Best and brightest of what?

Moral: Wherein we consider, just who are the best and brightest and why are they so important?

It has been awhile since I've seen an opinion, such as this one from the head of CME Group, but it does motivate a re-look at this subject. The op-ed is in the WSJ and was written by Mr. Duffy of CME.

• A new financial crisis: Keeping the best and brightest - Mr. Duffy argues the opposite position (see disclosure, next) from the one of this blogger. Nice that he does so. Since the link from the page on the CME's site to the WSJ article goes to a page that is locked down (requiring a subscription), I have provided a couple of images (that are photos taken from the print edition) below with commentary. 

---

Firstly, though, a recap, and disclosure. The first use of "best and brightest" was May 8, 2009. This was a reaction from hearing of big bonuses in times when things were dire. Why the bonuses? "Because, if we don't have the proper remuneration," said the Wall Street crowd, "we'll lose the best and brightest." Please note that a major theme for the blogger, in those times, dealt with the fiction in finance (truth engineering context - and, the inspiration for that concept was not Karl Marx' fictitious capital).

One main issue dealt (and still deals) with the gall of naming something financial engineering whose scientific basis has not been identified. As we come forward in time (all the while, the Wall Street, and its ilk, were being baby-glove'd by the Fed), several notions come to fore. For one, that talents differ among folks is as old as the hills leading to all sorts of problematic situations (not the least of which is the Lord/Serf dynamic, especially as demonstrated by the new phenomenon of CEO and more -- Wall Street type as serf (do you really see these as servants? - more below, due to Duffy).

For another, just because someone is facile enough to propose, and has the ability to dispose, of gnarly systems (I am prepared to discuss this at length, in depth, and to any degree necessary - both technically and philosophically - Out of control, May 7, 2010) does not give them the right to run the risks (despite the existence - perceived acceptance - of privatized gain and socialized loss). Of course, in the older days, I blamed the old fat cat who led the young, innocent best-and-brightest down the primrose path to our (and, perhaps, in some cases, their) perdition).

You see, the old fat cats could not handle the technical aspects (again, I'm a 70+ technically competent who can handle any of the discussions, at any level - at the same time, reminding all concerned of the larger issues that seem to fade out of the picture due to various things, of which the old anti-virtues (err, vice, but that relates to a squad?) loom prominent) so they get the younger set to run rampant (I've seen this many, many times while living with the results of emerging prowess - essentially, an advanced technology worldview). But, it was not just the fat cats who are at fault. Culprits abound . Some of this has been resolved; a lot has not.

---

WSJ op-ed

Now, to Duffy's op-ed. Notice, how WSJ's editorial staff (image) emphasized that there has been a decline in Harvard graduates (Duffy points to an article about MBAs; what about the undergraduates?) going to finance. There was a similar reduction found with Yale's and Princeton's graduates.

But, let's remind ourselves of something. We can be more specific, as required, but there had been an earlier movement around the time of the tech boom and bust (late 1990s to early 2000s) from other fields to finance. The blogger mentioned that he had wondered why (not interested enough to really look into the matter -- Nov 23, 2008) finance could be so attractive (if done correctly, it's fairly boring, folks). Well, it turns out that the finance types were given almost carte blanche (best and brightest gone wild) to play with their models. Why? There are all sorts of factors involved here. But, the prime one is that money does talk.

We'll use Duffy's words, though, to frame the issue. He says that "institutional money" does not exist. Why? Of course, ultimately, money is traced back to individuals who have entrusted finance types to care for their little accumulation meant for "savings, retirement or education" (their's, as in, Secured payment, Nov 28, 2012, not the finance guy's/gal's, okay). Duffy says that Wall Streeters can easily forget about Main Streeters (say what? Fiduciary duty - Oct 30, 2008)). From there, Duffy goes into finance's importance.

Yes, but he says that only "a few bad actors" were the culprits behind the latest downturn. We need to remind him that banks froze because they knew that their ilk wasn't trustworthy. How can these types forget those things, so easily - it's like they took their balls home, wouldn't play the game, due to knowing that the whole things was crookedly configured?

Duffy, of course, his firm deals with these matters, talks as if creativity is essential to something that ought to be as mundane as paving a street (by the way, I've been there - it's hard work that ought to receive more compensation than it does). We can characterize this thing many different ways, but, folks, the utility aspect of finance has been put to the background (by the way, not that utilities are angels - quite the contrary).

 ... much more could be said ...

But, let's go to the sweet ending. Duffy uses integrity with respect to Wall Street's business. Imagine that! Yes, Wall Street ought to think of helping people and influencing the world. One would hope that the influence would be for the better; Duffy didn't say. But, how does one get from the supposed reality of the situation where "help" seems to be more involved with picking pockets than not? As in, from the pockets of the hapless to that of the few (Jan 15, 2010). More recently,

All in all, it was nice to see the WSJ print this. Why tie it down so that people cannot see it in order to foster the necessary discourse?

