Genie out of the bottle

Moral: Wherein we look at recent findings.

Today, the news is that Russian paid trolls.Is anyone surprised? We ought not have let loose the Internet as we did. So, now, it's a mess. It was a mess the whole time after the commercial thrust got going.

So, we cannot cry about spilled milk (or is it spoilt?). Well, actually, it's both.

I have harped on this a long time. In fact, from a mobile sense, I am 1G/2G. From a computational sense, I do a lot of local processing. I rent a VM for my website. Cloud? It's a muddy mess. I do use it for storage. Carefully.

When I see Silly Valley's results over the past couple of decades, I grieve. I'm old. But, the youngsters are going to have to clean up the messes. Oh sure, jobs.

You know, the whole bit is screwy. Those who can play with data that they get from people's on-line activity. What? I almost barfed when I heard of that choice. It's like the mailman reading your mail. What idiot argued otherwise?

And so, here we are. I'll have to get back to writing posts, such as these: We let the genie out of the bottle and Genies and bottles. Of course, Truth Engineering will have to get back into play.

Remarks: Modified: 03/31/2017

03/31/2017 --

Harvard, value and quality I

Moral: Wherein we look at a current situation and argue that the best let us down.

---

How exactly did these people let us down? What are we to do about it?

Well, we can look at the issues. To do so means that we are going to have to go back to the beginning, 1636, and come forward. But, let's set the stage first. Subsequent posts will carry the discussion forward.

--- Foreword:

In an earlier post, while talking about how Adam Smith's ideas (we need a relook) seem to lead to gravy trains and salivation (definition of a politico being, he/she who salivates when a buck is passed beneath the nose), we mentioned Naisbitt's book in which he uses early USA history to characterize some of China's future. Say what?

So, that conceptual view out of Harvard motivated a long-needed look at what went down here (on this side) with the onset of emigres from across the pond coming over. And, where else is there more opinion offered about the foundations of the USA than that related to New England?

Well, folks, it turns out that we have a 'real' example to offer, namely an oft-overlooked Old Planter. But, we'll be getting to that later.

You see, Harvard is right across the river(s) from where the earlier actions took place, and, when one considers the (d)evolution of Harvard (say, as captured here by wiki editors -- see Remarks, 08/13/2011), the institution is archetypal, and much more, in very many ways; some of these are very much apropos to the discussions that will be needed (future posts).

As well, Harvard has stressed elitism (see wiki), at times, which may be natural given its start as God's favorite. Now, is not hubris one characteristic of the elite? And, does not any engineer (yes, as in MIT) worth his or her salt know that nature rules us not the other way around?

We are at a time when the wheels (economically, politically, ...) seem to be spinning. Where is the grip going to come from? Ah, the lessons of New England have the answer to that, as we hope to show (perhaps, we can even use some of that learned from Salem's tribulations to which, by the way, Harvardites contributed early).

Now, to show that we have to deal with finance too, let's continue with Harvard. During the times that elitism took control, the school was rich by any standard. For one thing, 'rich' referred to things dealing with lucre rather than, say, 'rich in spirit' as one would expect given all those Church of England brilliant lights who were involved with the institution's start. Yes, we have to ask, was Harvard a 'city on the hill' that was of unparalleled benefit to humankind?

Well, those things were 150 years ago (see Remarks, 08/13/2011). What about now? Just a couple of years ago, Harvard bragged about their bounty's (what's it called? endowment?) increases from playing financial games and the consequential immense proportions. In fact, they paid some dude outrageous sums for his efforts (ignoring the possible besmirching of the reputation). Then, it wasn't long, and we saw Harvard (and many other schools) crying poor (toxic shockandawe). Who, of a mature mind, would not ask, did not 'you idiots' get what you deserved?

Then, about the same time, the students (bless their hearts) were arguing with the big pockets about the fact that lowly Harvard workers could not sustain themselves decently with their wages.

We could go on but will not. However, consider this: the old guy mentioned above may be more of the 'backbone' of this country than any glib scholar and spewer of words (God, the verbosity in those messages to/fro London - the Church must have selected for this trait in their upper class) that grabs glory and pockets of bucks. It is this backbone, as infrastructure, that we have caused to be 'out-housed' and hollowed out, for the sole benefit of lining the pockets of the few, mostly the elite.

