Chimera?

Moral: Wherein we say just a few words about the chimera behind the 'chimera' and its use.

---

First, here are the posts with 'chimera' in the name and the date: The big chimera (11/09/09), Chimera II (08/31/2010), Chimera, again (01/27/2011), Chimera IV (06/10/2011), Chimera explained (07/05/2011). For each of these, I'll have to do a recap (which ought to be fun to do as the posts parallel the climb out of the morass, helped along by Ben and his largess).

But, this post is basically to set (re-state) the tone.

Aside: chimera is mentioned in a whole lot (namely 64) of other posts. One has to wonder if it was an improper characterization. Well, wonder not. I knew what I was doing and will be explaining why we're still in deep dodo (Europe's PIGS are only one thing to point to).

---

Today, the Dow is around the 13.6K mark which is close to the high point before the drop. How can this be considered a chimera?

Well, there is another market that might be approaching, similar to the Dow, its value of our, or so, years ago. Remember, please, that this exchange's value is one-half, or so, of its peak around the 2000 time frame, before what was called the tech bust. Oh, you forgot?

---

The Dow is at the current level since the taxpayers are propping it up. Ben's balance sheet is at ridiculously full. Too, he has stiffed people who are older and who need more stable financial instruments. Ben is holding, and wants to buy more, toxic stuff.

Where is his head?

---

Today, too, one can also find an article talking about people who are staying out of the stock market. This would be anyone who needs their basis (and does not want to get on the dole or reliant on other people for charity). We'll not belabor the FB point (Zuck got his money), but it could be used as an example (there are plenty of other examples, so FB is off the hook, for now).


Remarks:

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

03/22/2013 -- Imagine. WSJ using both chimerical and moral hazard in the same article, albeit with a twist that we'll respond to (that is, clarify what the notions mean -- has to come from outside the financial community).

03/21/2013 -- Ben on Cyprus as a type of archetypal situation, or not.

01/15/2013 -- Force quiescence on the thing, regularly.

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

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

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

10/16/2012 -- Chimera has had many uses, from mythology on. Basically, the connotations being applied here relate several ways. For one, though, consider Bookstaber's use of 'demon' as he characterized problems with markets, hedgies, and such. Of course, many demons might be apropos for use, but chimera is up there on top, or close to it. That, folks, relates to the reality behind the other use. There, no doubt, are physical, and process, entities that can be pointed to (yet, are these under control?). No, we cannot even have a daily accounting (to wit, the realization on the part of some that things like the unemployment rate are estimated (albeit, with supposedly sound basis) and never really pinned down). So, anyone building upon this first type of chimera is impaired as to practicality (yes, it's that bad, folks). How can we have a sustainable economy with such flimsy mechanisms (you see, they are only effective in so far as they allow those who run the game to pilfer - the only real expectations, in short). Hence, the use of the mirage is not off, either. Okay?  The real question is what can be done to make things better?

10/12/2012 -- Chimera has been used for that which the ca-pital-sino pushes, including the mechanisms involved. What are hedge funds? Another set of tools. What we have is too much money running after too few opportunities. To boot, there are too many looking to extract more than what they deserve (yes, I'll venture there - my gripe with Harvard, the first school in the US).

10/12/2012 -- Hedge fund mirage. Chimera works, too. Harvard. Its big endowment is the envy of all (but the rational - who see the naked emperor). ... Harvard, talk to us, please, about how you feel that you deserve big earnings (what? earned?) in terms of near-zero (quite graspable concept, even for the heavily endowed).

Modified: 06/11/2013

Chimera IV

Moral: Wherein we continue our look at the chimera and its shaky foundation that is attributable to Big Ben's largess, in part.

----

The market (DOW) is below 12K. Well, let it go down below 8K, please. All this ballooning is due to the frenzy being sustained by Big Ben's free money. Whereas, savers have been sacked.

----

Mind you, ca-pital-sino is not what we need for a sustainable future. Big Ben, the big boards, some politicians, and a lot more, really need to do something useful, with real consequences.

----

So, let's track back through some comments.

• The Big Chimera (Nov, 2009) -- Since we got this thread started, the markets got to some type of low, started upward, and kept rising. So, some would think that the notion of 'chimera' would be wrong. Nope. Note that a recent report, looking at commodity trading, shows that 90% of some activity (see CFTC remarks) is related to speculation. And, that this ratio came about after a move to remove limits back in 2001. Minsky would love this. How is it that we care so much for the stupid game that enriches only a few?
• Chimera II (Aug, 2010) -- Still with the upturn in those things traded who have little behind them (derivatives), some were thoughtful enough to consider that we deal with 'myths' more than not.
• Chimera, again (Jan, 2011) -- Undoubtedly, things are complicated. Yet, folks, it is just that which those who want to malfease things hide behind. And, those in charge have just let loosen the rules in order for the best-and-brighest to play havoc.

One would hope that a proper basis can be defined, maintained, regulated, and improved.

Remarks

11/24/2013 -- The ACM has a review article on algorithmic trading that everyone ought to read. Essentially, if we use a plane as an example (consider what Boeing has had to do to get the 787 out and about), we would say that the financial folks are putting passengers on experimental aircraft with little regard to their safety and comfort. The whole notion is atrocious. How does it happen? They've coached things in mathematics and computerese, plus they've bastardized Adam Smith's ideas. Where is our sandbox, and where is the stable economic system that we can build?

