Beyond your wildest dreams

Moral: Wherein we look at the simple example which shows motivations for machinations and do a few permutations which lead to insights about things which need to be more commonly known.

What do we see? Look below. But, you will see why we used the title for the post. Not only is the multiplier magical, it's the work of leprechauns (definitely, pot-o-gold'ísh, so to speak).

We step through 4 cases, here. The following does a little describing of the change and the results.

Cheshire meanderings

1. This is the simple example, as it goes through t=4 (formerly, t=3; we started at one this time and went one step further). There are only 20 stock with 2 being sold each time. The mcap (formerly, basis) accumulates. The "Cheshire" is the percentage increase that the lift (formerly, bulge) is over the mcap (dlt mcap - formerly, increment). Note, please, that Cheshire is in the hundreds. The lift% shows the percent that the lift is of the growing total. 
2. Same case and prices, but with a large increase of the number of stock (to 100,000) and in the number of stock sold. Too, a little variability of #sold is introduced. Note, the "Cheshire" is still tame, comparatively. 
3. So, let's keep decrease the number of stock to 100. And, starting with a price of 5, increase by 5, then increase by a fraction. Too, vary the number sold. Notice that the ""Cheshire" is still tame. This is still a very small example in number of stock (see below). 
4. Now, blow up the number of stock and stock sold. Too, we'll keep the price reasonable, in the range of one actual case that we watched closely from IPO (interested observers - say, anthropologists, not investors). Notice the wild "Cheshire" ratings. Too, you get that even with the lift being a small percentage of the total. What? Ripe cherries for picking?    

Reminder: See last's post example of the dark pool motivation. By the way, we have a whole slew of permutations on that theme which make the case stronger. 

Note: The lift accumulates (along with the mcap) and is not adjusted (this is a future post). Why? To continue with the extreme case upon which we will put the proper modeling of the natural dampers, etc. We will want to compare this extreme case with various dampening techniques (for Janet's crowd -- you see, the markets and their whole bailiwick - capitalistic arguments - are from olden times (way back); the computer came and was basically exploited by the greedy ones; it is time to rectify this through all sorts of improvements --- look, that computational power now being spent on gaming the system ought to be put to use in providing better accounting (regrouping) and auditing schemes (of course, truth engineering, see below) -- do you not think?). 

We saw, recently, a reminder that Warren (you all know who he is) has one rule of thumb, namely the ratio of the market cap to GNP, that applies here (there are many more of his rules to consider - but, Warren, you waffled on derivatives - we would like to know why? -- BTW, derivatives, and their ilk, play the lift - there is a whole lot of room for maneuvering). This ratio has been tracked historically. Too, we will have to be cognizant of the ratio of outstanding and actively traded. 

We will use several examples, like BAC (customer of their's - the original one of SF (not the interloper) - since the 60s), to wit: 63m of 10b traded (that's like 4% - wait, almost like the ratio we see with the voting populace?). 

BAC on a recent day

Also, in the spirit of openness, let's say that our thrust is to argue "lift" (formerly, bulge) and related themes (with a computational basis) as a necessary means to recognize the mania'd state (under the auspices of Truth Engineering where we first awoke, as old Rip - six years ago, imagine that, and saw the havoc wrecked by the baby boomers - ah, guys and dolls). 

Note: With all of that lift'ing going on, no wonder the eyes of the guys like those at golden sacks bug out (the mere thought gets the salivation activated -- reminder - you will see that we have argued that the financial pipes would be handled by plumbers, et al, as those of the greedy ilk are not required - needed for liquidity? give us a break). 

Remarks:  Modified: 10/06/2015

03/17/2015 -- Changed terminology to reflect that used commonly: basis to mcap, bulge to lift. For each of these, we have a delta. Then, mcap accumulates each step; this change will help facilitate the analysis needed for the adjustments which will reflect the true mcap (coming). In this extreme case, the mcap is understated as lift has not been adjusted as it ought (we have two lifts: the mcap itself and that which comes along for the ride - see the simple example of the rise of two stocks "lift"ing the value of eighteen others).

03/18/2015 -- Today was a good example of lift. Take the DOW. It hovered in the upper 17k region, until Janet spoke. Then, there was a swing of 400 upward. You know, on the downside, there are stoppers which keep things from going as they ought. Earlier, I would have said that coo-coo (goo-goo, whatever) was talked to the addicts. But, now, I want to be technical, in a normative sense.

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

03/23/2015 -- Pew Research's reports will be useful: Only upper-income families have made wealth gains in recent decades. In some of the responses to comments, one author expresses disbelief in the Fed's influence. Well, we can work on helping clarify that (by more than griping about the addicts). Our research deals, in part, with how many simple folk get to experience, and enjoy, the book-based wealth that their financial reports offer them. That is, that which is beyond Social Security (but, being sensitive to take-backs as we see, recently, happening with retirees being informed that their pension is being cut). From my experience, it is a small percentage (comparatively). The one fact of the upper crust? They have more protection which we can enumerate and illustrate.

06/01/2015 -- Dampening the magical multiplier.

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

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

10/06/2015 -- While Yellen sits and keeps from giving savers a few cents (sheesh), the street (and not Main) pulls in 11+ billion in 1/2 of a year.

Cheshire multiple

Moral: Wherein we re-look at a very old issue: only a few get it (many senses, but the dough, as in payout of note) - the most? losers (almost by definition).

A long while ago, I read Marilyn's and Investopedia's explanation of what happens when markets fall like they do (and will). Where did all of that money go? It just vanished, the presses reported. That question was back in 2009, when Ben was still feeling his way through the mess.