--- Word:

And so, we find that we will have to deal these concepts, namely value, quality, and near-zero.

A couple of days ago, in relation to Toyota's dilemma, a professor (UChi) said that Toyota may have gone too far after value while allowing quality less focus. You see, some think that these have some type of reciprocal relationship.

Ah? Was not the professor talking some notion of 'value' that most likely goes back to the Harvard Business School? How did this happen? That it did is one of the arguments for bringing 'near-zero' into play in discussing how to resolve these issues. You see, 'quality' is of value to all parties concerned, especially when one looks at the commonweal.

Oh, what is the commonweal? Well, those at Harvard ought not have to ask that question. That some may do so ought to give us pause (as ought a whole bunch of things). And, whose 'commonweal' are we to consider?

Well, in the case of Toyota, it would be global. However, it would include all sorts of parties, even pedestrians who may unluckily get in front of an auto that has a stuck accelerator.

Aside: That remark refers to those people who while using their feet increasingly meet up with autos that are running on our streets with no 'mind' in charge, rather we have a zombie sitting where a human ought to be.

Does it not look as if we need to have another go around about value, especially when we consider the various roles and responsibilities involved? That is one intention here, yet the problems of determining value, no matter the type, will remain, especially given that the genie is out of the bottle (in many ways).

Again, pointing to Harvard, the operational stance that we need, with its scientific and technological basis, will require some type of practical support out of the academic framework.

What will this be? Do we know? Good questions, for another day.

There are some major themes to bring up: innumeracy does not equate idiocy (very important), ungrounded genius is more stupid than well-founded normality, ... (it could be a long list, however let's, again, cut it short).

--- Afterword:

As we look at operational issues related to the themes here, one assessment of quality applies to people, their talents, and the potentials. Oh, we know, there are many open issues involved here, yet we will need human talent to control the genie.

Why bring up the old guy who was successful in bringing in, and raising, a family despite the inherent troubles and all of the dangers (natural, social, political)? We expect that we'll be addressing some things like the absence of the lordly prince syndrome among other things. That is, there is a certain effectiveness which accompanies success.

And, running off after abstracted chimeras as we have seen the past decade, or so, is not effective for the commonweal. Perhaps, someone in Harvard has already figured this out. Do I see shades of Cotton Mather here (kidding, of course)?

You see, the first 150 years of Harvard were in support of spreading the Christian faith (within a certain type of framework) across the land and elsewhere (again, see wiki's description). During the 1700s, the class size was such that thousands graduated with an flavored academic experience.

After secularization showed up, perhaps, graduates were more productive, meaning being able to play roles beyond those that are scarce in number. In fact, a point of pride for the institution is the number of graduates who have been recognized (43 Nobel laureates).

Again, one might ask why Harvard? Well, a few reasons were given above. Consider this, though. Is it not out of Harvard Business School that we got the emphasis on securitization, short-term profit focus, globalization/colonization, and more (we can build a real long list - perhaps should)? Oh, business schools, in general, one might say. Well, where is the leadership toward the better (please, not more rational, unless you mean non-insane) side of things that one might expect of Harvard?

So many questions, but we'll persist. Hasta la vista.

Remarks:

06/14/2014 -- Cognitive elitism. Will be getting back to this.

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

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

05/14/2013 -- Still the second most-read article (post). Ought to bring this up to date. As we see with Gauss' view of things, there is a spread around what might be termed the mean. Depending upon the domain, we'll be able to put people into categories according to this way of looking at things (remember, it's not intrinsically based, okay?). If we're looking at accumulations (depth of asset base or a myriad of other ways),    we have to have those on either side of the mean. No one, of the embodied type, wants to know the left most (however, the Creator does). The rightmost? Most aspire to this. Not all (and, Harvard types could talk to this old guy about that -- we'll go back to the beginning and before). Most will only dream of being on that side of things. Those there, mostly, think it's due them (ah, yes). ... Let's stop that and turn the table a little. One characteristic of those enjoying admittance is scoring highly on tests which is indicative of various abilities that we seem to think of as important. Yes, some correlation does come about. Are there failures of those types (yes, indeed, the problem is that many times they bring down a whole bunch of lesser folk into their turmoil - ah, the way of the world?). Too, the testing stresses, many time, numeric abilities. You know, such insights (many times, not wise at all) has led us (mankind, okay?) down perdition-laden paths where we overlay that viewpoint (yes, thanks to Carl Friedrich and many more) on our being (Harvard-ites ought to know of this; I would bet that many do not) to the extent of suffocation and worse. ... So, we're May, 2013. Ben has a 15K DOW as an accomplishment (congratulations are in order). But, he has not much about unwinding (except for thinking), though we've asked for this for years now. Guess what? We're back to the heavy leveraging idiocy.