12/22/2012 -- Fair and open actually used in a WSJ article.

10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.

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.

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

07/12/2011 -- Also, changed 'Jaime' to 'Jamie' (oh yes).

07/05/2011 -- Chimera, explained.

06/26/2011 -- Changed 11K to 12K (typo). ... On another note, some recognize that derivatives can cloud the issue of value, especially if they're handled 'darkly' (implies several things to look at).

06/22/2011 -- This is Jamie's bank?

06/16/2011 -- Why doesn't golden sacks instill confidence? Too much rogue table?

06/14/2011 -- The cream is raked off, immediately, for fat cats only. What they're calling liquidity is maximized flow from all pockets to a few. Sorry state of affairs.

Modified: 11/24/2013

Chimera and the dismal

Moral: Wherein we look, again, at chimera. Recurrency, so to speak. Due diligence, from another view.

Why this? Well, the dictionaries have several connotations of chimera. Here, the intended use does not deal with mythology or biology or genetics. Rather, the sense of this example from Merriam-Webster applies: Economic stability in that country is a chimera. By the way, here is a list of synonyms provided at the same source: fantasy, conceit, daydream, delusion, dream, fancy, figment, hallucination, illusion, nonentity, phantasm (also fantasm), pipe dream, unreality, vision.

Yes, we are saying that pieces of the "market" are about as illusory as one can get. Not all of it (see below). And, economics, which is as dismal as it can get, is where markets are studied.

---

Now, having mentioned the sense, it might be fun to think of the beast that is represented by the inflated market that we see. Bulls and bears are commonly invoked metaphors. It may very be in our interest to bring that type of usage up to date (too, the younger set's infatuation with the beastly may be motivation).

---

So, back to markets. How can they be of the chimera type? Note, please that we point to the specifics of the ca-pital-sino as the problematic issue. Too, evaluation conventions allow for a whole lot of slop. Then, we get computation added to the equation which brings up other problems. Really want to know what these are? Well, stick around.

Now, yes, there are other parts of markets that are not chimeric. We will be looking at this from the basis of viewpoint up to wherever it is necessary to go. If you want to leap ahead, you might look at this example from berkeley.edu that uses apartments to lay out the foundation'l issues, to develop the model, and even to bring in game theory's contributions.

However, in our thorough method, the foundation'l piece here will be the focal point for some time. Think a redo of Chimera: sellers and buyers. Too, a couple of series concerning capitalism deserves another look (or two or ...) and, perhaps, even an extension.

• Ideological errors: casino, Adam Smith, shell games, wealth, dis-ingenuity, culture, classism,  
• Real basis: imperatives, knowledge, technology, 

---

Like Warren, many have made money with markets (there is no coveting (the 10th in one milieu) here, rather arguing near-zero realism and what such pertains). The chart is an example of one firm's experience of increases by going long. This firm, by the way, shares their wealth of knowledge with the argument that everyone can participate. Even in that case, the run up, via multiples, is still problematic without some fundamental changes. What these might be is pertinent to the discussions here.

So, tru'eng will be looking at how "chimera" applies.

Remarks:  Modified: 01/15/2015

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation. 

Chimera, chimera, on the wall ...

Moral: Wherein we consider that Ben (Largess, I, Largess II) has succeeded in inflating the markets as we see with the DOW floating above 14.7K today.

... chimera, chimera, on the wall, who is the fairest chimera of all? ...
                             (if you don't know, paraphrasing here - anyone can find the original) ...

---

But, to the meat of the issue. People, the DOW, and others, are soaring. To what end? Why? ... Silly games, for one (here is a link to an earlier post - note the 2009 time frame). Ben has hocked the future. He has also taken $100Ks from many savers (altogether, oodles and oodles of hard-earned money so that the fat cats can play their silly games) and says that he'll continue the thievery (expecting us to laud his self). Why does he do this? We'll get back to that.

Too, I keep hearing "gains" used. These are ponzi-like (more madoff-like - again, note 2008) increases, folks. That statement is to be explained, but the upward movement is from less risky to more risky buckets for folks who cannot afford such. Forget exuberance and think mania.

The following to be looked at thoroughly: what is the percentage who actually obtain the "gain" in the long run? The fact? It's less than you would think. Silly games, indeed.

Ben has essentially taken away the proper basis which would be steady gains (yes, these would map to actual progress along prospective fronts) that would pay over time. The equity casino? Can drop off a cliff at any time for several reasons (for one, those who run the game can take their big cut, ..., etc.).

That above query deals with near-zero which must be looked at further. The alchemists (yes, look for the book) favor those of their kind. The myriads of people take in on the chin. Yet, finance could run for the benefit of the most (stated like this to offset arguments about largess of other types - you see, it's okay for Ben to fund his fat cat friend -- what with his big office, et al -- yet, any consideration of a sustainable approach is suspect from the get go).

---

Soar, DOW, soar! Do not bubbles, and kites, fly? ...

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

06/22/2013 -- So, how many traded their paper gain (chimera) to solid debt with the downturn? Okay, forget the size of the loser set, how much went from illusory gain (backed by a promise to pay later) to real debt that has to be paid with blood and guts? Wait! Some of those doing the margin calls, and ilk, have some way to weasel (not disparaging the grand animal) out, not doubt.

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).

05/06/2013 -- Image disappeared (think balloons, tops, ..., things that go up, spin, need help to not fall --- yes, Ben's efforts at creating perpetual motion)?