We need Wall Street'ers to wake up and smell the reality related to their ilk. But, it's like the old adage of working oneself out of a job. As it works now, the whole thing, by necessity, runs toward a continuing of the ca-pital-sino. We cannot stop (nod to William F. Buckley), but we can improve, given the proper approach. Can anyone point out improvement activity (to the benefit of the commonweal, not of particular pockets) that occurs on a regular basis?

Again, let's thank Mr Duffy for starting the conversation.

Remarks:

01/06/2015 --  Best and brightest: 3rd most read (7'oops7),  1st most read (Tru'eng), 7th most read (FEDaerated). 

01/08/2014 -- We're patiently waiting for Janet to get her feet wet. At some point, she'll get out of Ben's shadow. Hopefully, it will be soon for the savers who are being slapped silly by the day.

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

10/03/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he know that he's cowboy'ed us into a corner?

Modified: 01/06/2015

Harvard, again

Moral: Wherein we re-look at the esteemed institution (375 years old) that is (will, ought to, be) a focal for many things.

---

Earlier, we had harped about Harvard and raised, no doubt, some hackles and may have confused some things. So, it's time to restart the dialogue and, for now, here are some of the themes that pertain to the necessary discourse.

---

Harvard is a collecting point for the best and brightest. Who are the best and brightest? Those with mental acuity who, unfortunately, are not plagued by innumeracy (poor dears, those numerants, or poor us for being subjected to the outcomes). As such, they (not only those from the big H) have led us all astray through the mis-use of mathematics.

That is, they see the field in an operational sense leading, of course, to exploitation as motivation. Ah, our beloved mathematics, trashed.

Aside: What talent determines membership within the best-and-brightest set? Well, some of this is measurable using standardized tests, as we have seen develop (note the early interest by the U.S. Army -- there are analogs galore) in the past century or so. Some of the talent may (can) not be (subsumed under a metrical ontology); for instance, we see plenty high scorers who flunk out of life (but, then, we all know just how complex this issue is). Why the difference in scores (or what appears to be shown by scores)? Acuity was mentioned above. But, there would be energy, to boot (as in stamina to finish -- and, as well, trying to answer how perpetual motion is not assumed -- what? think about it!); also, patterns, and recognition thereof, are an important fact. It's an open-ended issue, folks (we'll get back to that and what it might (does) mean). And, preparation, as in S.A.T. tutoring, does NOT overcome innate issues (remember, as said above, that which is measurable is founded upon the very mathematics that is being mis-used -- so, suspicion is in order).

---

The image came from BING which likes to put out an interesting bit every day with comments. This particular one celebrated the 375th of the big H and got more of the blogger's attention than usual. What's this about the H-bomb (Lord, what does that smell like?)? Perhaps, their opinion is that anyone who doesn't bow in their direction is too stupid to know better (or something similar -- these types of things (egoism) are inherent and inflict even the, supposedly, best-and-brightest types -- many of whom never scored high on any type of ethics scale).

---

So given how higher-order education has kissed the behinds of the moolah'd, motivations related more to greed than not come to fore in those who pursue such achievements. What games are played by those who are possible candidates in order for them to be even considered by the institution? And, folks, not being accepted there does not make one a failure. Far from it.

Oh yes, being in Cambridge raises one's IQ (Institutional truths?)?

---

Why is greed mentioned? Harvard decided to leave the Lord's work and become secular (and elitist). From whence, then, will come any direction? But, have we not seen others (meaning, of course, non-big-H) who tell us that they are serving the Lord and then founder under their greed, too?

Aside: Lord? Yes, early on it was that One about Whom the Protestants (even amongst themselves) and Catholics fought. Then, it was (and still is) the One at the core of the battle between the Muslims and the not. ... But, there are many more from which to choose, from the modern view as expounded by big H. In fact, that there is NONE is considered (without any rational support) by many. Why that assertion? Modern theorem proving techniques show that Anselm's view on the matter reduces to one premise. Does that not say that it's an either-or choice? Yet, the blogger mentions the Lord. Why so? Again, given the basic choice, one can pick what label to place on that which is beyond what one knows (even in the sense of the total). Why not 'Lord' for this reason? There are many, many connotative attachments (call them memes, if you would) that can make it more interesting and emotionally appealing. Except, there will be those who would prefer anti-Lord. You see, has the big-H ever followed through reviewing the consequences of their secularism especially since it has bled over to our culture and times (leading to massive indentured-ness at the personal, institutional, and national levels)? Another aspect to this is whether or not the Lord is embodied. Some have a long tradition of saying so (too long to mention). What 'Lord' is there for the best and brightest (see above reference to moolah'd)? Too, whether it's known or not, the Lord is there!

