2010 to 2013

Moral: Wherein we weigh in, rationally.

Federal Reserve Bulletin, September 2014 (Vol 100, No 4 - pdf) has some juicy tales to tell. We'll just look at one and give our explanation. This Fed report looks at results from the triennial Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF) and provides us with their interpretation.

Nice. In fact, one section mentions "saving" (which is not a foreign concept - have we, perhaps too much, stressed the maltreatment of those who save? Not!). See Box 4 which looks at "Saving Behavior" and shows what we would expect. The more one makes, the more one can save. The less one makes, the less the savings.

Moral-oid: The less one makes, the more important savings are; too, playing the ca-pital-sino with one's hard won savings is not rational at many levels of these levels of income.

---

There will be plenty to talk about in this report. First, though, let's remember that the 2010 SCF showed declines from 2007 for most. We will have to go back to look at that. And, we will relate what we see, to boot, to our start (August, 2009).

I pulled Table 2 out (see image) from the report. Now, some things strike me immediately (if it is not apparent, my interpretation will differ from that of the Fed Res -- and, my viewpoint is well-founded in both theory and practice and experience).

Please, look at the second grouping ("Age of head (years)"). Then, consider the age groupings. For one, "75 or more" represents the class of those who have been "flayed" by the policies of late. These are those who cannot use the ca-pital-sino, except in a limited sense, in a reasonable fashion (look, the majority of those in financial services/consulting - advisors? - need a lesson in "near zero" as part of their training). Many of this group who did try the ca-pital-sino lost and could not recover.

So, "75 or more" had losses from 2010 to 2013. Guess what? That is on top of what they had already lost from 2007 to 2010. If you look at the Fed's actions in supporting the fat cats, you ought to see that they need to understand the need for "stable" means to manage one's "wealth" (lots to talk about there, too). And, "stable" would cover much more than those age-sensitive strategies that we see touted so much.

But, notice, too, that the age groups of "45-54" and "55-64" also lost. An in-between group gained. Methinks that these are those who could delay their retirement (the inflated 401k types - virtual money, except many of these (early takers) will be able to get their little bit of gain - most will not).

---

Enough for now. The report is worth a read or two (see above link). I am thankful that the Fed does this type of analysis on a regular basis.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/06/2014

10/06/2014 -- Banks proved themselves untrustworthy in this last downturn. Of course, they were bailed out; but, many who felt the ramifications of their misdeeds (said to be stupidity therefore not illegal - but, immoral?) were never compensated. Consider please. With the troubles of the cloud, and bankers, like Chase, being hacked, are we not in a worse situation than 2007 (thereabouts)? There is still much to discuss about computability (and beliefs thereof).

The real basis for capitalism, I -- imperatives

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

---

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

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

----

The following list of future topics is not a complete.

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 12/13/2011

The ideological errors of capitalism 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

Where are we?

Moral: Wherein we weigh in with a reminder that the story of Main Street's lingering effects from having to change the diapers of the gamesters (yes, the ilk of Wall, etc.) still needs to be told.

So, one chapter closed with the meeting of the Fed. According to the WSJ headline: benefit of bond-buying experiment remains unclear as central bank's focus returns to interest rates.

The graphic of the Fed's balancing act is a nice touch as it splits out their holdings by type. Note the amount of mortgage-backed securities. Some of these were from the toxic era. What would closer analysis show? All sorts of economic positions are being argued now.

One fact is clear. Yellen is focal and expected to remain as such. After that, all things are fuzzy. But, let me make two comments here that are very much apropos.

• The downturn, if you remember, was caused by financial gaming, especially that of the financial engineering type. What has changed there? Banking froze as none of the players knew who they could trust. Has that changed (as in, with the spiked punch bowl, who of that crowd cared?)? Has the coddling quit entirely? No, of course, not. Savers are not part of the equation. In fact, it's the opposite. The thrust is to load people up with debt (ah, dire straits to be expected when the rates do arise - like the burden the US will face with its debt). For the poor, it's an abyss of no end. For the smarties? You see, they are still leveraging with cheap (Yellen's) money. The ca-pital-sino soars, however the reality of most not getting money from that is ignored. What that means is not related to those who chose to not be in the casino. That most are losers, by definition - can be explained, is hard to see when you get the Zucks (and others) rolling in the dough. At some point, perhaps, we can describe this a little better (where is that pivotal point?) such that those who are now lost in the mania (of the media) can see these things from a more reasonable stance. 