05/03/2013 -- As a sacked saver, one has to look at the chimera's giant sucking action and wonder how did this come about. Yes, it was (in terms of the DOW) above 14.7K a little bit ago. The S&P is climbing to new heights. It's too bad that all those in that game cannot get their money. No, only the early sellers will benefit (for the others it's hot air and paper that will fly away from their grasp). Ben, you need a framework for future payouts that is more stable (ever heard of savers?). You know, at some point, you'll be like us and will need your money. Would it be poetically just if you lost just when you needed your money? The savers would have been happy had you put a floor of 1% or so (that is, not break below the last integer). Please leave instructions thereby so that your successor will know. Okay?

04/21/2013 -- The view from Saturday.

04/17/2013 -- At the Seeking Alpha article, two of my comments were deleted. That's a first, so I'm unsure of the protocol. In one, I quoted a WSJ essay by EO Wilson in which he argued that great people do not work by mathematics, alone. The focus on STEM might even keep some resourceful, and creative, people out of the  mix. Now, to put an opinion here, the recent brain initiative ought to bring out how we wrap ourselves into viewpoints that are fostered by technology, thereby entrapping ourselves.

04/11/2013 -- See Alpha Seeking article. ... Also, rate of return fantasy.

04/10/2013 -- Housing bubble? Lots of evidence everywhere, Ben. Do you ever look? When rates do go up, all of those who are on the lending side of the equation will have to take a loss (immediately). What the hell kind of economy is that? Remember, folks, that loss is so that someone can have a low-interest, long-term mortgage. From whence comes all of this? Well, savers have been paying through the nose, for one thing. The turnaround will not bring back the losses given to the savers by Ben. Even in the equity markets, not ALL can recoup. It's a paper game (with chimerical "gains"), folks. Except, for those whose fingers are always pulling ill-begotten gains (and these people are considered by some as the smartest?) into their pockets.

04/10/2013 -- I was on the mark four and five years ago but with a little voice. At that time, I asked what would be the long-term effects of Ben's shotgun approach. You see, at some point, Ben may have wanted to have some semblance of being a scientist. When push came to shove, he succumbed to the lures of power (to wit, the necessity of corruption). The guy is probably to be more pitied than reviled. Obama could have changed the game four years ago. Oh well, hope went out the window at that time. Yes, indeed. Ben now has given us a wealth of data to look at ex post facto. Will it make us smarter the next time around? Do pigs fly? Wait, fat cats seem to fly, like those balloons used in the Macy parade.

04/10/2013 -- One professor says that a DOW of 18,000 or more may happen. Ben, no doubt, would gloat. Would (could) he consider the future side-effects? Those who are on the winning side would be gleeful, to boot. Yet, for each winner, there are many losers. That is the tale to tell. An economy cannot sustain itself without a solid basis that provides secured payments in the future. Gaming-centric approaches are bound for failure for all but the few. It's probably nice to be among the few who experience the bounty. Some views might say not, though. The other side (in want) has been the most common experience, by far.

Modified: 07/31/2013

Stable value II: Seeding the chimera ...

Moral: Wherein we continue to argue the seminal importance of stable value, versus the chimera, to a sustainable economy.

... and feeding the game.
            (which is to bulge the markets, then pull off from the top,
                          and let the masses/poor suffer the consequences)

We might also say that this is a lesson for Janet, and for Ben, if it's not too late.

---

Motivation: For the past three years, I've marveled at how the markets would shoot up after a loss, as if seeding were taking place. Recent readings on AT (algorithm trading - includes a bunch of stuff, including high-frequency trading) are the basis for the following. We will summarize some of these. Too, we can look at how seeding keeps things going up enough to motivate the moms and pops (as we see now) to put in their real (as in, earned by other than ill-begotten gains) into the game. At which point, there'll be a massive sell off by those who will take their "gain" leaving the moms and pops holding the bag (depleted and shriveled, as it will be at that point). Of course, then the likes of Warren and other bottom feeders come to play.

---

Lesson one: If you have a stable-value asset, you can go and extract your principle at any point. Too, the principle does not diminish (insured - however, as we know from AIG, and its ilk, insurers are bosh, to boot). Now, if I'm in the chimera, and if I take early, I can laugh all the way to the bank. On the other side, if I am real long, perhaps way down the pike, I might make something.

Lesson two: How is that? Consider, when stock is sold higher (sold by an insider, bought by a stupid optimist), all stock of that ilk goes up. You see, money is pulled out of the air and reported. Ah, the DOW went up, it is reported (everything is gold-plated - skies are clear, the future rosy -- hah -- this, by the way, is where the rising water level really comes from -- except, we're not talking about something real, with water, like the Panama Canal). Okay, we see a lot of stocks changing hands, but does the whole mix of a type trade? No. This is why CHIMERA is very much apropos. Now, those running the game will talk value and pricing, etc. Yes, there are real things behind the stock (if it's legit - but, FB? wouldn't you say wishes are what's there?). These, depending upon the view, have value anyway exclusive of what the gamersters say (who do not add value). Too, we can talk about future earnings, and such. Yes, that's true. But, stable value would provide a better basis (we'll get to that) than the shaky basis (supposedly capitalism at its best via the ca-pital-sino).