---

Again, as we have said before, Harvard can extract itself from its mire by opening up to fostering the autodidact (perhaps, even pushing public service). Of course, their argument is that their students are self-directed. But, we want them to look at the talents beyond those amenable to numerant manipulation and to help these progress as needed to save humanity.

Again, they'll say that they do this in a sense. We'll see, if they can show this.

---

One has to ask, are not some of the best and brightest out there with the OWSs?

---

Now, when you consider the roles of the aristocratic over the complete history of us (the people, who else), what were these roles and how did they get to play them? Well, the types were smarter (see above about the best and brightest), in a way (or several ways). They were dumber in many others (this deals with being which is something still to be discussed). Yes, particularly the royals. What we have now is the means to measure to try to identify these types early on.

A perpetuating scheme, at the least. Then, we pave their way. As the crap of the recent downturn shows (and the big pockets of those who let loose the young'uns without supervision -- heck, the big pockets cannot even supervise themselves, how could we expect them to help others to be better? --- mind you), money as value is not much more than crap (who will lead toward a proper definition of wealth?).

---

One could picture a world in which the Harvard area would be where the dynamics related to those who rise (or can rise) come into play, even doing so in ways that we have not thought of. Are we talking sandbox?

---

Too, as we would learn things, we would improve situations such as preventing things like the most recent downturn that came about from the gaming of the idiots/geniuses (yes, computational mathematics is at fault, for one thing, since it empowered the a**es) in the finance world (our, as in OUR, beans). There are so many other ways that we will be at this for awhile.

---

Yes, the real princes and princesses (of all types) would be in that New England area having gathered from around the world. Highly endowed responsibility, indeed, would be accepted by the institution.

Actually, one could argue that it could not be replicated elsewhere (ye olde country?), except that we don't want to deny that internationalism will be imperative at some point (before the little green men show up?).

Remarks:

09/19/2013 -- All's not lost. Some accountants see a change that is problematic. But, first, savers are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent. Now, that was once considered a virtue; in fact, one could argue that it was expected for fiscal responsibility. However, some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things such, too, so the whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). Of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. But, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

08/15/2013 -- Nice viewpoint. Farce, indeed (chimera). Buyers and sellers are Investors (sometimes). Many elites see their gifts as carte blanche to screw over those less gifted (in essence, a main cause of the continual strife that humans face -- Harvard, at one time, may have had an ethical edge - can it get it back?). Who is the fairest of the elite, so to speak? For sustainability to come about, those of the highest quality need to be of the service mentality (yes, perhaps we could find someone at Harvard Divinity to explain this to the gifted in their neighborhood). Service? Try military without being of the O-series, for instance. But, a national service would allow many types of contributions. Foreigners? Yes, they would have to do it to boot.

03/22/2013 -- GW at ESPN (see image on right) has a nice point of view on the madness (and related comments). We ought to have something similar for the financial folks, using play money, with prizes. That's the sandbox, folks. Then, the real stuff would be handled by mature, stable adults (not the greed ridden - and similar ilks -- okay?). The madness has to do with animal spirits just like the market (ala Adam). Too bad that one loss gets one out the door. Perhaps, at the final four level, there ought to be a round robin, like college baseball. --- Now, having just written the above, this glorious bit of madness is really a sham (see comment at madness, 03/12/2012). The whole madness pits kids against each other, who are playing for naught (comparatively), being coached by millionaires, with big buck media behind the affair, and a bunch of other lucrative ploys benefiting from the labors of the few. If one looked at qualities (as in, abstract out a truthful look at this), one could find parallels (many, many) all across history (these things being not consider our best behavior). Granted some (as in, not all) of the kids go on to big bucks. Others find glory in their endeavors (what would be be without school spirit?). Yet, besides the commonality with historic events that aren't looked at as being our (humankind's) best moments, there are all sorts of analogs in business (which we've seen of late, in glorious detail, as being problematic at its core - the heart that is supposed to be related to finance). By the way, see the below comment (madness, 02/08/2013); that particular team ended up with a #1 seed. Also, Harvard Crimson made it out of the Round of 64.

01/23/2013 -- Things are looking up: Read free or die.

12/16/2011 -- Elizabeth Warren changes the opinion, somewhat; imagine, what if we got beyond situational ethics?

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

10/18/2011 -- How many of the 99% end up at this institution? Not fair? We know for a fact that not all of the 1% are related to the place. By the way, it's not always that ratio (1, 99); the ratio's use is effective in stirring up the pot, though.

10/17/2011 -- Finished the text on this old topic and added links (there may be more).

Modified: 09/19/2013

Harvard, ..., II

Moral: Wherein we consider that even the best-and-brightest (big endowments) can get lured into playing the games offered by the sirens of technologically driven business; there are many of these games, but the big chimera (many faceted demon of our own design - Rick, of course) is a huge one. That shell games get out of control, now and then, is a lesson that does not seem to stick (no, the little people suffer and pay, always). No wonder the backbone of the economy breaks under such nonsense.