• Prior to the downturn, and to the present, the blogger has had a mortgage that was taken on only after the banker assured the borrower that they, the bankers, were not selling their mortgages. Now, the same banking company still handles the payments, and such. Except, the downturn time saw the banker (meaning the company, of course, with the head guy's face as the representative icon) buy into a high-flyer (who crashed). The banker thought that they were getting a deal (and were very much surprised). So, what that means is that the bought company is the new mortgage department. I'm watching to see how this impacts things, as I can get out at any time. Too, the banker has received oodles of interest payments during this time (hey, someone has to bear the brunt - and, we pay taxes, too -- will expound, ad infinitum, about this to those who might want to learn about the real economy - meaning sustainable). Yes, the mortgage was 30-year, fixed rate. No complaint, but for this. Has there been any thank you from the banker? Sheesh, no. The banker has been paying fines (related to their, supposed, wind-fall) and licking their wounds. Oh, what a tale to tell (will be told, along with the tale of being thrown out of a bank for having the gall to point out a process that was bordering on illegal -- the Fed's response? oh, banking customer, you sue them - we see the merit of your claim but do not care). ... On the other side of the coin, the Fed then pushed obligations (interest paid, rather than fat skimmed) of bankers for their customers to near zero (aside, when I talk near-zero, it has to do with the fact of the ca-pital-sino not being zero-sum (which, then, allows those pushing it to talk as if they're saintly), but it is close (when one does the proper accounting - as in, not buy into the spiked-punch-bowl-colored  world view). ... 

Stopping now. The tales, to be told, are not, as of yet, touched any more than barely. How many more points to cover? Well, consider this. The view? Economics trained, econometrics focused, computer modeled facilitated, essentially scientifically predisposed, intuitively oriented (as necessary), and more. ... The whole caboodle needs a look (is time infinite?). 

Remarks:  Modified: 10/30/2014

10/30/2014 -- Pause would have a great influence on our models. Now, how to do this? For one, let's get back to the sandbox necessity. 

Playing for what? Insight?

Moral: Wherein we consider this: why does the banker (read, the new type as market player - where is there a real banker?) have so much power (besides having a pot load of money to buy power -- remember Jamie's recent little chat with friends?)?

---

I feel like old Rip again, except this time it was more disbelief (which can be outlined, in time). The Washington Post had an article on members of Congress using information that comes their way, evidently because of their position, to play the market (characterization based upon this point of view). As we know, the chimera of the ca-pital-sino has a very strong appeal, to many.

Not to all, and that is the message to expand here. But, Congress has given itself this right to play for a long time.

---

The dissonance comes from having worked for the government and for ethical companies. To see certain types (albeit stars in their own minds -- and in some others) keep their options (pun intended) open without regard to how it may be ethically is disconcerting, to say the least. As the one review says, Congress has seen to it that the Executive branch employees have had their scrutiny. Why not itself?

---

Well, in this case, there is justification due to ca-pital-sino's appeal. As we know, capitalism has descended to gaming, essentially.

The esteemed members of the Legislative branch can then claim that they will learn (about the lives of their constituents?) from playing the market. That might be partly true, after all the gamers are part of their citizen set. But, it sure looks like the classic example of pigs (ruling set, as one comment suggested) at a trough.

---

Of course, it's not the whole bunch, as the numbers seem to be less than a third. Since this group, for the most part, is open to public scrutiny, it's time for questions to be asked. Thanks to the WP for looking into the matter.

According to the comments, the article struck a chord with many. OWS ought to pay attention.

Remarks:

06/26/2012 -- We have citizens risking life and limb for the freedom of the few to game the system? A lot of the awry (obvious everywhere) can be directly attributed abuse of knowledge (power) and misuse of our mathematical advancements (actually, pushing them beyond their basis) in order to gain rewards for the few (meanwhile, spreading the loss to the most). The concept: near zero (any accumulation to one large pocket pulls from many more smaller ones).

Modified: 06/26/2012

Aren't you jealous?

Moral: Wherein we get serious.