Lesson three: Now, stable value can lose some. It can lose a lot. Yet, if done right, it is more apt to pay for all invested than the market and its chimera. You see, if stock is sold lower (several ways this might happen, such as insider as buyer), all of the ilk get the negative influence. The trouble is that when there is a downturn, the value (per) keeps dropping draining the water level substantially. Moms and pops are ruined (we know the stories).

Lesson four: ...

---

Now, as of yesterday, we're at the point were regular people are pulling their money from supposedly safe places (no such thing under Ben) into the chimera. That doesn't denote a bubble? Oh, things will be dire this time around.

Image obtained from Seeking Alpha,
see posts on this blog,
2013/03/slaps-in-face.html
2013/02/bens-put.html
Source: Bernanke's put to expire

One of the money handlers did a report. Oh yes, ordinary workers can accumulate $1M by following a few rules, one of which, incidentally, is living beneath one's means (saving, and hoping to not be slapped silly by the Bens and Janets of the world). That's fine. Too, if your employer matches savings, well, get the money while the getting is good. Then, the problem is the experts argue for the necessity of the chimera.

That necessity argument is not true. We can show how following the rules, except for the chimera part, does work when using a good stable value approach (ratcheting, if you would). Yes, one can get up to 7 figures using tried-and-true techniques. However, it does require discipline. And, not keeping up with those Jones' and their arses is one thing that the money people didn't mention (why? ah, they're into luxury -- where is the money manager who will take a vow of poverty and simple living?).

---

The above-referenced articles talk about the research that needs to be done with regard to AT. Yet, these financial engineers (flim-flammers, in my opinion) have been allowed to spawn such off on the economy. That is, we have this ilk wrapping crap into gold (misusing-abusing mathematics and computing) and telling us that it doesn't stink. Silly games indeed.

Note: This is mostly done, except to map in pointers to posts from 2008, 2009, and onward talking this same stuff. Finance as fiction is very much still true - despite all of the suffering of the past few years. Do those intellectuals and fat cats ever learn that their actions trickle down more negatively than not?

---

By the way, the AT folks also use experiment and such. Dear rational folks, wherever you are, what parent, in their right mind, would experiment with their kids in a manner with severe negative consequences as a possible end? Wait, probably more than we would expect. How can we lift the maturity level of these gamerster who have been allowed to shroud themselves in a "market " aura while really they're mostly about the continual fleecing of the populace?

Remarks:  Modified: 01/15/2015

11/24/2013 -- The ACM has a review article on algorithmic trading that everyone ought to read. Essentially, if we use a plane as an example (consider what Boeing has had to do to get the 787 out and about), we would say that the financial folks are putting passengers on experimental aircraft with little regard to their safety and comfort. The whole notion is atrocious. How does it happen? They've coached things in mathematics and computerese, plus they've bastardized Adam Smith's ideas. Where is our sandbox, and where is the stable economic system that we can build?


12/03/2013 - Where would we be without Bing? This is too rich. In terms of the sons of Samuelson, we have to be looking at the entrapment being laid upon us by the technical pursuit of stupid goals. Yes, said that right. Because certain pockets are filled to bulging and particular "families" reap the reward for generations (as opposed to the general population - US, okay? - are being indebted to several generations out) is not grounds to claim that these methods are anything other than shortsighted and inimical, beyond imagination. ... Now, we're hearing that Janet is as clueless as was her predecessors. But, that is a whole other issue. ... For a time, there was consideration of changing the focus of this blog, but after a little elapse (and removal - such as, 48 hours unplugged from all things web and cloudish) it's obvious that the discussion needs to be held and the truth grappled with (dangled by choice). One new thrust will be a re-look at the Lord/serfs thing (especially, in the perspective of families who have held on to their trusts over many generational changes - see The Atlantic for an article that grates - we'll explain).

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

12/16/2013 -- HFT's contributions to the turmoil'd (froth'd) markets.

12/19/2013 -- Ben did his parting shot (whimper that it was); they're going to taper slowly, less than a 1/8th on the bond buy, starting next month. And, he's going to torture savers for another year or so. We'll have to see how the pieces fall. The markets got heavily seeded today in hopes of luring in the idiots and moms/pops (who cannot afford the pending losses). So, it's pop, fizz, ..., again. Too, we'll see more goo-goo talk to the immature markets and the addicted investors thereof. One of many technical issues that we'll have to get into: Nanex's view.

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

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

After all these years

Moral: Wherein we consider what Ben's announcement means for those in the middle.

---

What announcement? QE3, today, with low-level interest until 2015 or further.

---

Gosh, Ben, you've been sacking the savers for years now. Why are you running off after the chimera? It still stinks, even as it scrapes the stratosphere. Why? You know, Ben, that there is daily raking off, like cream being skimmed from the top, by those who run the casino.

If you would try to establish a monetary basis that had steady growth, acknowledging that we cannot have sustained economic prosperity when the mode for all (but the few - thank God for the Occupy mindset) is to pile on more and more debt, then we could see some semblance of sanity come back to the financial fiasco. But, no, your sweet digs there, at the Fed, are not much different than that of the fat cats at the Street (of course, Wall not Main). Go ahead, cater to the few. Just remember, it's the accumulation of the little people who make the economy.

---

By the way, Ben, to which of these Street realms will you go when you leave the Fed?

---

FT image

Too, you guys run out and pollute the Jackson Hole area yearly. Boondoggle that it is! Ben, are you trashing the US dollar and building up the chimera for your friends in China? You sure are not helping the average American.