I railed then, and have since, about the "stupid" gaming (see chimera). Why is it stupid? Well, about now, when things have inflated (you see, Janet, look at how the financial assets have inflation - sheesh, also we have some costs of our living rising - her little chart is way off base), moms and pops are buying into the game. They are guaranteed losers (the late buyers). Then, we hear that people are borrowing to buy stock.

So, we have to revisit this again. An alternative? Yes, more stable approaches do exist.

One motivation for the revisit is looking at Dalio's take. He shows financial assets in his little model as something that money (and credit) can buy. And, he shows how financial assets can diminish in value. Also, leveraging came up in the video. But. the whole issue of why we have done it this way is ignored. You see, the game, as is, seems to provide a perpetual machine (which we know does not exist) that "feeds the multitude" but actually pays into the pockets of a few (most of them the game owners and controllers). Too, we have led other societies and countries into the same silliness.

---

Now, the title of the post comes from Marilyn's remark. What I have done is put the two responses side by side (Marilyn at Parade, Investopedia staff). Let's look at them and comment below.

You see, Marilyn says that the money disappears. Too, she says that only "a small percentage" can sell to get what they expect (my words, but not arguable except for angel counting). Yet, we have people putting their life's savings, and their retirement plans, upon such a stupid (there I go, again, and I would ask Marilyn, do you think this is how it ought to be?) system. Investopedia says "disappeared into thin air" without an adequate explanation. Yes, financial community, explain yourself, please?

Those who are takers always gloat (ala the 99% and such {explanation 02/18/15 - 99%? yes, as in, those of the 1% who are sitting over the rest - as in, over the 99% in the graphed density function}). Those not taking (but, being took) are multitude, who are mostly enslaved to care for, etc. the gloaters (those who are slowly enmeshing/entrapping reality and us, insidiously - we, the users, need our modernization of the Magna Charta - we'll get back to that).

Anyone care about sustainability into the future? Anyone care that we have indebted future generations?

---

All I can see is that these financial schemes expect an endless line of suckers. The past year or so has given us, once again, bubbles upon bubbles. Some, like the mortgage expert - what's his name? - who said the word but didn't go further. Janet seems to not notice, given her lessons from Alan and Ben.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/01/2015

03/07/2014 -- Not arguing that equity ownership is not necessary. Rather, it is the financial market's current state of evolution (madness, really) that is suspect; especially, the use of algorithms to game the system has no basis beyond merely mercenary motivations (resulting in useless churn accompanied by endless pilfering). ... One thing to notice is that these financial dealings have little to do with the operation of a business. And, as we will show, the modern configuration of these is very much like a casino (general adoption of gaming as the basis for ontology -- sheesh, I agree with my friend, Albert, on this - we'll get to that , too). ... We intend to get back to cosmology. And, the Wilshire 5000 looks like a better Index to use for our purposes. So, we will use it.   

10/16/2014 -- After a very lllooooonnnggggg upswing, we have seen six days of downward-ness. And, the falls are quick. Cheshire multiple goes both ways. But, we see, now, the coo-cooing of the Fed. Too, golden sacks is being a front man for the panhandlers that are the financial types. My query is who is priming the pump on these bottoms which funds the upswing. You see, that pulls in the hapless who feel as if they have lost out and want in. In reality: lambs being led to the slaughter. And, by the way, there is a better way to handle the whole affair. Let the ca-pital-sino folks play in a sandbox.

10/30/2014 -- Where are we? For one, let's talk how most are losers, okay (due to idiotically applied multiples)? This can be ignored when their reality is pushed outside of common awareness. So, we have the top tier (0.001 or less) gaining under the present scheme (even with it being stopped, QE, that is, the latest of it). The other? Dire straits, indeed. Yet. the talking heads chase the DOW daily, as if it has meaning (ah, why this?).

02/16/2015 -- We are elevating the discussion: see Wikipedia's Efficient-market hypothesis.(see the Talk page section on Cheshire multiple). The framework will use Minsky's thought. However, the importance goes broader and deeper. We will have to start from the beginning. The computer's value will (ought to) be a proper financial analysis (an analog of the old back office work, daily) that every day tells us the real value (to be defined).

02/18/2015 -- Same as illusion of liquidity (see Mohamed El-Erian's recent comment). ... With spring break coming up, here is a comment at another blog that used that occasion for a metaphor: June 9, 2014.

06/01/2015 -- A little late: Magical multiplier, Let them eat cake, Beyond your wildest dream.

Tide that floats us

Moral: Wherein we look for motivations for dark pools (ah, invisible hand, indeed) and other charades. Oh yes, "motivations" means more than just rooking the system.

Essentially, we want to show that the markets are not fair and why this is so. Now, don't go on about life not being fair. This is different; it's basically an issue of the higher class (because they can and are given the right) running a sham under several auspices. You would think that the U.S. would take the high road and show the world how markets ought to be done. We cannot get there until the real story is known and told.

Too, we are talking from a normative position not unlike that of the U.S. Constitution writers. Let us start real simple and go over the ground work. 

As one watches the markets (yesterday - decline; day before - up then down) gyrate, there are lots of things to ponder and questions to ask. Sometimes, it looks as if something is trying to prime the pump (seeding the chimera, if you would). Say what? Yes, something buys in order to get things up; this would be an attempt to lure in suckers (we'll go into this further).

---

So, to a basic view of how we get the Cheshire multiple whose reversal throws so many into the quagmire of losing it all. Built on top of this faulty frame are the management strategies and gaming activities that spawn our chimera.

Essence of the Cheshire multiple

The graphic relates to a scenario that is quite common. The approach is fairly simplified but does cover the essential points. The context is equity, for now, however it applies to all markets in some way or other. Yes, as capitalists like to argue, markets are the key/core item for their economy.

You know what? We have never seen such. Rather, playing around, as shown in the graphic, is the reality.