With the upswing, after a little downturn, of the markets, of late, one can easily think of those who are elated. On the other side, you have myriads, a much larger set (we will get to that), who are not rolling the dough. Such as? Think of President Clinton who said that he missed the rally (poor guy, perhaps, he was kidding (but, we can use him as an example of this larger set - albeit that he is not of the usual bent there) - we can go on at length, and will, at some point).

Of that set, too, are people without the 401K (or with one that stinks). In particular, the question came from one who was at a company that had a prime (we will go into that) plan but who sold out. So, the questioner was thrown into a second-rate situation after having experienced the world of the elated.

Oh, those elated (we will go on about them, too). His query came to me after I expounded upon near-zero, somewhat briefly. The thing is that the Christian belief system of the guy ought to consider some of the adages on not running after money or throwing away the soul for worldly pursuits or ... (again, we will go on about this - God help us).

Essentially, my response was no, I am not jealous. In fact, I would not want to be ca-pital-sino stuck (even on the winning side - karma, folks, for one). Too, there are better ways which I am in the process of defining. Anyone listening? The motivation is to have sustainable economics.

 Now, let's itemize some players.

• The game runners. They win, either side. But, as new money comes in (we will go on about this), there will be the bull side until they run out of suckers (again, can go on). On the downside, these people sweat as their easy (ill-begotten) gains are shown to be flim-flam (very much made-off in character). Too, they can lose, for many reasons. 
• Leveragers. They who would use debt to enhance their gains (see ill-begotten). My question is how can money flowing in be considered "gain" in the sense of income. Rather, it is money moving from one person to another without anything of value being in the situation. So, these types can lose big. 
• Those who talk bull are elated. Why not? However, with the proper deconstruction, their whole bit of hype is seen as what it is. 
• Which brings up Janet and her crowd. And, Ben. He started this bubble (we will go on about that, too). So much to say here. Like, it must be nice to see the "investor" community hang on one's every word. What if the Fed told these types to put money to solving "real" problems? 
• Those with good 401K plans or who are on the proper side of the ca-pital-sino, especially if they can sell when they think some max is set. But, then, things could fall fast too (as we have seen time and again) so that they lose more than they wanted.
• Those who like the cheshire multiple which takes a little input and throws out marvelous numbers (as if by magic) to which the talking heads can pay a lot of attention in their eternal drive for prime at being-in-your-face-ness.
• Those who can sell now and move to something more mature (yes, sandbox, please). At some point, we'll have the downturn that will remove "gains" faster than an eye blink. 
• They who bought late (poor souls). We have to define the model properly to show that the most will lose by the nature of things.  
• ... 

So, let's be real. Do I wonder sometimes if I am correct? Do I get little green-eyed states? Of course, I am human. However, it does not take the rationality long to put pins in that type of euphoria. At the same time, I get more bolstered in the arguments for near-zero (yes, it is game theoretic) and its reality (despite the win-win whiners - will go on about this).

---

There are a few more who could be numerated in this set of the elated (elites, mostly).

---

Again, no. I am not jealous. My interest is showing other ways that are more suitable for mature folks.

Remarks:  Modified: 03/22/2015

11/03/2014 -- American roles are still related to the dream.

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

03/22/2015 -- Jealous? No way, Jose. FED gives Wall Street what it wishes.

Ben and Timmy

Moral: Wherein we let someone else talk about Big Ben's and Little Timmy's culpability in raising the ca-pital-sino nature of the big chimera.

---

Ben and Timmy, two of a kind.

---

Seeking Alpha has a real good read on this. Note the use of 'narcissistic males' in the discussion as to things that drive toward the awry (oldest profession - see Remarks 08/03 & 05/2011 -- head butting -- somehow, this has morphed into what risk is all about - as in, that risk that gets the reward - the second oldest profession - yet, which is first? ).

---

Please note, this post is not an endorsement of the viewpoint (Quants) expressed at the 'seeking alpha' site. However, the post being referenced does say a lot that is right.

Remarks

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 


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

03/05/2012 -- In Timmy's own words.

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.

08/16/2011 -- Big Ben treasonous?

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

08/10/2011 -- Weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?

08/10/2011 -- Down 600+, then up 400+ (due to Big Ben's group having their meeting -- and continuing to poke it to the old folk), then down 400+. What is stupid here? People actually trying to find some rhyme and reason to this madness. Let's look at an example company that shows the results of the excesses of the past decade and that demonstrates how the consumer suffers.