Now, what we're seeing is a flow from very many small pockets to a very few big pockets. You know, Ben, that flow eventually dries out those with small pockets who then become dehydrated shells. From whence can these have any energy to build back what your chimera overlays?

What future is based upon the chimera? At any point, those who can will pull out, leaving scrapings for the most. You know that.

---

Let's talk, please, about how earnings (returns) in this realm are really nothing more than movement of money between pockets. Okay. Some make out like bandits. All cannot do so, nor have they ever been able to do so. Yet, talking heads keep pushing the illusion. Publication of the success stories of the few (those who can take from the chimera) continues to lead more down the primrose path to perdition. What a debacle!

Remarks:

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves.

01/15/2013 -- Force quiescence on the thing, regularly.

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

09/19/2012 -- Added Truth Engineering link to 09/15/2012 Remark. Faults are one way to learn. The perfect reek with hubris and arrogance. Yet, systems are that which we ought to make perfect (measurable attribute, definitely amenable to scientific study and public agreement. And, in most cases, systems that we know were built upon people in positions (roles, essentially -- action, decision, etc.) pertaining to the system. Now, we have computers playing analogous roles. How do we handle this? Notice that computers (the artificial, at large) implies 'systems' as their motivating force. But, in the new roles, it's the computer as the performer that we're looking at, usually without concern for technicalities (left to the nerds). The quality efforts out of Japan looked to limit the scope of faults (prevent them, in other words) which is not perfection seeking. So, we'll just say, for now, that perfection, like beauty, is in the eyes of the beholder. (wiki has a nice historical view)

09/15/2012 -- Laundrying? Yes, I know it ought to be laundering. However, it's on Facebook, to boot, so I'll let it stand. Why? Jungian, in nature, this type of oops comes about with technology (to wit, touch typing, fixups, et al) and will only get worse. I see it all the time in big-name, big-buck publications. But, this particular word brings to fore several interesting things. One is that 'labor' is seen to be like laundry. Get it to fit, use it, clean it, throw it out (almost like the proverbial tissue). Now, roles may be laundry-like; those who play the roles are not. In fact, that is one truism to bring forth. I've met a lot of smart people doing menial work. I've not met anyone of the upper crust that I would care to emulate (yes, indeed - I've seen a bunch). Of course, we're all human, with our faults. Yet, as history tries to do (or, that which is oriented toward indoctrination), we smooth over rough edges. Yes, those in power are without any sins; this is accepted for several reasons. From time to time, the human aspect shows. Why cannot it always be so? In the current context? No crapping human can ever attain the idealized state expected by voters (and dreamers and hopers). Faults ought to be celebrated. They keep us human and can help us be hubris-free.

09/14/2012 -- Ben ought to read Rick. Labor laundrying. Ben's continued largess to the fat cats will mostly go toward this type of activity. Read Warehouse Slave and weap [Jungian - as in, weep and reap your reward for allowing this to emerge as the supposed culmination of evolution (this is where our glorious State and its technology is leading us?)]. Aside: I've had (in my youthful times) several jobs that were remunerated with room/board and stipend (any aspersions of menial, etc. will just run off the back like water off a duck -- all jobs (of a legal variety) and the persons doing those tasks are worthy of respect (a lost adage - as everyone runs after accumulating moolah (sounds like ...) as if its represents the smarts that we ought to have -- yes, politicians are characterized by how much they salivate at the thought of moolah.). The first put a roof over my head, and the second fed me. The third, small bits to buy and trade used books. Fourth? Fifth? (yes, luckily, no illnesses - too young to consider retirement - et al). Too, I've seen the boardroom, and the posturing idiots collected therein (as a visitor, of course), and all steps in-between. When I say, folks, that we can run this crap (which it is, even with academic frills added -- ah, the bastardization of the glorious realms of mathematics rankles, to boot) with monk-like mentality (as in, fame, money, etc. not being of essence), I do know what I'm talking about. But, it's my duty, and challenge, to define how this would work. Somehow, the dream of America (where is Winthrop's city?) has descended monotonically, and sometimes exponentially, into the crapper. From whence the energy to get it flying again? By the way, if 'monk' is too religiously laden for you, we can use other metaphors. Take the military. Do you think that those who are being called 'heros' are remunerated (except for the O-class) adequately to the level of their service and risk? If you do, then you're part of the problem. Yes, we could keep the discipline level proper and the thuggery minimized. Or, we could use games played under rules. The whole economic/financial realm needs leveling (as in establishing playing field quality) and inclusion of referees sufficient to keep those in-line who throughout our thousands of human years have trampled over others (yes, fat cats might, at some point, turn to philanthropy -- does that balance their karmic effluence?). New royalty, these? Indeed! We need a sandbox (and, again, we could put golden sand in the box) for these people, in which they can crap all they want (they do the cleaning, to boot).

Modified: 07/31/2013

Prof Blinder, Princeton

Moral: Wherein we consider the use, again, of 'chimera' when things are flying high (DOW above 13.9). More or less, Ben is getting what he wants, though many (oodles, actually) are not part of this bubble.

---

There seem to be voices of reason around and about who are not going gaga over the equity climb or who are not enthralled by the computation trickery. Turns out that Princeton may have a few of these folks. We have already pointed to work related to complexity issues with financial products (Lemons, et al). Now, I see that an Economics Professor presents a message that resonates with the theme of the blog.