So, we have four states read as normally with English. We start with the upper left which is the starting state. Then, we have three events. Each one of these is some transaction or collection of such.

Let's look at a few details for each of these states. We are assuming that there are 10 stocks; the number of buyers is not important (assume that the number is more than five, though - we'll get to the block dealers soon - as in, one or two buyers, 10 stock).

• 1 - pre-IPO. I used this term since we see IPOs regularly. Someone floats stock whose value has been determined by various means. Either the stock goes beyond the initial price (how this price is determined is ignored here, for now) or falls. In the first case, we have "winners" which everyone loves. 
• 2 - All sold. So, we'll assume that the 10 stock got sold for $5 (I'm putting the dollar sign to denote some type of value). We then have a total value of $50, and everyone is happy (if the original price was $4 or lower - keep this in mind as it'll come up in a later post). 
• 3 - One sold at an increase. Now, everyone is happy as their stock is worth $2.5 more without them doing anything (this is how the Mr. Wonderful's of the world like to dream of making money while they sleep - and actually do). The total value now is $75. Only $2.5 was introduced. How did we get the additional $22.5? Ah, that is the crux (multiply this by billions across the board, and the gist of the problem shows up - those running the game do not want this known - raking off the top is their bailiwick). 
• 4 - Two sold at an increase. Now, everyone is exhibiting (ir)rational exhuberance. The total value is now up to $100. Yet, we have only seen another $5 introduced. Adding that to the last event's amount, and we have $7.5 introduced. Yet, the overall value has doubled (for those who did not sell). 

Now, of course, when anyone sells out after this point, their gain (considering tax, for instance) will be based upon what they paid when they bought.

To summarize:

• Holdings: 7 at $5, 1 at $7.5, 2 at $10
• Gains, if sold at $10: $35 (7), $2.5 (1), $0 (2).
  

The example does not have a sell example. Too, whole lots of attention goes into this market paradigm daily. Some of the talking heads are trying to be helpful; others seem to be mainly self-serving.

But, looking from a distance, that the game is rigged is obvious. The last author who tried to show this caught a lot of grief. Adam Smith is rolling over in his grave at the thought of what is done under his name.

---

Finally, one ought not criticize without having something constructive to offer. Do I? You ought to know better than ask. The problem is that we have this to contend with: centuries of practice (not as many as you might think), vested interests to ferret out (they have been at the teat for a long while), convoluted contrivances to counter (theoretics, mathematics, and computing), talking heads densely everywhere muddying the waters (ever think about the amount of money that goes into tracking and telling us about this crooked game?), and more. Hence, we [will] begin with the foundational start which has actually been going on since the beginning of the blog and before.

Remarks:  Modified: 11/11/2018

01/15/2015 -- It is nice to see, today, that the most-read post this week are from years ago. Yes. In particular, the following are in order by read count: Systemic risk (Aug 2009), Why not? (Aug 2009), Von Mises and friends ( Sep 2010), Economic sandbox (Sep 2009), Bean and accounting, thereof (Aug 2009), Value, faired or earned (Sep 2009).

01/16/2015 -- Simple start, but at the core are issues of quasi-empiricism and more. Our approach will stress a re-look at normative mathematics (yes, all connotations apply) in order to regain what we lost with the thrust (modernism et al) which had led us to the state of data-driven purgatory and other ailments (which we have imposed upon ourselves).

03/05/2015 -- First, we had El-Erian saying that people's hope of liquidity had no basis. Now, Cuban is saying the same thing. ... What I was starting here was an explanation. You see, the cheshire multiple provides the supposed equity (illusory in many senses). Then, the dark pool (and similar) activities by those who run the game siphon off the real value (skim the cream). What is left is residue (yes, mere fractions of what was put in - by those who are the guaranteed losers). ... I will start over and make the fictional part more prevalent. ..., Too, the graphic will be more extreme so as to let the message come out (after all, we can use the "thought" experiment approach in order to lay out the framework with which to take the analysis further - for many, it is just incredulity that strikes - how can such crap be? well, it's due to the intellectual/mathematical/computational cloaks that are put out - and, it's pure crap, people). ...

03/14/2015 -- We are talking market capitalization and how modern means allow this to be concept to be mis-used. We are reworking the example to be more extreme. For now, why is not market cap based upon a more sophisticated notion (rather than being a gross estimate)?

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

03/17/2015 -- Dogs of the Dow: Market Cap table, Most active. Beyond the wildest dream.

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

HFT and other riggings

Moral: Are the markets rigged? Let's stop and re-look at high-frequency trading (list of posts that used the term).

First of all, think of the Cheshire Multiple which guarantees that early sellers get the pie (the rest get crumbs). Yet, we have based peoples' future on this. These HFT types get gains on both sides. We will explain.

However, when the HFT types pulls their gains, it has a real impact on the size of the pie and the potential crumbs. In short, think leeches and parasites rather than anything positive.

So, are they necessary for liquidity? We'll get to that, too.

Below are pointers to additional material, for now. We will get back to our arguments about silly games and fiction in regard to things financial.

• WSJ Book Review: Flash Boys 
• WSJ Five things to know 
• ...
• Edgar Perez argues for HFT 
• ... 

---

The image is from the first bullet, the book review by Philip Delves Broughton. These are the last two paragraphs. Granted Mr. Lewis loudly shouts out about a lot of stuff. However, he does have some merit in the current situation.

I have ranted about quants and HFTs since the beginning of this blog. Being an outsider, though, I'm only applying a smell test based upon years of mathematical computational experience, degrees in Economics, long years in the American economy, and a basis in grappling with foundational issues.

My early take on quants was that they were youngsters let loose by old guys with money for the sole purpose of filling pockets (taking from the hapless). That notion has not changed.