08/09/2011 -- Historically stupid (sacking the savers through 2013 --- giving our money to the fat cats who 1) got us into the mess, 2) has sat on their bucks to the effect of keeping the economy dampened, 3) made easy money off of Ben's largess).

08/08/2011 -- Oh well, Little Timmy is staying. Anyone for a DOW of 8K?

Modified: 07/06/2012

Big Ben, again

Moral: Wherein we consider that Big Ben's role is part of the problem; so too says the Vienna School.

---

Big Ben bought trashy, toxic assets before. He's going to again open up a landfill?

Big Ben seems to be getting to the star-role that Alan had for a long time. That he continues to sack the savers shows that something is awry with the current model.

---

We looked at money before (Money 1, Money 2). Right now, it has a basis not unlike some

game. 'Whose to blame' would be a set of large cardinality, yet we need to look at this before the buck dies (year old, yet it applies).

There are better ways. We have to hope for such though a lot of ink has been spent trying to define the way. If there is a better way, can we get there from here? Who would bear the brunt of the pain? Ah, something to discuss there.

---

von Mises, who has a lot more to offer to the middle position than he allowed himself to think, weighed in on how to get sound money. The trouble is that 'gold' is only one of many possible foundational elements. Also, gold has age-old, cultural problems (in use a long time; its extraction and processing is problematic to those who expend the labor; its storage is costly; ...).

It is solid. Trying to base a monetary system on something that is gas would give us what we have now: FED-aerated nonsense. So, we need something of substance that is beyond the arbitrary decision by committee, nowadays bolstered by advances in mathematics and computation, as the basis for money.

---

What might that basis be? Is it not worth discussing? Perhaps, a start might be to itemize the attempts, to date. We mentioned one earlier, a heterodox approach based upon energy. Trouble is, this method relies heavily on that which is suspect, heavy use of abstraction (and its main problem) and an elite (would this be problematic to Ludwig followers?) set for guiding all of the others.

Remarks:

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. Ah, guy!

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

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

11/21/2010 -- Need to remember John and Friedrich.

11/12/2010 -- Poor Big Ben, the world is beating on his clueless self.

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

11/05/2010 -- Early on, Ben blinked. Some thought that he was out of ammo. Is he tearing apart the structure in order to have something to throw at the target (chimera that it is)? Gosh, Ben, consider infrastructural issues, please. It's a house of cards. Trying to get the whole thing to collapse (note: the former collapse was because those who game money know what creeps that they deal with -- they only have to look in the mirror -- and, knowing this, they threw in the towel -- meanwhile, expecting (and receiving) their bonuses)?

11/04/2010 -- Oops. Does Big Ben consider possible negative effects that may ensue from his real-time experimentation with the systematics of what can be called 'the economy' as he ought? Or, does he know that he can have us bail out the situation, per usual?

11/03/2010 -- Fed's big gamble.

11/03/2010 -- The cost of safely moving products? Was this considered or did the model assume an ideal, and unrealistic, situation? Making it at home will become more feasible when the true costs are considered. Now, the goal? Define an economic model based upon all considerations required. Pure profit motives, and extreme cost cutting, has always been suspect and led to the current mode of colonialistic thinking. Ah, those CEO kings do want their unlimited kingdom and unfathomable bankrolls.

11/02/2010 -- One has to wonder how things would be now if Obama had just nationalized the banks when he took office. Why? It would have afforded a chance to look at the books, closely. Too, everyone would have paused. Those getting oodles of bucks would have screamed louder than they did (remember, bonuses?). The public has a short memory; just two years back it was the order of the day to rake in via trashy finance and then get a big reward. Yet, now the etiology of that expectation by the best-and-brightest has been lost sight of.

A related topic is the current state of the out-house'd, colonialistic framework of capitalism. That is, cargo coming into this country is wide-open, it seems, to mis-use. Wait! Was this not cost'd by the market as these methods were pushed out everywhere? No? Sheesh, is capitalism to always be short-sighted like this? That is, the pain is pushed to the hapless; and, pocket picking is not the only pain, folks.

What does that mean? Well, if you cannot guarantee safe delivery from across half of the world without expending money for security (which would then raise price, lower profit), then would not local development and delivery look more appealing? To think, the 'free' market people would evidently just let things run without security (how would the Libertarian handle security for other than themselves?).