--

There is much to look at. However, we will review this paper, at some point: Educational Endowments and the Financial Crisis: Social Costs and Systemic Risks in the Shadow Banking System 2010 (PDF at tellus.org). In the meantime, a few thoughts are collected.

In terms of disclosure, all this will lead to the following: discussions of near zero and its necessity.

The biggest brains are no better than the lowliest worker. That emphasis has gone so heavily into out-housing (use of this does not imply the inability to see the reality of our inter-connected and global world) results, in part, from a seemingly endless set of new exploitees always around the bend.

Too, talents not related to numeracy are essential to the planet's future; yes, techies, innumeracy is not idiocy. How can the numerant (those with numeracy) be allowed to innovate financially without oversight?

The Gulf spill might be a perfect metaphor. We can exploit only so far; at some point, real costs have to be considered. Oh yes, the current state of affairs shows just how easy it is to fall into a debt, and enslave the future, pattern.

Was it Harvard that led us on the path of short-vision'd and, ravage the landscape, business (Cat and mouse)? Well, can it dig back into its roots, those prior to the ingestion of the secularist potion, and develop a coherent non-secular stance that is so sorely needed by the world for a peaceful and productive future?

Suggestion: where is the notion of ethics ever brought into the minds of those who are going to lead the future? Ought not this be more prominent, period by period, throughout the educational experience? Can ethics even be absorbed by one who is reinforced in elitist thinking?

Divine right of the endowed (pun, of course, for best-and-brightest)?

Earlier posts that are related to the theme under development. Not picking on Harvard. BUT, you Crimson guys and gals, you were the first on this side of the pond which, then, brings especial responsibility.

• Harvard, value and quality I -- from whence will come the multi-faceted minds that we need and the training that will raise the worldview?
• Gravy train -- that is, will raise above the notion of massive taking?
• Gray areas -- and, will not try to exploit situations or potential exploitees?

• Win and lose -- success breed hubris; failure causes whining.
• Hedge Funds -- they say that money talks or that money has it privileges. Evidently, one of these is to make your own rules.
• Lessons to be learned -- gosh, the problem? Who's the daddy!
• Oops and more oops -- stumbling going on everywhere, almost densely.

• Cars and quality -- wonderful metaphor for the current economic mess.
• Roles for schools -- more than merely funneling out takers on a massive scale.
• Swarm proof -- even the brightest are under the laws of nature (more full use than normal).

Remarks:

01/23/2013 -- Things are looking up: Read free or die.

10/16/2011 -- Harvard is 375 this year. That, one might say, will precipitate a closer look, soon.

05/17/2011 -- Hedge funds need some of our attention.

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

04/12/2011 -- Now, we hear that Harvard wants Bernie to teach ethics to the best and brightest! It is obvious that he ought to be a case study and a specimen of what not to do. That is, analyze him to the core. His motivations would be included. The biggest lesson? How we have dumbed down ourselves in order to make the system, and its artifacts (see comments on hive mentality), work.

04/04/2011 -- Boston U's opinion.

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

01/19/2011 -- For the most, things are dire, not by necessity.

07/02/2010 -- Anyone at Harvard with the sense of justice like Perelman's?

06/01/2010 -- Some young MBAs want to get their reputation, or that of their discipline, out of the crapper. Nice. An oath is one theme.

Modified: 05/08/2014

Recap of sorts

Moral: Wherein we pause to reflect a little since the blog's first year passed without comment.

Well, we're three months behind on that aspect. But, then things are different now than they were just a mere two weeks ago.

In parts of the country, there were very small blue islands within a vast sea of red. Gosh, what does all that mean? In terms of the viewpoint being expressed here, not much.

Let's, for now, just look at a few themes that will continue further.

----

We can use some of the categories as a means to organize the material.