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

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

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

08/13/2011 -- See the Feb 2010 version of the page in order to see the referenced section which disappeared on 12 May 2010. The missing section (Elitism) had been added on 24 Jan 2010. It consisted of earlier material, but the newer, historic organization made the text stand out. The missing text does relate that huge 'endowment' stature was almost expected.

08/13/2011 -- See Cambridge non-commoners.

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

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

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

11/11/2010 -- Harvard II, Ca-ital-sino, Adam again

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

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

02/19/2010 -- As said earlier, there will be coming posts related to this theme. In the meantime, start to look at the New England experience and what it means now. Of course, we already know the themes, such as computation's genie and control of this force, mathematization's diminution of mankind, the necessity for Harvard to step up to its role, and much more.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain.

02/06/2010 -- Let's see, we can start to count the ways. Take term limits, for instance, which definitely are an issue. In some cases, we have 'lordly princes' who get into office and sit there, for their own glorification (and the regal perks). Then, they're more influenced by lobbyists throwing around money (causing salivation) than by their own constituents.

Now, you have to give these people some credit. They do flummox the public into a continued vote. So, to go into that phenomenon is a whole other story.

Of course, these dynamics (independence/freedom versus cronyism - you see, there is probably a better way to characterize this, as it's a framework that adjusts by whatever basis it sits on) go way back, as said above (all the way to Plimouth and Cape Ann). It's natural that Harvard ought to be the center for a more full understanding of these issues (which would mean that money would be of less 'value' to you guys/gals than is truth). Where is such a study?

On a similar note, academic institutions breed something similar. How? What is there for support of the autodidact, in the sense of not being mentored? Of course, in this case, as we see in general, we have to maintain (after first attaining) a balance between the individual and the public good. How would an autodidact be rated? Institutions have their credentials and certifications. Why bring it up?

The whole notion of innumeracy not being idiocy needs to be looked at. Of course, Harvard, via Howard Gardner, may have already started to address these issues (and their conflicts).

Too, no one but John Galt is mentor-less. The issue is more, who does one select as mentor? For most people, parents are generally the first. There are other involuntary, for the autodidact, mentors throughout one's life. The problem is, as we see from early New England, can a social setting allow autodidacts? Actually, we have to ask if allowing autodidacts is, by necessity, disruptive?

The thing of the web is that expression can be offered, within legal limits, that is not under some mark of approval (imprimatur).

Modified: 06/14/2014

Reflections on Steve Jobs' work

Moral: Wherein we look back at our computing history, a little.

---

Mr. Jobs' work was central to several themes that will continue (such as, truth engineering). He'll be fondly remembered by many, for a long time.

The below reflection is not to be considered as critical, in any sense. Rather, it is meant to be the start of several posts that deal with the evolution of computing and with what might be needed to bring the genie back into the bottle (impossible in practice, but nice to think about).

---

The blogger saw Steve Jobs in person before the blogger saw the first Mac.

The blogger was working on a project, based in Cupertino, that was trying to attain wafer-scale integration. As you would expect, the computational modeling requirements were enormous (as in, there was no possible way to print out the circuity on paper, let alone try to compute properties) and pushing the envelope. Of course, things may have been a little too risky from a business sense (but, that's another story).

That project was 30 years ago (Mr. Jobs wasn't the only former-hippie in the area); the idea was fairly progressive at the time. It was definitely too early for the desired scale. Mr. Jobs was interested in technological aspect, as were many, at the time.

---

It was a mere few months later that part of the world went crazy over the little Mac. Mind you, it was cute. But, it could not be, at the time, compared to what the blogger had as a workstation (which you could not lug around, of course) that was needed to handle the demands for large-scale modeling. Yes, the workstations were networked (early use of the local internet facilities), had large memory and storage, and were somewhat fast.