The argument for liquidity and efficiency are bogus. The near zero (search in this blog) notion is the proper argument. Those who dance with the money angels not only accumulate bad karma for the rest of us via systemic risk, they enjoy a "mirage " (yes, Mr. Broughton) of gains that are not real (upon the backs of others).

You see, to be truthful to ourselves, any high-order computational system would be redundantly viewed (yes, even those offered by the webbers), verified often, kept within reasonable bounds (and a lot more). Why? Sustainability, in short. Human dignity, for the longer view.

Let me propose to the HFT people that I, and others, could help them define these bound. The fact that these people think their type of front-running is legal indicates serious moral failings. Did we just hear that bankers want to get moral?

To be brief, as we have been at this several years now and it's nice to see something like Mr. Lewis' view crop up, HFT is a symptom of a serious disease. That computers allowed this (were the enabling factor) ought to give us pause.

PhDs? Yes, more likely, moral cretins. Actually, they do not have much grasp on how we have progressed.

You see, the natural sciences can run off a little further and faster since Nature will knock them down. Take a physicist into the realm of the dismal science and watch out. That reaction was predictable. I could smell it back in 2007 when I woke up to the fact that the financial types had taken the perdition-laden path. With finance and economics, we have harder problems. That some want to fill their pockets at the expense of others (ah yes, out-housing to exploit) needs attention.

I said it before. The markets ought to be run by a different order of people: those who do not salivate at the sight of a buck (dollar, if you must ask).

Remarks:  Modified: 04/14/2014

04/14/2014 -- Several quandaries lay about, for one, the "cheshire multiple" ought to give pause, especially for those looking through the fancy glass at future takings. With a crooked game, we know where the real value goes through a leeching effect. But, what of thinking of "tainted" (or did we forget the toxic assets of a short while ago?)? Yes, what are called earnings (gains) in  many cases, with the equity gaming, is really dirty money? Clean money? Oxymoron? Not really, as a sustainable economy would about with such. To be discussed.

04/14/2014 -- Steven Pearlstein of Washington Post weighs in.

Illusion of liquidity

Moral: Wherein we let ourselves use some of the jargon though we wish to appeal to the general intelligence of those who are affected (namely, all good people).

El-Erian talks the illusion of liquidity. Is that not of the same issues as addressed by the Cheshire multiple?

Context: market liquidity, efficient-market hypothesis, and a lot more.

Related topics: Dark pools (allows manipulative trades in order to circumvent effects), HFT (adds to the illusion), ...

The plot will thicken as we go along. 

Remarks:  Modified: 03/15/2015

02/18/2015 -- The term "Cheshire multiple" was coined by Marilyn vos Savant during the last downturn  (time frame was 2009). 

03/05/2015 -- Cuban talking lack of liquidity (2000 like). See Remarks 03/05/2015.

03/09/2015 -- Cuban also brings in another dimension related to web/cloud efforts at funding. This, of course, can take money away from the traditional markets which have evolved to be giant siphons of value (we'll get back to this). Actually, a luddite recoil from computation ought not be considered as the theme here; on the contrary, the view is the epitome of human/computing interchanges (spiritually found, at the basis - hence, no room for the greedy mindset that looks to exploit things in their favor - which type of behavior was nicely exhibited (is now manifested) by the Lords of the earth - many of whom are the best and brightest). Earlier, FB was said to be a metaphor (did not go into how it is so), but that conceptual framework is being applied here (to be explained, where necessary -- actually, the God-give intuition ought to (will) come to fore if it were to be given a chance -- G*d, of course, as other than delusion, ...).

03/10/2015 -- Today is a slump day (1% as of noon) which does not mean much, as each lower sale brings down the total level. On the upswing, it looks like magic to have "value" appear out of nowhere. On the downturn, it's like a bug being squashed under a car tire. Yesterday was a seeding day. These have been more prevalent than the other for the past few years with the FED supporting the manipulation, albeit indirectly, albeit through various means. Ever notice how the seeding takes longer to recoup from a loss? You see, real money is put in to create the lure (trolling the waters) so that the suckers fall into the trap and bring in their money. Then, as each little bit comes in, the whole thing rises (as, if only nature worked that way - fortunately, it does not, otherwise life would not be sustainable) due to the magical multiple. ---- Now, the question is: do we have a better way?

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

Dampening the magical multiple

Moral: Wherein we drop the first of several hints.

One step toward a more balanced financial situation would be the following:

Take some of the computer power that is being "wasted" on algorithm (and high frequency) trading and apply it to lowly bookkeeping (databasing). 

That is, each financial entity would be addressed and tracked, individually. That is, for the millions of stock for a company, we would track the sale history of each item (piece of paper). 

... 

Oh, that would lift the transaction details so that we could see a history of who bought and sold? 

... 

The goal would be to remove the cheshire multiple's gaming effect which started before automation. At that time, the current peanut-butter way was all that they could do. 

Since computation has come on the scene, it has basically been applied to serve the 1% (and less) in gaming the system rather than to do a proper accounting. The progression of increased assists by computing during the past thirty years can be related strongly to the emergence of troubles that are far more complicated than we saw in the earlier markets. 

...

Vested interests argue for their necessity (job security in the longer term) of their convoluted schemes (say, dark pools). Do we need those who are big takers (say, upper east siders)? Do they not see the riches acquired via gaming the markets as an entitlement specifically for them?)? 

---

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

---

What is the cheshire multiple? Magical multiplier, Let them eat cake, Beyond your wildest dream.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/22/2015

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

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

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

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

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

The Tetons weep

Moral: Wherein we stop to see the posturing in the western hills.

Say what? 2013 - Transitions, 2012 - After all of these years, 2011 - Financial piracy, 2010 Chimera II.