• Ca-pital-sino -- it is obvious that some have taken Adam Smith's ideas too far. This we want to discuss further, as that tendency to the right has no stronger foundational basis than does any of the others. As already said, the gaming aspect needs some conditional limitations imposed. They are not going to be mathematical but will be social in flavor. How can this be?
• Ideology -- it is quite visible that ideological gaming spawned ca-pital-sino. Why? Our intent is to lay out a framework with which to condition the gaming. To date, we have brought forth the reminder that we all have drives which are, for the most part, toward individuation and maturity. That latter means that we don't want meddling in our lives. Yet, we ought not meddle in others' lives either. As well, that the related decisions need to be knowledge based is obvious. Again, how is this to be?
• Numeracy -- it is unfortunate that those who follow, to the limit, what we might learn by mathematization and algorithmization have imposed on the rest a type of bestial system. That this idiocy has gathered such strength is that fat cats have had their pockets filled to the detriment of the commonweal. How was this allowed to happen?
• Underdetermination -- it is the fact that we are serious lapse in what we can and do know. Now, our maturity provides the basis for decisioning under the resulting uncertainty. That the computer has become a major player raises a whole bunch of issues. The main one is that the underlying framework is undecidable. Plenty have danced around this subject, but linear logic allows us to look at the problem more realistically.
• Big Ben -- it is to our consternation that we see real-time, and less than insightful, experimentation with our selves and our monies by a handful of the best and brightest. There is only one thing to say. Sheesh!!! Well, we'll continue to discuss this problem and its potential resolution.
• Jobs -- it is the case that the best and brightest, and the fat cats, have exported work, via out-housing and colonization, to cheaper areas (read, easier to be exploited); the American worker has been short-changed; too, initiatives, such as six sigma (a form of Quant'ification), have resulted in the degradation of the work experience so that everyone is on the proverbial treadmill without any relief in sight. And, those not on the treadmill envy the state of those who are. How did all of this come to be?
• Consumption -- it is seen that without jobs that pay and without means for purchasing the populace must sink into a pit of debt with an unfathomable bottom. Yet, those who model the economy place the role of the consumer as primary, in size and importance. How can we see such continued inconsistency from the best and brightest?

---

The intent is to continue with the analysis and discussion of things dismal (meaning, of course, economic).

Remarks:

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

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

11/24/2010 -- We need to list trading types that would not be possible without computational support for the associated markets, permissive legal structures, unaware populace, and more: gaming by options, ...

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

11/18/2010 -- We'll be taking a closer look at the numer-ants (my terminology for those who think that numeracy is it, which is about most of the best and brightest in the western world and those of the eastern who are coming over here and eating our lunch) this next year. Why? That the quasi-empirical framework is without due attention is why. Now, numer-ants like systems. What is wrong with the systems view will take a whole lot of attention. How about some convoluted system, such as this one. Ever consider why these come about? It's easier to hide book cooking and its ilk.

Modified: 12/05/2010

Ill-begotten gains

Moral: Wherein we consider the gains of capitalists as more ill-begotten than otherwise (and jaw-bone a little).

---

Ill-begotten, in what sense? We'll get to that. Last time, we looked at ideological issues related to capitalism. Let's continue along one vein.

Given the concept of near-zero, we can see that gains, such as many on Wall Street and their hanger-ons have made the past year (supported by Ben's largess), do not have any rational support. These have come at the expense of the taxpayers and Main Street.

We have been hollowed out, said one author (Harold Meyerson, Wash Post). Actually, is it not more that we lost our backbone? Somehow, our best-and-brightest have been given the leeway to lead us to paths of perdition, along which most happily went. To where? To our demise, leaving China, and others, with the upper hand.

Thanks, you jerks (yes, as in the third-derivative). Okay, let's change the tone to that which is more mature.

Earlier, we said that no train was leaving the station. Of course, since then, some have continued to find what they call 'gains' via equity. Let's forget commodities, at the moment, as many of those have real substance behind them, albeit that interlopers abound across many levels who stack cards in their favor.

Charlatans have been allowed to sustain a casino that sucks us dry. Gosh, thanks, politicos. By the way, where are the term limits that we really need to get the Main streeters their chance to serve the country? Most of the politicos actually just like to salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose.

Except, Mr Obama seems to be coming around, finally. We ought to have nationalized the banks last year, kicked out the best-and-brightest, and allowed Main streeters to have more say. We'll see how much success Mr Obama can have, since the Ayn Rand'ers seem to have ad infinitum ways to continue to muck things up.

Bonuses, from a game funded by taxpayers, many of whom have been economically enslaved this past decade, are not ill begotten?

Remarks:

07/22/2015 -- Some of these are, now, poster boys.

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

01/20/2013 -- What ought to be the spirit of the thing?

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.

03/29/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

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

10/12/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about. 09/20/2011 -- This will be used in our constructive effort.

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

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash. 04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back. 02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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).

04/27/2010 -- Need to add the political set of truths, such as cat and mouse.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

01/22/2010 -- Bankers IV. Plus, Lordly Prince.

01/19/2010 -- Gosh, Ben, why did you have to sack the savers? Oh, I know, the banks (and their supposed best-and-brightest) mean more to you than do we, the lowly citizens and taxpayers. Have you considered our lot? I go into the bank (it's a big one whose big guy is on the list of rogues -your friends?) to see what they will give me for some money. Oh! Less than 1%. Who would have thunk it, Ben? Look, at the same time, they've made oodles and are looking to payout big bucks to their workers. What? Ought not some of that go to account holders? Others say to pay the shareholders. Well, that is a balance that your position is supposed to help. From the looks of it, your bias is toward those who want the train to nowhere. From where I sit, your stance is not only one-sided, it's actually counter to the benefit of those who are dependent upon your actions (the larger group (cardinality), big guy, not those (larger in the fat cat sense) of the ilk who think that their money gaming is the essence of reality). Solution? Look at the problem of fiat money, argue for your position to be modified, then work for some realness behind things that are valued by what is called 'money' (many meanings, I know).