In the early days, it was the non-technical ones who were enthralled with the Mac. Or, those who were not fortunate enough to be working on projects that could (had to) shell out $100,000s (in multiples) for networked workstations (see Remarks 05/02/2012 for some details) and their software (very fat clients, essentially).

Later, the blogger was able to use enhanced Macs. That is, we put special purpose cards into the little guys to make them capable to support the work demand.

Unfortunately, after that, the companies that the blogger worked for went with the IBM/MS thing (if you type 'win' you lose -- type of deal). So, Bill Gates, too, will be another part (much later) of the story.

---

Now, of course, a device that fits into your palm is as capable, somewhat (cannot, as of yet, make any comparison of what are now termed 'apps'). Mind you, it takes banks of these devices to perform the types of tasks that we were attempting with workstations (needless to say, a lot of the speed-up is due to trickery, trimmings that may very well come back and bite us on our collective behinds).

---

In the past thirty years, the computing world has changed; yet, the underlying pinnings are no more sound. In fact, one might say that Mr. Jobs' work exacerbated the problem. Mind you, that is not a criticism. It means this: in the hands of about everyone is a whole lot of computing power, much of it wasted, and all of it can potentially contribute to an increasing amount of mayhem.

---

Of course, Mr. Jobs' outputs and devices have been crucial. For instance, his NeXT work was important in carrying forward several modeling technologies. Again, the blogger was involved with applying this capability.

There will be much, much more to look at.

---

In essence, Mr. Jobs' life and work was central to an expanding theme; of course, many have made money (extreme amounts) on the back of this development; too, many have suffered (the latest? I-Phone/IPAD suicides).

We need to look at the whole picture; Mr Jobs' (and his zen-mind) would appreciate that.

---

And, given that the recent protests are about what essentially is an exploitation by the best-and-brightest of computational frailties, the theme is very much apropos.

---

So, the coming posts will have more of a technical focus, as the blogger reflects on the changes that were concurrent with Mr. Jobs' life.

Remarks

10/05/2012 -- In hindsight, Mr. Jobs' foresight looks pretty good (if only we could understand 'reality distortion' a little better -- and how we can observe effects). Talents come in many shapes, but being able to see around the corner (never 20-20) can be useful (if one can keep from being overwhelmed by the possibilities - lesson there? computability issues). The truly independent mind would have its own model that would be, perhaps, immune to energies related to phenomenon like Jobs' persuasive ability (this battle is age-old, folks -- to wit, the little ones on your shoulders leading you left-or-right [meant as facetious, during this muck-raking season, that is, thankfully, over in a matter of weeks] - Zen is one of many disciplines related to the theme). One adage I remember, from my long years, is that you get a bunch of managers together, and, before you know it, water runs up hill.

09/28/2012 -- Nice little issues continue to be ignored.

05/02/2012 -- Need to add a few comments about the technology alluded to earlier in terms of workstations. For one, the Lisp Machine (Xerox, Symbolics, LMI, ...). These workstations were quite capable and expensive. In fact, embedded within a couple of the modern approaches are the improvements gained from developing (and using) these machine. Too, about the same time, Unix-based machines were becoming more capable. Of course, SUN stands out, but it was much later. ... During those times, object modeling was maturing. C++? Infancy. Java? Not even a glimmer. ... Numerically, FORTRAN was still king and would be for awhile. Databases. The relational modeling that made some so much money? Being born. ... In essence. Work, at that time, was pushing new methods for creating algorithms and heuristics. Some of the approaches continued until the mid-2000s for the reason that they were still effective and, by that time, had not been duplicated by other approaches. ...

01/17/2012 -- I've been slowly reading his authorized bio; at some point, more reflection will be forthcoming, especially when we look at equity (private and otherwise).  

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better?

10/20/2011 -- We still need to follow up. USAToday on Mr. Jobs.

10/17/2011 -- There is so much to cover, however look at Rick's latest post. Of course, Turing's test doesn't deal with the 'being' issue (what test would?).