Modified: 03/23/2012

Gigantic sucking sounds

Moral: Wherein we consider the benefits of social business (not Zuck's realm), the chimera's loud calling, and more.
---

The subject? Back in the days when inter-border (USA and its southern neighbor) economic relations were being discussed in terms of allowing more flow (yes, are the benefits as good as we were told that they were going to be? -- massive influx of undocumented?, ...), some argued about things being sucked south (say, jobs).

Well, what we have now is this Wall Street thing (the Wall being used to represent, basically, market-oriented activities that are, many times, not necessary) which is growing quickly while sucking value from the pockets of the hapless, such as savers (and many others).

Why Yunus and the chimera in the introduction?

---

Well, it's not that Yunus is a saint, yet he knows more about what business is (ought to be) all about than do many from western cultures. Yet, it's those latter that we have to deal with in our western world. Alas.

Chimera? The large sucking machines are getting a lot of attention, more than their problematic basis (to wit, ca-pital-sino) suggests is reasonable. It's an arguable point, of course. But, how can Ben continue to trash the lives of so many folks?

---

Who are these folks that Ben has thrown off the train? Consider these two types, please:

• Profligate - works, but spends more than is made; the difference is handled by debt which increases with each stroke of the clock. At what point is the debt paid? As we've seen, many have had their debt forgiven and paid by banks (reimbursed the pockets of taxpayers). But, many more have not had their debt paid, and it is still there when they croak. Again, at that point, there may be creditors losing out, yet the person's estate suffers, too (nothing for the dependents and so forth). 
• The non-profligate - works, spends, but less than income; the difference goes into savings (either for a rainy day, for a major purchase, or for the later years -- all sorts of ways to characterize this). Yet, to what (where) does that extra money go? The mattress? Gold (even with this, where is it stored?)? Ben (thanks, guy) has fed (pun intended) the mechanisms that do the gigantic sucking. For what reason, I'm still puzzling. His publishing the talks from last year does not explain much (see my notes, please, Ben). 

Ca-pital-sino

Of these types, which is more important to an economy? Notice, please, they both spend. The former does so way out of proportion to what can be paid back. Is that something that we would want all to do? Who would pick up the tab, ultimately? 

The major problem is that Ben has closed off any access to means for the latter (the non-profligate, Ben - those whom you do not seem to know even exist) to put their savings that has any semblance of "gain" (as Ben, evidently, wants, mainly, the ill-begotten type). The thing that Ben wants is for all of us to play the casino (yes, why not add russian roulette, Ben?) that gets such attention every business day (media up the wazoo, all day). 

---

In terms of magnitude, Ben is into the pockets of savers for billions. How do we get a proper accounting of this (note the take on Jamie way before he got in a hot seat)? And, he says that he'll continue (or even up the ante) for years more.

Remarks:

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

05/22/2013 -- Need to look at the cosmology of business (Remarks this day).

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).

05/07/2013 -- So, those two categories (profligacy focus, motivated by the Biblical story) are a broad-brush look. Of course, there are all sorts of nuances which (by the way, I can handle; if anyone has any doubt, deal with me directly) need a look. [Aside: you see, the push to differential (stochastic) systems comes from the inherent complexity (which has been overdone, okay?).] Debt, in itself, is not bad, especially if it's tied with collateral (and I don't mean those fantasies behind some higher-order finance - sheesh - abstract'd synthetics). One can even think of leveraging (a natural state of affairs as we learned way back with the Greek mind) in a rational sense in the context of liquidity. Yet, there are two other concepts that are apropos: source and sink. Debt? It's more of the latter. Except, the way we saw the idiots use houses as ATMs (and all sorts of parallels exist here, folks - Hawker comes to mind - recent bankruptcy, etc. [I had an upclose look, closer than many, okay?]), debt does put money into the pockets of some. Government deficits do this, too. They extract from sources. What Adam was suggesting was that spirits are natural sources (actually, this whole area is where I can weigh in with a newer theory - in time). But, we don't have perpetual motion (look finance smarties, be a little more thermodynamic, please) anywhere (again, big M and T come into play here). The truth? We cannot have sustainability where we have more sinks than sources. Jamie? Your ilk are sinks, okay. You don't have to be, but this is how you have been allowed to evolve. Let's get theme memes back in order, folks. ... Later.