01/17/2010 -- Simon Johnson has it right.

Modified: 07/22/2015

The ideological errors of capitalism II - Adam Smith redux

Moral: Wherein we extend the look at capitalism and argue that reasonable people need to retake both Adam Smith and David Hume from those who have used the poor souls to found their irrational arguments (jawboning, by necessity - as capitalism fosters shell games and 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)

---

Ah, but reasonable, and irrational, need to be heavily qualified. Hume has had an influence on many sides of arguments, which is interesting in itself. Kant, even, was influenced. Consider, that the casino capitalists, and laissez-faire people, quote Adam makes him turn over in his grave. He bemoans what the best-and-brightest and the fat cats have wrought. We need to give the guy, and his friend Hume, proper rest and honour.

So, how do we do this?

Before we get there, we need to look at how the fat cat perspective came to be. In some cases, it's a modern extension of Lords/Serfs problem. Both of these, naturally, have some sense of entitlement (it's natural). However, the Lords had the power. What you might say is that some haven't attained maturity? Is it not interesting that we can see some many bring their immaturity to the stage so as to begrief others?

Given that in the modern world, another class, namely wizards (oh, they were there before, but of lesser cardinality) can fill their pockets, to boot, does not confound the basic issue.

That an economy, cannot use 'the' economy for several reasons, is a system is obvious. Why else the leaning toward risk management? Yes, that viewpoint (blinders, ought we say?) which two years ago was saying, ah, we have it all in order, never again any downturns.

Oh? It was asked before. That questions remain. Both Hume and Smith will figure strongly, as will others, in the coming discussions.

Now, the scope of the economic system will vary. Now, for the first time, we're verging on some international variety, though there have been fairly large empires before. That is, international on a political scale.

Guess what? The past few decades have seen the emergence of super-dude companies (remember, that we've allowed them personhood) that transcend, in their minds, any political control.

Aside: China, please keep up your ways, as we need to put some of these in their places.

It's time to stop, for now. Let's say this about our friend, Adam. His study was moral philosophy. Any clue to what that is, corporate mucks? Sheesh, Business Week just described the temporary, permanent employee. Ah, so many other things of this nature to describe.

All the while, the best-and-brightest bathe in their tubs of bonus money.

Just like Japan, we stand the chance of having a generation that never gets the opportunity to make traction.

What is all this? Labor gives more value to capitalism than has been allowed. To get away from 'junk' and such, we need to revamp to allow some element of craftsmanship and to recognize that 'touch' is imperative for complicated systems.

Ah, yes, the commentator said, the Street says that their best-and-brightest are their capital. So, they get paid well. Have similar returns ever been applied to any other resource in the past?

Remarks:

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

06/11/2015 -- Computers? Out of control, in more ways than one. Adam rolls over (again and again and ...).

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

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.

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

03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.

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

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

01/19/2010 -- Let's give a toast to JAL! Anyway, how do we get a new look at Adam Smith? We'll use US history. In particular, we're going to go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony and look at a few economic realities. We'll focus on several people, such as families of settlers, blowhards (like John White), and others, at first. Then, we'll expand it to other developments that were congruent in time. Note please, these things pre-date our friend Adam. ... Why do this? To honor Adam, for one. Also, Naisbitt, the futurist, is at it, again. His comparison of China with the U.S. two hundred years ago motivated me to look at his example's basis. Well, then we have to go back further than that (old planters). And, we expect to see that his paralleling example is not as well-founded as he may think. This look will be Economic History and Philosophy rolled into one.

Modified: 01/08/2019

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

The uber-Nerd

Moral: Wherein we take a new look at Ben, our main nerd, who is not into the cult of personality as was his partying predecessor.

---

Yes, this comes from the Time Person of the Year article which does paint him in a better light than many might suppose. To wit, he wears off-the-shelf suits, doesn't party like King Alan, says that he is outraged by the 'fat cats' benefiting from his largese (sheesh, Ben, show some understanding of moral harzardness and jawbone about it, at least), owns a small Ford, and more.

Yet, Ben has to know that he is clumped into the elite set by his position and to realize that this position has questionable necessity. Why? As we've seen this past year, it's mainly casino capitalism that has benefited from his actions, though Ben says that he feels for main street.

How about this? Let's stop the financial games and then restart with monks/nuns (yes, those who have taken the vow of poverty) keeping the playing field level. Think that is idiotic? Well, according to how the Time describes Ben, he's close to that anyway, except the longer he has the trappings of power, the less like the ideal personality he'll become.