We are in the time of the annual pilgrimage, again. If only it were a pilgrimage. However, to whom would the oracles bow and pray (I know, it is the age of selfies, Lord, deliver us)?

It is really a meeting of the inflated heads who control money as if their bailiwick is central to any economy. Hence, posturing and preening before their peers.

Folks (of the money supply), we could easily barter, if we had to. Get over yourselves. Money? It cannot be eaten, nor breathed, or used for hygiene, ... Whence so much emphasis?

You see, gal and guys, your thing is more like plumbing. If only you could see that. Distribute the water and collect the waste. Okay? What? Yes, a utility ought to be how you consider your work.

We could use the heart and blood; but, the rapacious doings of finance (abetted by you people) keep us from using that (heart - wonderfulness, to the extreme. Okay? That could be applied to anything of the FED?).

---

William Gaston, in the WSJ, had some nice thoughts, which are below: 8/20/14 - Shared Prosperity Is a Moral Imperative. Perhaps, some day we could use moral in talking about the FED (will not hold my breath on this, though). To quote William:

In recent decades, the gap between the compensation of corporate leaders and that of their workers has increased many times over. The surge of the financial-services sector produced a new tranche of packagers, traders and managers who enjoy almost unimaginable wealth. Meanwhile, middle-class families have been treading water, and many parents fear that their children will do worse. (emphasis mine)

Nice, William. But, will the FED listen? 

Let me add one thing, for Janet. The current policy is pushing people to play the ca-pital-sino (not this old guy, talk to me about reasonable economics) where there are several problematic issues. For one, it's aerated (only a small percentage get their bucks - beyond those taking the cream daily - do you really need a lesson here?). Yes, the boat is floated with gaseous matter. And, most people are heavier than can be sustained (except on paper). For another, William says "treading" (as if they have the energy to do so). The real fact is that most are trying to not succumb to the flaying that has been going on for so long (thanks Ben). 

Methinks that these people would love to be like Isabella and Mortimer, partying while poor Hugh was disembowelled (Note: the spectators had "delight and merriment" at his expense.).  

Remarks:  Modified: 08/26/2014

08/22/2014 -- Flaying the savers will not solve the "What recovery?" problem. Finance caused the problem; it got bailed out; the current mode just reinforces "moral" turpitude (wait! is that the goal? screw everyone worse this time around?). Having the low rate is supposed to put people back to work? Ben, at least, mouthed the need for fiscal approaches. We ought to have had a jobs program a long time ago (opportunity missed; just like we missed out on nationalizing those institutions that created the problem - namely, banks).

08/26/2014 -- Gosh, Trish Regan (USA Today) has it right. However, even those (most of them) who think that they are gaining only think that. The cheshire multiple (plus insiders raking off the cream and other manipulations and ...) says otherwise. And, it does not have to be this way. ... Much to discuss.

Startling news?

Moral: Wherein we commiserate with Ben that he is not at the Fed desk as the results of his largess come to fore. Well, Janet can claim some credit; too, she'll have to handle the downside that is coming.

What results? Well, the DOW running sky high.

The headline says it all: Dow flirts with 17,000, but most people missed the ride. (emphasis mine)

It ought to read: Dow flirts, but most people cannot ride. (why not? to where does an illusion take one?)

---- This was brought from a Facebook post, dated 7/2/2014 ----

Most people missed the ride? Even those who got on that "train" will lose out. That is by definition how the system works. Its main purpose is to lure the hapless. 

Even under the best of situations, the "most" cannot get out of this type of market what they have put in. That message is never given. Rather, the talking heads say that people did not get on and missed the "train." It would be comical if it were not so sad. Ah, let's count our hypothetical wealth (and, arguing that the cash equivalents are as flaky is not proper - to be discussed).

Again, all of those on the train cannot get their booty (the Zucks of the world have and will). Why? The cheshire multiple, the chimera, and such.

Early sellers get the goodies. At some point, which is a lot closer to the top than you might expect, the majority of the rest become losers since they must sell below their cost. Oh, wait it out, is the adage? Not if you need your money (and a whole lot of other reasoned responses - these issues have always been known, but the gaming fills the pockets of those who run the system).

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/dow-flirts-with-17-000--but-most-people-missed-the-ride-202459906.html

So, one big disservice, of many, of the FED, of late, has been not allowing a rationally sufficient return to those who want to preserve principal. No, they would rather push gaming (as if that is the proper mindset for a sustainable economy - to be discussed). 

Remarks:  Modified: 07/03/2014

07/01/2014 -- Euphoric territory? How do images and illusions attract so strongly?

Magical multiplier

Moral: Wherein we get out of the pause mode and start the long trek to founding a better normative view of economics.

Yes, and we will be mathematical (in our own time and by our own means). First, though, we have to establish the basics of the discourse.

So, these three images start to tell the story at its inception. Which is? How the heck does this magical multiple (cheshire state - wild dreams) come about? Why is it allowed? Then, many questions arise.

But, to address the last question, first, we only have to say that the history of markets (and the capitalistic devolution of such - as in, if you have to ask, ca-pital-sino) is an age-old thing (for now, search results on markets, this blog). And, we will cover that topic at the necessary lengths.

Now, about the multiples that occur in finance and economics, they all relate to near zero (see it in this and the associated blogs) and to the emergence of the chimera (ah, that which sucks values from the pockets of the hapless to those who have been able to fleece the public (by shell games, for one) for millennia).

Of course, we have to weigh in real soon on dark pools (especially, their motivations). See if you can guess how we are going to explain these machinations (yes, implicitly there, in the following images).

First, we need some overview and discussion
of the elements being used.

Now, let's consider a real simple case to see the effect.
(Hint: on the bottom right, note the predominance of the brownish)

Then, consider one permutation of many. 