10/11/2011 -- Weathermen reminisce about what the Mac meant to them. These are interesting and relate to a couple of points that need to be addressed: function/presentation, metrology/close enough (of course, they're trying to solve a hard problem, yet, flashy graphics do not 'truth' make).

10/09/2011 -- The prior Remarks will bring in issues related to the 13th Amendment. Aside: do employer-driven non-disclosure agreements tread on rights pronounced there?

10/09/2011 -- Kings have sovereignty over their dominion however large it may be. There, currently, is no king of the world of this type. CEOs have sovereignty over their companies. Now, many of these have domains that are larger (measured many ways) than geographical types of kingdoms. BUT, each has sovereignty over themselves (or ought to), ideally (constitutionally, if you're in the U.S.A.).

Now, being able to exhibit sovereignty requires talent of various sorts. Throughout history, those who ruled others may or may not have had this talent. From all of the turmoil over the millenia, one has to just marvel at the stupidity of these types, exhibited, in the modern age, by the CEO MVPs.

Our task is to foster that which enhances one's self-sovereignty and diminishes others' influence on oneself. Oh wait. The social media seem to be antithetical to this notion. Also, all of those issues related to mature interactions (of a peaceful manner) must be resolved (philosophers have long been involved with that dilemma).

It is this type of notions that are behind a lot of what motivates the current protests. Those who could (LT 1%) have exploited (and have been allowed to exploit) the rest (GT 99%).

We need to discuss how much Steve's work may, or may not, have helped those who want to achieve self-sovereignty. Zombie-like attachment to an idiot box (yes, including the so-called smart phone) provided by technology (owned and ruled by another) is probably one of the worse types of enslavement.

See Washington Post article (link, next Remarks): kids won't glance up from their IPhones. They'll never need to. (Ah, we'll bring them bed-pans? Wait on the little zombies hand and foot?).

10/9/2011 -- And, the Washington Post weighs in.

10/8/2011 -- Interesting essay, at WSJ, that bears some response, at some point. Technology, in this sense, provides rose-colored glasses and puppet strings to be pulled by the wizard? Ah, ironic that the Mac appeared in '84. What conversations are George and Steve having?

10/8/2011 -- These Remarks are, in part, collecting themes for the future posts related the subject. The genie is out of the bottle, as noted above; we cannot go back (the time arrow is forward -- for all that we know, now); therefore, resolving 'truth' issues will be central (not unlike the need for defensive mechanisms -- albeit, we would like to think that peace and love are the norm -- not succumbing to Dick's paranoia). The context requires a technical focus, but a whole lot of intuition is in order, to boot. That is, trained intuition. Do we know how to do that, yet? Somewhat, Steve's work was directed toward this.

10/07/2011 -- Steve's efforts raised two essential ideas to the fore such that they had to become part of the milieu: usability and object-orientation. The two (and a few others, to boot) will be looked at further in additional posts. Usability, especially the touch-click notions assisted by graphical displays, is central to certain types of human-computer interface. That interface can get in the way, though, from a technical focus (we'll define this further). The whole notion of entities with behavior (we'll look at the history of this development) that are accumulations of disparate (not disjoint, necessarily) attributes is at the basis of a whole lot of modeling. Too, though, it can lead to confusion (computational vertigo). Again, this is not criticism, but, rather, it is an attempt to discuss the evolution of computing using the effects of Steve's participation.

There is a sort of dichotomy involved here. Apple allows an intuitive interface that enhances creative efforts, of a sort. That type of interface can inhibit others (we'll get into that). At the same time, though, this whole evolution has favored those who have numeracy (with the effect of reducing (or trying to) the innumerant set into the corner of eternal dumb-ness. Ah, no wonder things are so awry as the best-and-brightest are numerant and are exploiting the game.

One can argue (zen) that numeracy is more idiotic than not. Got that, smart folks? We'll be explaining why. Hopefully, the protesters of Wall Street do not lose their sense of urgency.

10/07/2011 -- Steve believed in his own intuition. We'll have to look at that a little, in this sense: mathematics and science have denigrated intuition (many examples of the counter-intuitive being correct - to a certain point) yet we know that we need this in order to be creative. Those two poles, or seeming poles, are at the crux of the computational problems of today.