Let's point to four reviews and then summarize the book: USA Today, LA Times, WSJ, NYT. In the USA Today review, there were phrases dropped here and there that have appeared in this blog.

• "executives and ... directors ... are not kings and queens" - see New Royalty (Aug 2010), et al. 
• "house of cards" - see The big chimera (Nov 2009), et al.
• "greed had prevailed" - see Greed vs simple living (Aug 2011), et al.
• "banks overly leveraged" - see Tranche and trash (Apr 2011), et al.

This list from a review. No doubt, I could get more from the book itself. This is sufficient, though, for now. 

---

Aside: As the exchanges soar, does not "chimera" become bad usage? We looked at that (Oct 2012) a little bit ago, as one has to wonder what's behind the exuberance. Earlier, we looked at how King Alan (Sep 2009) had said that he saw an irrational type (late 1990s timeframe); some now say the thing is rational. The key to the discussion of "chimera" would look at near-zero's reality. Yes, it's a chimera no matter how large gets the fancy bubble. 

---

Using, again, the USA Today review, we can list things that the Prof mentions. 

• bankers ought not be speculative -- yes, indeed, we have said similar (Apr 2012, for one)
• self-regulation is unworkable -- actually, ought to go without saying
• risk managers ought to ... -- the smarties always go too far (Nov 2009, et al) 
• derivatives, et al -- new fangled, indeed (allow piracy (Aug 2011), et al)
• balance sheet -- don't allow the off-sheet (Aug 2009) stuff  

The Prof used: After the Music Stopped. Sure enough. The crooks quit since there were too many lemons; who was trustworthy, financially (Aug 2009)? Jamie (Jun 2012)?

Remarks:

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

02/26/2013 -- One who structured financial instruments joked that a cow could do this and still get the AAA rating. Just cannot fathom how this type of thing became popular and was even glorified with finance (earlier, I had used fiction in my discussion of the smells out of the disciplines dealing with (our) money). Weakest link, and other, examples come to play that ought to have given pause. In some cases, those doing this idiocy had a scientific academic background. Go figure.

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

01/29/2013 -- The WSJ review is a nice counterpoint.

Modified: 07/31/2013

Chimera, again

Moral: Wherein we stop to reflect, now that the chimera's sirens are calling again to the hapless to put their money on a shaky foundation since Big Ben continues with his sacking of the savers and with his infatuation with collecting toxic assets (see Remarks, 02/01/2011).

--

As such a move may imply more effort than the mere look back, to wit 7oops7 and truth engineering, which could be claimed to be a space-filler, though we did earlier succumb to the temptation.

--

There have been some recent developments that need to be considered. So, we'll be getting to those. For now, here's a list.

• From a technical sense (read Quants), the SOS approach looks to overcome a whole lot of problems involved with complexity which exacerbate some basic issues. Yet, using an intuitive approach (which is suspect in certain circles), one has to think that projections squish some part of reality (we'll get to how, and why, the best-and-brightests' overlay on the rest of the populace grates) while lifts trample (due to the assumptions that go into such -- oh, by the way, the chimera is an example of a 'lift').
• The FCIC. Oh, much to say about this (see 2008 (4 posts) bullet). Wait, did the committee finger the contributions of King Alan and Big Ben? Too, mania can be used; it was fostered by giddy belief in the gilded wizards of the modern age.
• China will continue to play a large role. The combined count of the impoverished there, and in India, is double the population of the US. Yet, we envy them. Of course, is our house clean (next bullet)?
• In November, the voters went red, again. We are now under the regimes thereby elected. Are any of us angels? On the other hand, does anyone even think about beyond reproach, anymore? This story tells many tales. It is 'nuf just to point to it.
• ...
• See Remarks: Also, the issue of value/worth (and money) is still open (Davidowitz' take). Anyone for culprits? Anything done for the systemic issues?
• ...

Remarks:

10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.

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.

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

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

03/23/2011 -- The hopes spring, again, forgetting, of course, near-zero, all because of M&M. See the real story. But, Big Ben ought to know better.

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

02/01/2011 -- Davidowitz says that the Fed is driving people toward the riskier side. We know where that leads, namely bigger fill for the pockets of those who run the game. Granted, these types can then spend, yet with the majority of the populace enslaved by chains of debt (including that yoke which is on the whole country), does that a sustainable economy make?

Modified: 10/05/2012

Chimera, explained

Moral: Wherein we stop to consider why 'chimera' has been used in reference to that which gets more of Big Ben's attention than is warranted.

---

Oh, some have benefited from the chimera's increasing heftiness. This is not unlike the house raking in the dough due to how odds are set.

For some reason, Big Ben has not pulled his head out of the '30s and seems to think that the ca-pital-sino is it. Sheesh, big guy. Will you learn?

---

Most people's lives are in the crapper. Many get by on scraps. The fat cats (less than 10%, the new aristocracy -- where is our Magna Carta?) are gaining more weight. Those same fat cats are raking in over 80% of the takings (will not use profits, as stock rising in prices means nothing of value, folks, let's get that straight - future topic -- for now, recall near zero, please).

---

Well, Big Ben's two targets (for which he has controls that supposedly help him aim) relate to unemployment (ah, that is one rub) and inflation. The first we all know is problematic (even, though Big Ben panicked early, supposedly worried all along, and wants to help), so we'll ignore that for now. Taking the second one, he has removed the chance of deflation. How? He trashed the savers, essentially junked the US Bonds (gosh, again, Big Ben, where is your head?), floated his QEs, and more. Liquidity, it's called.