By the way, Congress is not without fault. Let's impose term limits there and get away from the professional politician (see Zen Koan for the day). Errors by the common citizen are much less burdensome than what those in power currently impose on the folks.

So, where did Ben go wrong beside apologizing to Milton Friedman? Well, he is, at least in part, a son of Samuelson. That is, given his time of academic introduction, he could not but be influenced. Mind you, this is no criticism of Paul Anthony. His work predated the mess that computation has wroth.

And, we've only seen the beginnings.

Back to Ben. He ought not have gone below 1.0 in his slamming of the savers. Granted he showed creativity, but going off willy-nilly (oh, theoretics, without a proper hypothetical and test framework - sorry, folks, that sham of a stress test was pure spin, do you not think?) with instruments that are piled on a heap (whose dimensions we do not know) of toxic assets laid on the populace by the best-and-brightest was throwing good money after bad.

Tsk, tsk, Ben. You know that those at the top, who you interact with more than the lowly, have essentially mortgaged us (yes, the US) to outsiders while 'hollowing out the country' (thanks, American Prospect) through financialization (ah, such a purty concept yet mostly flim-flam) and globalization (as we've said, another form of colonizing with a new form of colonialist).

Enuf, for now. But, congratulations, Ben.

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

12/30/2009 -- Tech Ticker responds to their mailbag, one of which says that Timmy et al bailed out and then talk tough.

In the Time article, we have this quote from Henry, "I shudder to think what the world would be like if Ben hadn't been running the Fed ..." (italics added) Yes, Henry, it was on your watch. But, no, we do not know and cannot now, due to the bailouts which confounded the issues beyond understanding. The article goes on "but there would be far more joblessness, foreclosures and hunger were it not for Ben Bernanke." (italics added) Oh, give me a break. Of course, this is journalism at its best, so what ought we to expect?

12/29/2009 -- In that same article, Timmy Geithner is quoted as saying that this was war. With whom, Timmy? Only your friends, the best-and-brightest who had to be bailed out. Then, they quote Henry as saying that Ben kept us from disaster. Well, Paulson, it was under your watch. Has anything really improved with the worldview of the brains in regard to economic fundamentals? Or, is it a reality that the gamers (casino capitalism) are now the drivers? They seem to have the politicians (those, by definition, who salivate when a buck is passed under their nose) in their pockets. The main fact: things froze because the players know their own ilk and did not trust their own kind. What the FED did was just reinforce the bad behavior and greed. We can really do better, folks, with a dedicated bunch who isn't in it to take your money.

Modified: 01/27/2012

Mastered by machines

Moral: Wherein we consider that the sirens related to the big chimera just might have the purpose of helping the interlopers to hide the fact that the shell-games are stacked more in their favor, via computation, than we would like to consider.

---

Sorry state of affairs, folks.

We need to thank the USA Today for this look at what has been put on us as a yoke by the best and brightest.

Pure idiocy. All this under the name of a 'market' driven economy. Give me a break (we need to reclaim the lessons from Adam).

Some of the real founders are rolling over in their graves.

Remarks:

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

01/13/2012 -- We'll be coherent and thorough as we discuss issues (out of control) related to this theme.

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.

02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

08/30/2010 -- The 'chimera' need some attention.

07/27/2010 -- The Boston Globe had an interesting op-ed, recently, about these types. Of course, there are several types of best and brightest, including the quants. We'll need to address this topic again using what we know of the new kings. Ah, such confidence when underdetermination reigns.

07/25/2010 -- Not run into the ground by machines so much as by the antics of those who use the distraction of complexity to cover their malfeasance'd purposes. You see, some always use advances in technology (and knowledge, in general) as a means to obtain gain. Just taking that tact is questionable ethically, but business has adopted the jungle metaphor (albeit, without real foundation for this choice). Hence, some justification for twisting new situations for means of gains probably can be found; Lord knows, too, that some adore those who have massive collections of wealth. Some of those who bought into the one known bad guy (ah, AIG was probably full of wrongful thinking if truth be known), namely Made-off, and his game did so because they were told that they were joining an exclusive and privileged group. The solution will rest on a better foundation that goes beyond gaming and money'd politicos.

07/21/2010 -- That we let systems run wild says a lot about us. That economics requires systems means that issues of control, truth, and related are of utmost interest to any attempt at founding a better basis. We'll get there, folks, by taming several speculative thrusts that were emboldened by theory, game and otherwise.

07/11/2010 -- Every which way that we look, are there not oops?

Modified: 03/16/2015

Greed vs simple living

Moral: Wherein we look at greed in a framework that ought to be familiar to Big Ben.

---

One question: Is greed mostly a New Testament concept? Well, there are some who use the Torah as the basis for discussing this human trait.

---

This could be considered Some Background II as we look how the smarties have packaged trash with the intent of selling it to us as being of value.

