet we've seen what that does to the individual. In short, it's indentured-ness, almost ad infinitum. Talk about 'clever' (as Ben called those of the finance ilk). The ultimate 'perpetual' machine that keeps peoples' noses to the grindstone and monetarily handcuff'd.

On Jamie, we may have him replacing Timmy. Scary, indeed. 

Modified: 04/01/2013

On the behalf of

Moral: Wherein we consider that one may need to act on the behalf of another is an age-old situation in human affairs. Parents perform this role for their children. As we can see in many cases, a grown child may accept fiduciary duties for an aging parent.

---

All civilized people point to the 'golden rule' as a primary in this regard. This is true, as well, in economics in so far as ethics may apply. Trouble is that some want to use a metaphor more from what we think of nature and its dwarinistic ways.

So, there is the issue of caveat emptor. In financial affairs, one might think that some counselor is looking out for one's interest, however, in many cases, this is not the case. The financial guy is more into selling something that will line his or her pocket, not in really considering the client's interest.

Then, we have the Madoff type (thanks, WSJ). As said earlier, we need to update the label for this type of thing as Ponzi was so long ago (we now have Made-off).

On 10/2/2009, the USA Today reports that there are many schemes being uncovered all the time. That somewhat points to having something like Fisher's view about smelling a rat to be taught on a regular basis. That is, the nose is a talent to hone.

Other notions that apply here are accountability and being aware. On the former, whatever role one has ought to have some type of review from time to time. Just being prepared to give an accounting can be a good discipline in any endeavor. Trouble is, under what circumstance can such a report be warranted? Some business methods have gravitated toward yearly reviews for employee evaluation. Also, in terms of work, the efforts to determine earned value have some appeal. Yet, these are not easy problems; even doing assessment of fair value is not without problems.

In term of the latter (being aware), we have to consider how the counseling role evolves. The fact of the matter is that there are more things that we do not know than that we know, the hubris of the know-it-all aside. That is, no one is expert at everything. Using the medical experience as an example, all one has to do is try to talk to some doctor about anything that is outside of his or her specialty interest or training.

So, given the existence of things like innumeracy, one can see why the financial adviser community as grown to be so large. Let's forget, for the moment, the whole thing of whether financial engineering (despite MIT's involvement) is even a valid field and consider the need with a few questions that we'll consider in more details.

Does the need for the financial expert really exist? How do we know that the flim-flam of casino capitalism isn't the main culprit? If that is the case, ought not the brains (yeah, best-and-brightest) be looking at more robust ways and means?

Can all this be put in framework that allows the normal person to make reasonable decisions about financial affairs? Is it by necessity that the underlying instability is exploited by those who have been allowed to game the system?

Note: Just because we have the difficulties involved with determining value is no reason for those who can (like anyone close enough to the market's workings to extract regular pocket fillings -- hey, work under a vow of poverty people, that is, anyone dealing with other people's money) to exploit the situational issues arising from complexity and undecidability.

Remarks:

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

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks (leftmost mug of the rogue table), by Rolling Stone and Daily Ticker.

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.

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

01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/29/2009 -- Time calls Ben an uber-Nerd.

12/28/2009 -- Ben was named the Time Person of the Year. Nice. We can't call him 'King' as we saw with Alan's 'cult of personality' reign.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

12/09/2009 -- The Street loves Ben who loves 'em back: The Street utterly loves the Fed's largess, earning massive profits from trading unstable currencies, the carry trade (borrow short-term dollars near zero, buy longer-term assets abroad), and the high-margin process of transferring America's capital abroad.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

10/06/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of. It is clear that Alan and Ben act on our behalf, though one has to wonder what 'our' means as it sure is not the little guy. Finance, people, can be (probably ought to be) run as a non-profit affair. AND, the CEO (or whatever the titles at the top) would not make $1M and more! That is absurd. We have people who put their lives on the line for this country and its ideals for pittance. As said before, we really need a national service (Remarks 09/03/09) experience for the young'uns, especially for those of the privileged classes.

Modified: 05/11/2012