From where I sit, looks like the banks got impacted (yes, think hose: high, hot, and hell of a lot -- old timers ought to know what this means) due to their improper diet.

Aside: Jamie? My jaw fell when I heard that some think that he ought to replace little Timmy.

---

Big Ben has another thing going against him. Fake money. Yes, he's been allowed to print without restraint (oh wait! that's little Timmy whose presses have been running overtime). Big Ben's role in this is that he determines what is the balance that is related to money (how much, of each type, etc.).

Big Ben and little Timmy are two peas in a pod.

---

What is this all about? Well, that which is termed 'chimera' has tenuous links to the bulk of the economy. How did this come to be? And, in a sustainable economy (yes, with an global focus) to what extent would the gaming called the market have a gambling flair? That is the question, folks. Mind you, there are many suited, lobbyists who do not want the game to be fair.

---

Of course, what would be fair? After all, it has been interminable that we have the upper class (a small set) and then the masses who are there mainly to be exploited. Even the phenomenon of those who may be meritorious and who arise from the teeming-ness of the masses, forget their past real quickly. Human nature, 'tis.

---

Given that we're just past the Fourth of July, let's, at least, not be pretentious that those ideals mean anything to the few who make the decisions. Oh yes, they mean a lot to those who need to think that things will get better. Or, to the idealist. ... Or, to the saint (yes, there are those).

---

There is a firm (not to be mentioned by name) that is so much an example. It in part deals with jetting, that bailiwick used by the rich to keep their little selves out of the fray. Oh yes, by using private means of transportation (that is subsidized by our monies -- oh, if this were not true, why do you not see the masses lining up for fractional jet time? -- that is, let the rich pay for the 'real cost' of their chosen method (to keep from rubbing elbows with those who fly first class using their earned miles or to keep from hobnobbing with the working class who might also be million milers) ... oh yes, this is equivalent to costing out the expenses of a private suite -- how many day-to-day work traveler can do that?), these types can work faster to keep those teeming masses in chains. Well, there was a sell-out from public to private that left oodles of debt on the books. Oh yes, monies flowed to a few pockets. That debt's service cost has been just debilitating on the company. Yet, who pays? They cut people, move (or try to move) to places of cheaper (more exploitable workers), trash worker benefits (of many types), get the local community to belly up with tax breaks, and so forth.

Why are they in this state? Well, it isn't that Obama questions why tax breaks are necessary for the rich's flying toys. No. There is the fact of the deal (in which, golden sacks made oodles -- set up the details, reinforced the notions - yes, they're the best), plus there was a downturn. You see, the firm was not able to IPO yet. It had a sister company that did partly get to IPO (enriching a few pockets), yet it has debt, to boot.

---

Well, that firm may have been of a sustainable mode for years. But, it's current turmoil ought to be studied very closely. For many lessons, such as leveraging's pitfalls, worker exploitation, limitations of pursuing the luxury market (except, what will be the reality of personal jets - strap on - equivalent to the flying bike?), and more.

---

So, 'chimera' it is whose sirens seem to strongly allure. Even Big Ben has been seduced. What is the way out of this debacle?

Remarks

12/22/2012 -- Fair and open actually used in a WSJ article.

10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.

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.

03/11/2012 -- We'll use Alan more this year. 

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?

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

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

07/13/2011 -- QE3? Sheesh, Big guy. The article says that stocks went up 6% during QE2. Let's see. How did the pockets of the savers diminish? More than that, it seems.

07/12/2011 -- See Salem Commoners for a continuation of the theme. Also, changed 'Jaime' to 'Jamie' (oh yes).

07/07/2011 -- Oh yes, Jaime probably wants a 0.01& reserve so that he can take even more due to supposed income from churning. Have to give Big Ben credit to standing up to the guy's rant. Let's put Washington Irving's theme to use.

07/06/2011 -- Yes, to get monies to service the debt, without the opportunity to sell more, what does the firm do? Take it from the workers, squeezing out the last drop of blood, selling assets, and such. How could they then be nimble enough to actually be effective in the future? Why is it that cuts seem to take on some equivalence with an anorexic drive? For all this, consider that no amount of cuts would come close to servicing the debt (where did that type of thinking become the paragon to which we all are supposed to bow?). Could they even sell all of their assets and pay the debt? Yet, when they do push out an IPO, it's supposed to be a great investment?

Modified: 12/22/2012

Ben's precipice

Moral: Wherein we consider that Ben can claim a little victory with consequences that will only be known much later.

---

We remember Alan's put and its effects (still being unwound and analyzed). What will we remember of Ben?

---


Watching Bloomberg, with 1/4 attention, saw a momentary flash of a graph. On it, there was a sharp drop being displayed. What was being graphed? Well, it wasn't the coming chasm (or whatever is the label for what is pending coming next January). What was being displayed was the long-term rate for Treasuries.


---

Well, Ben has been after that, for a while. So, does he have a sense of accomplishment? Does he have any qualms about putting a whole set of nails in the coffin of the middle class, and the savers? He's been putting it to the latter for a bunch of years now.

---

As Ben pushes toward the chimera (yes, bulls notwithstanding), things become even more dire for a whole bunch of folks. Who is not in dire straits? Those (some) playing games with the chimera, usually from a position that has plenty of backup (including, ultimately, bailout from the FED -- namely, we the taxpayers).