Modified: 03/15/2015

Social'd media

Moral: Wherein we sort of start a side thread that will eventually merge back in.

Ben is saying that banks are being too strict. Well, Ben, Bank of America can talk about the billions that it has spent bailing out mortgages. What was it? The average is about $150,000. You know, it's coming from BofA customers, like myself.

My hope is that, at least, this is considered income for the person by the IRS. Probably not, though (not that I'm going to see if it is or not).

---

There are other things going on. The D.O.W. has been going down. How about 6,000? Well, as long as Ben keeps up with his free money, where else ought people go but to the ca-pital-sino? Is that not what Ben wants?

Speaking of which, savers are still being bullied about. Ben, Ben, ... We savers have another couple of years yoked into your team? We are the ones who are paying the real price. You see, we didn't ask for the financial community to go crazy silly. Ah, they are necessary; and, their computational prowess is enviable. Hah! They're gamers and extract far more value than is reasonable. Let's talk about that.

---

We do celebrate the newer ways, such as we see with social media of which one is particularly interesting.

This a.m., I saw a story about the guys from whom Zuck took FB, or something like that. Well, they got millions of FB stock and are holding on. Then, the story mentions that they have enough to be VCers.

One investment mentioned was SumZero. Now, the story said that it was a social media sort, like FB (the thing, not the stock), and was for the financial crowd. That got my attention.

The name was either tongue-in-cheek or a Jungian. Or, it might just be the in-your-face truth as we see nowadays with the relaxing (or unlearning) of social graces.

You see, near-zero has been argued here, for a long while, as the reality. Hence, it takes more than the market to get away from zero sum. But, how ought we get to this type of thing?

Not an easy question to answer, but we'll continue to discuss the issues here.

---

An aside: Earlier this am, I saw a story, a link to which I put on FB (since deleted). about this site at a news feeder. My first reaction had a ca-pital-sino flavor. Yes, the reality is that finance is more near-zero than anything that will support what we all think that we want (win-win). We know many make loads of money without contributing much (ah, I know, liquidity and other ephemeral goods) to progress. In fact, as we saw the past few years, bail outs are the norm because of a perceived necessity (that illusion is becoming greater with time) of things being the way that they are. But, there are many who contribute, real and concrete benefits, and who never get much help and cannot look to push their losses out to the rest. These things relate to an ongoing issue that is not simple, hence this link. Allows me quick access to material the analysis of which will help to describe better ways. Hint: near-zero's imperative nature.

Remarks:

12/12/2012 -- Yesterday, I read where a homeowner was forgiven over $370,000 (yes, three-hundred and seventy thousand dollars) on his mortgage. I think that it was BofA who did it. Being a customer, I want to know whose money went to that which has been multiplied many times. Thank you, Ben and all of your ilk who have sacked the savers. Now, Ben is saying 2015 or so, again. There is one added thing about the case: the homeowner is an immigrant. Ah, welcome to the great US. And, I'm still wondering how people can walk away from debt like this and start over. Used to be the albatross was there. That is, get into debt; then, pay it off. Not push the cost off onto others.

Modified: 12/12/2012

Consequences vs scare tactics

Moral: Wherein we look at a situation's potential reflection on the ca-pital-sino nature of our economic playing field.

---

Toyota is having a problem that may revolve around drive by wire. Aviation has been doing 'fly by wire' for some time. But, those systems are scrutinized more than we see with the automobile.

Why is driving taken so slightly? Some concept of a right to drive (we know that is not true from the training manuals)? It's so easy: just gas, steer, brake?

As a regular pedestrian would tell us, the mechanical beasts roaming our streets are becoming more and more mindless since there seems to be a zombie behind the wheel. Too, the vehicle has taken more and more claim for rights of way. Actually, it may be that the pedestrian is deemed an unwanted intrusion, not unlike a bug on the windshield, on some idyllic mindset that is behind the bliss of texting.

Perhaps Toyota will lead the way in the discussions that are needed. We put people behind the wheel, with some type of perceived constitutional right in mind, that they are the king of the road. Oh, perhaps the auto allows the normal person to experience the CEO's state of privilege.

So, what does this have to do with the ca-pital-sino? Well, the apparatus that we've developed for the market is not unlike a vehicle. What type is it? Ah, we could use several types in a description. Buffett has already used WMD (if you need to know, think Iraq) for portions.