There is more on the topic on the way, including an essay (PDF) that will pull the fundamental aspects together. From that, we will cover a few of the variants.

Then (at some future point after a proper unfolding of the theme), we will start to describe how to make the problems (ah, so many of these problems are, folks, due the brains that been allowed to proliferate schemes - made-off was a crook - there are so many unfounded (unrecognized) ploys of this nature that it could be truly disheartening if the nature of these were not so obvious -- let's shed a little light and see what we can do) amenable to being understood. Perhaps, then, we could talk possibilities of choice and such.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/01/2015

03/15/2015 -- We have to start this way since the infatuation with STEMish thoughts runs deep (without the proper foundation, folks - albeit, that operationally that thrust looks to be sound). Too, the computer's (cloud'd or otherwise) appeal is part of the package, as it ought to be. However, the present state has many troublesome aspects. Now, for the Piketty picker-oners, what I am alluding to here is what he ought to have used -- we'll get there -- Minsky, and many others, hinted at things about which we ought to have more concern. ... My bailiwick is computational (the gamut) -- we need not fear technology, any more than we may have had concerns about our bros - all the way back to Cain and Abel and before.

03/16/2015 -- Updated the images. Let them eat cake.

03/17/2015 -- Dogs of the Dow: Market Cap table, Most active. Beyond the wildest dream.

03/23/2015 -- Pew Research's reports will be useful: Only upper-income families have made wealth gains in recent decades. In some of the responses to comments, one author expresses disbelief in the Fed's influence. Well, we can work on helping clarify that (by more than griping about the addicts). Our research deals, in part, with how many simple folk get to experience, and enjoy, the book-based wealth that their financial reports offer them. That is, that which is beyond Social Security (but, being sensitive to take-backs as we see, recently, happening with retirees being informed that their pension is being cut). From my experience, it is a small percentage (comparatively). The one fact of the upper crust? They have more protection which we can enumerate and illustrate.

05/08/2015 -- The magical multiplier in action.

06/01/2015 -- Dampening the magical multiplier.

Weighing in

Moral: Wherein we stop to weigh in. At least, we got the memes right.

The context? We're now six days in to a string of losses in the U.S. markets. So, while things were going down from 17k to 15k (quick bounce) and back to 16k (lower realm), we had to wonder how long it would take for the coo-coo, goo-goo to start.

Well, it was later than expected. You see, the opinions of the blogger about the ca-pital-sino firm up on the downturns. Why? That is the time of the profit-takers.

Who pays for the upswing? Again, forget the cheshire multiple aspect. We know that some of this is from the hapless being pulled in by the media and other market sellers. Too, though, some type of pump priming goes on.

How to get to the bottom of this? Well, there is a lot of work to do.

---

For now, let's just enjoy a take from Financial Times. They're talking "After QE." Then, they use stabilizers as the next thing needing to go to have a "real" market. As in, not one partying like mad as the Fed keeps spiking the bowl.

You see, too, the financials need (more than they admit) the government support. How is this different than the lowly ones being dependent upon government assistance?

The problem? These financial types rake in the dough as there is mis-allocation of capital (from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats) on these upswings. And, their pockets bulge when there is the downturn (actually, their selling causes the downturn - profit taking, big time - we need to get back to the buyer-seller thing).

---

Wait, today, too, we get the golden sacks head talking up the Fed. Sure, asking big daddy (or is it sugar mommy?) for continued handouts. How is that different from what we see of panhandling? Tell me, please.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/21/2014

10/16/2014 -- Sandbox in the players. Let the plumbers handle the systemic issues. 

10/17/2014 -- So, the St. Louis Fed guy talks coo-coo, and the markets soar today. One has to wonder whether we're seeing more suckers come to the table or if this is from a serious priming the pump attempt. In the case of the former, eventually, the sucker set will diminish to be of no help. The latter? Needs more study.

10/21/2014 -- Fed talking to Banks about their culture.

Creme dela creme

Moral: Wherein we celebrate a voice of reason, Morgan Housel. He stands out in this day and age where value (cream) is siphoned off daily by the jerks of Wall Street (and their compatriots).

---

Morgan is of the WSJ. The weekend of 11/23/2014, Morgan wrote this: The Market Is Your Friend. Really: One Millennial’s Advice to Peers. There will be a lot to discuss, over time, such as: what is the market? friend? why is this? what is value? ...

All in all, though, the article is a very good read, for any of the generations, including my own (retired, being slapped silly by Yellen and crowd).

The image comes from Morgan's article. Essentially, he is looking at different cohort groups based upon several decades in the 1900s and comparing them during the years of 18 to 30. The curves show the difference in value at the end of the period of money that was invested at the beginning ($1,000). The upper curve deals with those born in 1970.

Again, this post is a place holder depicting future discussion. As, take that first question: what is the market? Depends. But, of those definitions that are possible, the ca-pital-sino is the worse of the sort (for many reasons, not the least of which is that it bolsters/inflates year-end bonuses for people doing things that are not necessary; but, we can, and will, go on about this.).

---

Let's harken back three months. This blog had a post depicting how savers are being flayed to an inch of their skin. For what reason is this? And, why is it still happening when the bubbles of equity markets are apparent to all who can see?

You see, Housel is not talking that market which is short sighted. No, he is talking longer term. And, we will get back to this.

So, about the post (Savings and savers). Notice please. A set of bonds bought in the 1980 were cashed in 2010 for a value that was 4.2 times. You see, those who tout equity do not consider the risks properly.

Why? Well, that is another thing to discuss. But, I, personally, have seen lots of people who lost. Am I lucky or what? That is, for having seen them? No, just observant. At the same time, I came through (applying my own set of rules) unscathed (except for angst in being ineffectual in trying to get the attention of the likes of Yellen - look you Ivy-leagued members of the Fed (am I wrong?), get out to Main Street and talk to real people).