---

He wants things to be based upon this shaky platform that enriches the few and impoverishes the most. The notion of steady, and stable, seems to have gone with the wind. Yet, each who reaches effective maturity has had more elements of the stable than not. The rich know this (see 21 ways - at Business Insider); some try to keep the proper lessons from being learned by those who are most in need of the insights. Oh, find your own bootstraps is the message to one who doesn't even have boots, or if there are boots, the straps have been stolen.

---

On the 21 ways, it might be interesting to look at these in the context of the blog's viewpoint. Take #17, for instance, where the focus is on earnings versus savings. You see, the chimera, above, is thought of as earnings. Okay. Tell me truthfully, did those who rode on Zuck's coattails really earn anything (as in, what of value did they contribute besides big pockets, being at the right place at the right time, or some other pseudo-contributory role)? Yes, you guys, come explain this taking to us. What ought we call those 'gains' whose influence is mainly gaming that is meant to up the take of those who can (when the time to pull the plug arises) exploit these types of situations? Earnings? Remember, too, these 'gains' (even if very short term in nature) receive preferential tax treatment (thanks, those responsible for this). Ah, we'll have to look at that in more depth. 'earnings' can range from the hardscrabble income (can be characterized by so many examples -- from subsistence upward) to thievery (modern earnings, many times).

Ben, you really know better than to stoke this fire.

Remarks:

03/17/2013 -- The metaphor ought to be rats in the grain bin.

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

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

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

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

09/13/2012 -- So, Ben, backed up by his cronies, is doing QE3. As well, they're talking low rates until mid-2015. Why? So that the casino will continue with its chimera! We're going to end up with savers being sacked for more than 1/2 a decade. Preposterous. The main tale? Those with are doing fine and growing larger. Those without are more dire. In the middle, squeezed. The first class is a small subset, as we all know.

09/08/2012 -- Thanks are owed to Larry for being one of the few who stayed on message.

Modified: 03/05/2013

Chimera II

Moral: Wherein we muse about the games currently named the 'markets' and about their inability to give most any fair deal (Image: derivative traders beseech the altar).

--

The gaming abstraction really took hold in the latter part of the 20th century as computational systems improved. Trouble is, the machines took over, for various reasons, but the prime reason is that machinations by the best-and-brightest to, essentially, milk off the top back-fired, upon them and us.

And, Big Ben, and his crew, have not been able to unwind the situation. In fact, Big Ben, you have put the US taxpayer on the hook for trillions. And, in that wonderful environment of Jackson Hole, you just promised to put us further in hock, just to please the gamers.

Ah, the gamers rallied for a day, did they not? Granted Adam talked the 'spirits' as being of importance. But, the current spirit is so far removed from any reality that no one knows how to get the top spinning again.

Well, Megan provides a pretty good overview of what not to expect in this article: The Great Stock Myth. Actually, she makes the issue pretty clear.

From whence, new royalty, did you get the notion that you could make 30% per year? Divine right of kings?

The key is to save and to protect, not just milk the system. And, funding of future payouts has to get some attention. That is, the mode of only getting to within 60% of some goal and then expecting returns to make up the difference was idiotic, has always been idiotic, and could never hold up, in the longer run. We have to fund further than that.

However, once there is the accumulation, where, then, is there safety (that is, absence of malfeasance) so that the funds are available when needed? The equity markets, as currently played so boisterously every day, are not the place.

We can easily note that people have chased after unsustainable returns for some time now. Did they always? Well, in the past 20, or so, years, the illusion was fostered by machinations founded upon computer systems (this we can get control of, truth engineering, essentially).

What is sustainable? That number is something that we can discuss, and define. The concept of near-zero would apply. That is, no excessive return comes about without deprivation of another's position. All the talk about non-zero sum rests upon what one might consider a suspect world view (it is a simple matter similar to that of there not being perpetual motion - or, in other words, continuing the surrealism of economics and its dismal domain).

Actually, what is a return? Making money on other people's bellying up for some stock is not a return even though we let that sort of thing happen now. Yes, on the tele the other day, a trader was bragging about how they are making money: buying low and selling high (part of the milking process that ought not be allowed). Too, we have seen the few with multiples of take beyond imagination.

Yet, the types of returns that we see with the games (or current markets) are a strong equivalent of those associated with the Ponzi notions. Or, ought I say Made-off? As, his computational system put out sufficient reports (actually, trash, as we know in hind-sight) to make a whole bunch of people think that they were just raking it in.

In many cases, we have exported colonialistic entrapment, and exploitation of workers, to elsewhere. Of course, the goal was to obtain cheap products to sell; however, huge returns were another goal. That whole thing, definitely, is not sustainable in the long run.

How can the US have jobs when the main thrust of those in charge is to push exploitation overseas? But, the US worker wizened up,over time. Hence, the offshore focus. So, it's time to consider a Magna Carta for business. For people to spend, they need much more than access to unending debt. And, the new kings need to be put under some type of oversight beyond the 'yes' man scheme that is now in vogue.

By the way, the US economy, as a whole, needs to wake up to debt issues, to boot.

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.

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.

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

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

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

Modified: 12/15/2012

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

Mastered by machines

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

---

Sorry state of affairs, folks.

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

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

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

Remarks:

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

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

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

02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 03/16/2015