Some may be a little putter upon which we've piled a bunch of fat cats. No wonder it's sputtering.

Whatever the type, it can roll (ought we use careen?) along at a high rate of speed without any control. Oh, yes, Big Ben has his little knobs. Are they effective, big guy?

We need to stop the thing and put governors on it along with a bunch of improved sensors and feedback systems. Oh, what we see now with all the tubes and charts and talking heads isn't doing the job?

Those seem to be mainly for glorification, like a NASCAR ad. How much is not under scrutiny? Can anyone tell us a reasonable number for 'value' at any point?

Just like we expect that an auto will use established roads, and follow rules, we need the same for any economic system. That the capitalism, of Adam, has morphed to a maniacal ideology is indicative that we've screwed up somewhere.

How to get back to a better basis is the question.

---

Now, on scare tactics. The markets are down today. We find ourselves confounded, since both Big Ben and the Pres spoke.

The talking voice, quoting Timmy, on the tube today said, without the bailout, the unemployment would be 25%. Ah, is that so, governor? It's 17% now anyway.

The above use of the drive by wire as a metaphor for the problems that we face with fat cats, and the financial system, is tighter than we would probably allow ourselves to see.

Yet, consequences usually fall to the small guy, such as the cannon fodder of years of old. T'aint necessary.

---

The NYTimes reviews a funny book about the financial crisis. I.O.U.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

02/08/2010 -- More expert opinion.

02/05/2010 -- Nader's opinion. Also, software and cars. And, what's the quality control? Note this from an expert's look,

02/01/2010 -- Experts on these types of things.

01/29/2010 -- Defense of Toyota.

01/29/2010 -- As said before, there is no reason to knock only Toyota in these regards (look at the long recall lists over the years - Toyota hasn't been there regularly - as well, perhaps Toyota can lead the industry in continual improvement - to more than just the bottom line and the fat cats' pockets). The dbw discussion could just broaden to cover the fact that systems are more complicated and electrically boosted. Note today's Honda recall. There is no need to go through the long list of recalls except, perhaps, to categorize and count. The basis for continuing problem will be embedded logic as its prevalence can only increase due to technology. Who knows what we'll see with the hybrids and electric cares. That's the way it goes, folks, when we deal with our artificial servants.

And, using these little quirks of designed projects as an analogy for the large scope of economics is not far off base. All the gaming that we see financially has been computationally derived from mindsets that are both morally and ethically disadvantaged. Oh, these folks are brilliant and our best and brightest? Give us a break!

01/29/2010 -- Ben was confirmed today for his second term. Perhaps, now that he's not following another, doesn't have to worry about the next time (not for a few years), is independent, and continues to want to do a good job, perhaps he'll raise the rates and listen to the little people, even though the Fed Reserve was set up for the bankers (fat cats, by definition?). This is your chance to set history straight, Ben.

We'll start a new series, soon, that will look at the Fed, its place in history, bankers (can we ever get away from them?), the current situation, how we got here (thanks, Ben, for sleeping), how Ben woke up and panicked early, and much more. Thanks, Congress, we have several years to do this analysis. Looking forward to it.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Big Ben redux

Moral: Wherein we consider that our use of Big Ben (does have some appeal: sits proudly in the skyline, wakes up now and then and bongs, towers over its architectural mates, etc.) might be too casual since it is used in reference to someone whose chief role is to keep our beans safe, provide stability, and keep bankers in control.

---

So, after a congratulatory nod, let's look to the future.

We may begin, shortly, with another moniker for Mr Bernanke who has an important role to play (actually several roles). Poor guy, as his task may be impossible, from the getgo, due to issues of fiat currency.

Let us ask? From whence comes Ben's wisdom? To what direction does he turn for guidance? Theory? These are important questions as he deals with an entity that is inherently dismal.

Ben was confirmed yesterday for his second term. Perhaps, now that he's not following another (Lord Alan), doesn't have to worry about the next time (not for a few years), is independent, and continues to want to do a good job, he'll raise the rates and listen to the little people.

Even though the Fed Reserve was set up for the bankers (fat cats, by definition?), this might be a chance for Ben to set history straight.

We are starting a new series, soon, that will look at the Fed, its place in history, bankers (can we ever get away from them?), the current situation, how we got here. We'll look at the Fed's actions over the past few years, and much more.