---

Why the question? I heard it said that 'greed' is largely running rampant, thereby causing havoc. I beg to differ, somewhat. Greed is always there.

So, what is different? Besides, of course, the idiocy that claims that 'greed is good' and the best and brightest are allowed to be greedy, without any limit.

---

Let's look at Kaku's opinion on the future. Or, we can discuss the opinions that he collected from talking to a bunch of scientists (see book).

By the way, he's the string theory guy. He makes some broad claims. And, he did this despite knowing how afar from the target have been almost all prognostications since the beginning of time.

---

However, Dr Michio does mention two trends. Now, remember that these are not new, in any sense, except for how we look at them.

There is the trend to peace and health (ergodic theory applies here). Then, there is that which is chaotic (which is behind the risk management mania as well as a new type of engineering).

Now, to use the Biblical thought, would that not be the angelic and demonic principles in their eternal conflict? Is it not nice that one convergence is toward worldviews that show how true are those old concepts?

---

One difference? As mentioned many times, mathematics and computation. And, remember that we have essentially dumbed ourselves down in order for these tools to work.

But, is not the zombie state of those entranced with the LED-lit (or other) screen not unlike some type of state of spiritual rapture? Except, we know how to quiesce this (remove the power from the device enabling the enrapture - yes, as in pull the plug).

----

By the way, Big Ben, all this is because of the season for both (of course, there are more than two) of the major worldviews that revolve around the Bible.

---

We're, today, in day three of the five gaming days. Every week, it continues. Winners and losers. Yes, people, where is the discussion of the basic truth of near zero? In fact, Big Ben's largess to the fat cats which is sacking/soaking the savers is one big example.

---

But, what can Big Ben do? I mentioned before that he's heavy into the equity index game. And, to think that he is expected to be independent in thinking. Anyone remember when he ran scared (yes, 2008/9 time frame) and loosened the book of our beans for the fat cats to feed on without any constraint (or, does anyone even care?).

---

Is it not remarkable that in 2011, we're still arguing age-old problems? Well, considering that each generation learns anew (and parents know the travails that can come from their kids -- examples abound -- some kids even exalting in trashing the past -- but, we did that as a country here (in a sense) in the revolutionary times (ah, how many atrocities could be attributed to the patriots), if we only knew?), what else can we do? Now, given the question, we'll now have to venture into these realms. You know? Big Ben does not have to care. Like King Alan, keeping those in power, and in the money, happy is sufficient for the guy.

Remarks:

07/22/2015 -- Some of these are, now, poster boys.

09/19/2013 -- All's not lost. Some accountants see a change that is problematic. But, first, savers are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent. Now, that was once considered a virtue; in fact, one could argue that it was expected for fiscal responsibility. However, some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things such, too, so the whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). Of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. But, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

02/12/2013 -- We ought to have nationalized these guys' playground.

10/11/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. Can we only resolve the grabby-ness problem with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude (you sign over your rights when you agree to the onerous nondisclosure rules) in many ways as it is now defined) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about? Why is finance about greed? Rhetorical, in part, but only because those with money have defined the game. We can show how smart/non-greedy peoples can run this show, no matter how complicated some might think that it is. And, it would demonstrate what 'markets' are meant to show.

09/20/2011 -- This will be used in our constructive effort.

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

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

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/21/2011 -- When 250K isn't enough? Flimflam & swindle.

04/19/2011 -- That systems thinking has led us awry is obvious. Answering why this is so is the task.

04/15/2011 -- Daily Ticker quotes the New Yorker on the wealth gap: the top 1% of Americans own 1/3rd of the country's wealth. That is, 99% share the remainder.

04/15/2011 -- The IEEE Spectrum has an article that talks game theory in an accessible manner. The example starts with the failure of Steve Jobs' demo of the new IPhone, last year, which was attributable to the many mobile hot-spots that were collected in the room. Essentially, selfish action is expected. We see this in finance where the best-and-brightest are allowed a favored spot at the trough with the result that they become fat cats. There will be a post soon on this. As these related blogs have argued for a concept which could be characterized as 'simple living' (which takes note of near zero) as that need to bring the dismal realm of the economy into a more humanly oriented state. Yes, indeed. The antithesis of the fat cat is what we need to run our markets and to care for our beans. And, those who grow to be huge giants ought not, in most ways, be honored or emulated. Lesson: for any of those who have accumulated hugely, how many bodies were left in their wake? Then, is there any amount of retribution that they could offer (yes, the philanthropist's dilemma - recompense) that would account for those who were thusly sacrificed.

04/14/2011 -- Golden sacks. Where to start on these people? 

04/14/2011 -- We ought to have nationalized the bunch. Cowtowing to them (thanks, little Timmy) reinforces their egotistical notions of their necessity and worth.

Modified 07/22/2015