Let me repeat, the return from bonds was 422% over the period. The post, of course, talks about the downturn in earnings of some bond holders brought on by the Fed's feeding the frenzy of the addicts. ... Enough (the blood boils).

Look, again, look, the thrust ought to be sustainable economics (not special interest catering - though, money does talk, as we all know).

---

Now, in closing this, let's just say the following: so what the difference between $6,800 (or thereabout) and $4, 200 (or so) when it comes to getting one's bucks? At least, that $4,200 is not blood money'd (too, there was little angst over the years). What? Yes, the inflation caused with the current equity schemes (ponzi, made-off -- all of this can be seen here via search) is such that the house grabs (daily) its take.

And, you know what? Let me explain, if you will listen. In doing so, they are diluting the remainder. Taking the cream away, leaving very slim picking (that is, everyone else is forced to diet - how long will such fat cat'ism be the way of the land?).

So, that, at the end, the residue is what people get.

Strange state of affairs, people. Marx is laughing up his sleeve.

Remarks:  Modified: 11/24/2014

11/23/2014 -- Now, given the likes of Morgan, can this old guy rest a little easier?

11/24/2014 -- Over bought. Troubles with stocks: the cheshire multiple, not dollar equivalent. Neither of these say, no equity. But, mature minds do not run after the ephemeral chimera even if it does pay out (because of the fact that its payout is only) to the lucky few.

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.

Wake up, people, it's your right

Moral: While Janet is dancing in front of Congress and the world today (will she ever wake up to the plight of the savers?), let's look at something that really needs attention. Also, Janet, please. You and Ben have stoked the Cheshire multiple to the maximum (building, while doing so, a massive teat for the addicts who cannot grow up to a real economic status ... need we go on?).

--

So, what needs attention? The entrapment of we the people by the supposed smart. In particular, we'll focus on those with the computational wherewithal to effect such as there are whole sorts of variety of these enmeshing situations.

The Magna Charta will be celebrated next year, 800 years after the fact. The world and its people needs such for web/cloud (or however it can characterized) in order to keep the Lords (with huge pockets) in check.

But, people will have to wake up their minds and see that under the kimono (skirt, okay) of these technical giants is not much but crap of an exceedingly smelly nature. Why? Because they could do so (as in, have the users clean their diapers) without any oversight or concerted reaction by the users (many of who are running after silly apps as if those were the essential order of the world).

---

Now, the WSJ even had some code on its front page (of the later sections - here's an example). Can you believe it? I remember when the bosses kept themselves remote from anything having to do with computers. If they did have a terminal, it was hidden in their desk.

Then, people, Blackberry happened. The result? Those idiots, some world class, could not get themselves away from the idiot thing as if business required that (their addiction - talk to the families of these jerks - who have now morphed several which ways).

Later, the "pads" came to fore of varying size. That pushed the ensnaring web's influence out even further. In fact, some seem to have a worldview based upon these as the primary interface with reality. Or, to put it another way, truth is bound thusly.

---

So, big issues? Yes, one thing is that this is easier than people realize. We can talk an adage: know one, know them all. You see, one important step is to start to think in these terms which can be difficult, for many reasons.

First, there is the fact of abstraction. But, hey, if you could do high school algebra, then you can code. What if you are less oriented toward that? Well, part of enhancing the computational experience for us all would be creative use of technology. We have seen how content is of importance, albeit with a stable basis provided by the technological platforms underneath. It is this latter that has willy-nilly emerged with no seeming interest by users in any type of consistent experience. Ah, the changes that we have seen.

Second, things are cloaked, either by proprietary issues or by subterfuge. Not only do we need to see what is behind the kimonos, we need to lift things to the light of day. But, that concern of mine needs a little more elucidation. We'll get there under the guise of truth engineering.

Third. Ah, that's enough, for now.

---

Earlier, I ran across Codecademy, again. The first encounter was of the type of, hey that's nice. The second one was more involved and reminded me of the power felt back in the 80s, when complicated computing was advancing at an accelerated rate. What happened after that was the emergence of the cloud as perturbed by greedy folks bent upon big pockets and fame.

Nowhere have I seen any type of user focus (correct me if I'm wrong). Mind you, I'm not talking Congressional oversight, as those who ascend do not understand these things. On the other hand, do I know how these things out to play out? Not really. I'm only raising issues, laying down, so to speak, makers in abstract'd spaces that are supposed to point out areas of concern and potential focus points.

One thing would be to have a populace that knows code. Too, kudos cannot be exclaimed enough for the freebie folks. You know who they are, the Open Source, etc. Not so much for the advertisers who are entrappers by nature, though they do have some use (yes, my profile does not subsume by being, not even by a fraction - rather, it's an irritant - ah, hence the pearl?).

The image is my profile at Codecademy. I've done 25 straight days (which they call a "streak" - well, I have done literally 40 years) of coding of various types. Too, I have looked at a lot of lessons, found problems, learned to like the interface, and more. As well, I had one day of 136 points. It was interest that kept me going as I had spent several years consciously ignoring code (after decades and after accepting the notion that code is the basis of reality -- not so, folks, we have to talk being and to look at what we are). Essentially, I cannot praise Codecademy enough for their presentation (and interpreter).

One thing that this might show is that an old guy (72nd year with more in computing software than not - I did dabble in the electrical engineering department - but, code is more forgiving - after all sorts of developments that allowed conjectures - compile/test - okay? -- in my early years, you had to desk check - play computer, due to limits - resources, compiler technology, etc.) can do this stuff. We need to get the kids involved. But, at the same time, let's talk quality, control, and some things that seem to be without the scope (Zuck's stuff and more). That is a short list; one thing is that I was able to get several projects to SEI/CMMI Level 5 status, even those dealing with advanced subjects.