Thanks to Congress, we can use Ben's newly obtained position, again he did it on his own, for an analysis that is essential.

At DAVOS, it is said that sustainability is a key idea.

• How about some attention to 'sustainability' notions for finance (meaning, keeping our beans safe)? Seems to me that the mental gymnastics needed for a 'greenish' view can lead quite readily to dropping the 'ergodic' myth behind the efficient market mania that perpetrated the current messes (ca-pital-sino, indeed). We always have real problems to resolve, yet we've allowed a couple of generations of the best-and-brightest to essentially run us off the cliff through 'un-managed' gaming.

We'll look at asset classes thoroughly, in a new light. We agree with Volcker's assertion that banking needs to be split into the utility (piggy bank) and investment (sandbox). But, we disagree with the view that risk being rewarded is the prime concern for Ben and any of us dealing with beans, not without some qualification.

Would you have wanted your mother to risk your butt (unnecessarily) when she was carrying you? Oh, that doesn't apply? We'll go into this thoroughly (philosophy of economics).

We can apply insights from Minsky (Oops and truth) and, perhaps, quantify a spectrum that is usable. In this regard Ben needs to educate himself on the need for savers to know that they will have when they need it. That is, 'risk adverse' is not stupid; the analog here is innumeracy which, again, supposedly is stupid (well, we intend to show otherwise: the numerants have muddied the waters and pilfered the till).

Okay, savers got sacked by Big Ben, continue to get sacked, and are considered unessential. That is a basic economic error, folks. We'll show this. As, risk can be managed only so far, then it needs to be avoided; so, gaming has to be cordoned off into its own sandbox. What will this look like?

My hope is that Ben's re-up vote will motivate him to lead a re-educating process in regard to things economic. Actually, jawboning about these issues is one of his roles.

Remarks:

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.

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

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

05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy. Thanks, big guy.

03/20/2010 -- Big Ben says that bailing out the big banks was (or is it is?) 'unconscionable' yet was this not what he did?

02/01/2010 -- NYTimes reports that AIG's shell game wasn't on the fringe. Ben said no. Wake up, big guy. Please do your second term with your eyes open to keep them stupid capitalists in line.

Modified: 03/23/2012

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

Trying times

Moral: Wherein we see the world for what it is. 

So, we are back to management by the seat-of-the-pants, again. That is, from the point of view of economics. On the last downturn, Ben was very creative, leaving us things unreckoned with still with his QE and like.

However, this time, we have a real emergency on hand. The medical part of the economy is being expected to pick up the pieces. That is, almost work miracles with limited resources. They and other essential workers are free to go to work. And, we know, that's not any type of vacation.

While the rest of us cool our heels. I have been busy. We are at the 1st day of the 5th week where I am with no known date for when we might be free. But, even that freedom will have new costs associated with it. The huge one is that testing is only of the time. Walk out the door, and one might get exposed, again.

So, these are a few thoughts to be discussed, further.

• What portends this for that loosey-goosey life associated with globalization? Well, we have mentioned the obvious diminishing of quality (yes, a litany here in this blog a few places). That was seen long ago. They were cutting supply chains, too closely. And, a number of others things were wrong. So, we'll go back over the last ten years and review. 
• Oh yes, this time, it's different. Well, perhaps not. As, those last two downturns were related to various types of mischief. This is, too, in the sense of being obtuse to the max. So much to discuss with this topic. 
• One of them? The internet. Some one noted that the drop of that dream of free modes might have been a good thing given the turmoils associated with the huge demands now being seen. Oh yes, a new world, that's for sure. Again, we noted that we need structure on the internet. Lots to discuss. That discourse will be both technical and from the proper overview. 
• ... 

Savers are still being flayed. The Fed guy saw to that. For what? The ca-pital-sino can continue to fill pockets of the rich while the hapless suffer and distract us from the real work? As well, We are spending money, supposedly backed by debt. Gosh. Forever debt? Who is going to pay for all of this largess going on? Besides, before now, students were up to their necks in debt, businesses were playing fancy and free with taking on debt, the ca-pital-sino was saying, our bank is open, suckers, come in and use your debt to play silly games. Need I go on?

Remarks: Modified: 10/27/2020

10/27/2020 -- Trying to recover our moral.