But, as the agile guys say (hey, I was there in the 80s, guys, so let me speak up about things, if you would), oppression diminished creativity. True. But, willy-nilly (oh, did I use that earlier?) makes for an untamed jungle (open for hacker, and other, types of malfeasance'd thinking).

Another thing is that I want to be technical. Note, please, I've used 50+ languages, in all sorts of environments that were critical, of certain types. So what? All along, I brought along older types. In fact, one older engineer did a conversion of a (nontrivial) system to a new language after only a few days of my tutoring.

All of the arguments of bringing in people since Americans cannot do the work is pure bunk (all of you technology companies are to blame - hell, I wrote up those justifications myself - mea culpa, mea culpa).

Too, we need the younger set to get into these things. For one, it'll straighten up their thinking. In this sense: the computer is purely logical, numeric and does not kowtow, play favorites, -- meaning, it's tediously corrective - like an idiot savant). But, older people need to as well.

Adage: From my decades of experience, I have seen the older crowd let the younger folk work the detail either through laziness, pride (ah, such arses, let us twiddle their brain with mathematics and see their real abilities), status (as if, the highers don't care - yes, arses, again - oh, DC and all of its ills is a prime example), or whatever reason (say, greed, as with the quants - yes guys - you and your algorithmic Smithíans - sheesh, Adam is rolling and rolling in his grave). Yes, it was a major capitulation with far reaching consequences.

So what? Well, these things deal with our future and the essential sustaining of an economy.

The WSJ articles itemize some of the ways that people can make money with code. That's nice. There are ways that we can have all sorts of remunerations from such work.

However. another adage: FOR ALL SYSTEMS (APPS) HAVING RAMIFICATION, OUR NEED IS TO HAVE CONTINUAL OVERVIEW (to be expressed) THAT WILL BE MULTIPLES IN COST WHEN COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL EFFORTS (agile folks, listen up).

Off shoring of knowledge? Crap back? What do you expect? The out-housed topic will be brought back to fore (opinion, yes, but not unfounded).

Remarks:  Modified: 09/06/2015

03/19/2014 -- As an aside, up until about four years ago, I always had development environments available which were problematic, for several reasons, but here's two of them. And, this applies whether they were bought or free. Either they were not interpretative and were not the easy mode that we had with the Lisp Machine. Or, even if they were, they were heavy (Visual Basic and python come to mind) and took effort to keep up (gosh, early Java was a nightmare, at times). Now, here comes Codecademy with their little interpretative thing. Okay, given, it is oriented toward courses, but it allows us to see the possibility. How many of these types of environments are there (not meaning language specific, rather the access to code handling)?

04/24/2014 -- Revisiting, again.

05/13/2104 - Using a website context to research and discuss issues related to this theme.

06/23/2014 -- Example of true cost being ignored: Phone app in eight hours.

09/06/2015 -- Quora and knowledge? In this case, someone was comparing now to the times of Northumberland before the Vikings came in and ruined the situation for all but themselves. Well, actually, for all. The culture finally settle down. ... Another modern way.

Fiat money

Moral: Wherein we look at "fiat" money, again, plus the cheshire multiple.

We have not had a post on this topic, for a while, but a recent WSJ article (How the 'Reserve' Dollar Harms America, Nov. 21, 2014) prompted such. So, back to the old themes.

This topic has been touched upon in all three blogs:

• FEDaerated (see fiat, gab-standard, coo-coo, and goo-goo) 
• Truth Engineering (see fiat and gab-standard)  
• 7oops7 (see fiat and gab-standard) 

Call it funny money or what you may, the whole process depends upon wizards to control the process which easily veers out of control, as we have seen time and again. That the U.S. must lead the way is obvious to many; 'how is this to be?' is less so. 

Along with consideration of 'fiat' and 'gab-standard' having some focus, there ought to be, as well, some sensitivity to Minsky's thinking.

---

How high can it go? Well, the DOW is close to 18K today (12/3/14). There is a run-up going which we will watch. There are two caveats that need repeating.

• This is funny money, folks, except for those who are in the position to exploit the situation: those who run the game, those with the wherewithal (the Buffets and more) to rake in gains (ill-begotten), and such. The fact: this group is a minority (very small in cardinality even if their pockets balloon immensely). 
• Those who buy in now are lining up to be sacrificial lambs. Ah, the humanity. The fact: losers outweigh the winners by far. Even if we graduate the amount of winnings (ignoring near zero, for now) from reasonable to extremely greedy, the winner set would be small (far less than 10%, if that).  

Reminder: In the context of these discussions, 401K eyeballers are not "winners" (grieves me to even use the concept since the reality is so putrid - when the kimono is lifted) until they have cash in hand.

Now, having said that, what is needed? Rather than the headline says, Apple drops 22B in a day, we ought to think about another accounting approach where buyers/sellers bounce against an entity with a history (to be discussed). Yes, the peanut buttering of gains and losses across a whole population is stupid (always has been). 

When computers came along, were they applied to beefing up the accounting? No, they were turned into gamers to extract even more from a silly system. How has this gone on so long? 

The vested interests benefit, essentially. We do not have to rise to the level of ethics to bring the problems to public viewing. No, all that is necessary is to lay out the scheme's basis and how the ca-pital-sino is a type of "shell game." 

---

We were on this theme six years ago (Crooked games) and will go back to the earlier thoughts. The FED has changed the character of the game, delayed the consequences, muddied the water (really), and set us up for some interesting failings (will be worse than the last time - as many say). 

Remarks:  Modified: 12/06/2014

12/06/2014 -- Put here as placeholder: Capitalism's gravediggers.

Map-map

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

Remarks:  Modified: 09/17/2014

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

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

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