Modified: 10/05/2012

Sandbox, again

Moral: Wherein we remind ourselves that we need a sandbox to constrain risky (sandboxy) behavior and to introduce some concepts from the test engineer into the handling of our beans (and bread). Does the aura of mathematics and modelling make it less ad-hoc?

---

Big Ben likes to sack savers. He has had his hand in our pockets for years now. Having fun with that, big fella?

---

One of his guys, Richard Fisher, says enough coddling of the fat cats. Thanks, guy. Will Big Ben ever listen to you?

Richard says that he see evidence of speculative thinking. What? Heck, Richard, it never left, and, since we let the genie out of the bottle the past 1/2 century, it has only grown.

Hence, anyone thinking about how to get these 'gamers' into some type of corral? By the way, Warren, you could help.

---

So what does all that above mean? Well, here is some metaphor-laden garble from the leading, supposed, thinkers in finance. Too, notice the use of concepts related to gambling. At the same source, we see news about Warren's recent gains (with 'bet' in the title).

Is this business or ca-pital-sino? And, we all know that gaming is zero sum, not near-zero (except for a little public good from taxing the house, perhaps).

By the way, if the casino were to be corralled into a sandbox, what would be left? We'll need to look at that type of thing further.

---

Shilling: The stock market is rising because the Fed's free money policy is making the stock market rise, Shilling says. But the economic recovery is much less than meets the eye: Wall Street is doing well, while the rest of the economy suffers, and the critical housing sector is still a mess. So the stock market's run won't last forever.

Remarks:

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?).

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

09/14/2012 -- Ben just gave them, the runner amok'ers, the store. 

08/30/2011 -- Essentially, we have financial piracy.

04/04/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash. Need to look at some background.

03/28/2011 -- See 03/24/2011 Remarks (1/2 rant) and on March madness.

Modified 10/30/2014

Suckers and sackers

Moral: Wherein we suspend, briefly, the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks. Our goal of honoring Adam Smith and other thinkers will be delayed a little.

---

After all, we have things like the ergodic hypothesis, and a lot more, to discuss.

---

In its current mode, capitalism is for the sackers. And, Big Ben, your sacking of the savers plays right into the pockets of the takers. The consequence is that we have a whole slew of new kings (and royalty) who are more problematic than good.

Then, we have the hapless. Suckers, in other words. Those who are led into indentured servitude for themselves and their families for generations.

---

Wait, is not that what we're doing for the US economy as a whole?

Sackers need an endless supply of suckers to play their game. Why else Wall Street (yes, Ben, and you do know that you play the fiddle for these people?)?

Now, some who were suckered once are really smart and will not allow this again. In the past, cards have generally been stacked for those who are early and get the system made to their liking.

---

Wait, again, isn't the wild web just full of this? Yes, Zuckerberg (Look, guy, you may not want such but give me a bunch of smart people who can take a simple living oath, and we'll set the economy straight, for ourselves, our children, and their offspring) and a whole lot more.

Be that as it may, let's go to the foreclosure issue. Daily Finance lists what could happen from the current mess. It is worth a read.

However, embedded is a link to talk about a middle class revolt. Now, to hear some who argue for capitalism, they want 'free' markets, almost to the point of anarchy. But, no, not quite that far. Just far enough to push things into their favor and their pockets.

To hear the middle class talk of revolt is troublesome as they (not the fat cats) are the basis for the economy, especially the capitalistic variety. Somehow, we have lost the way.

---

Capitalism, people, is the best means for us to have a just economy. But, and I repeat, but, 'capitalism' is still to be defined. That is our task.

The pain with the realizations of late results from the fact that some of us thought that the US would be the best environment for this type of economy to happen. Well, people, interlopers have usurped 'of, by, and for' thereby confusing the issues.

---

A lot of good people have thought about these things and have tried to help matters. But, that we have let the genie out of the bottle with technology needs more attention. Those who are best and brightest, by their nature, want to screw the rest (unless they are simple livers - yes, I can define this). Then, they get the legal eagles on their side, including the courts.

---

Unfortunately, we may find that last year Obama ought to have nationalized the banks, stopped the high bonuses that were paid, halted the markets, did a full audit, ... (a lot more), ..., and then built up to start afresh. Is it too late?

Remarks:

10/15/2017 -- Post hasn't been touched for four years. Lots of water, many ways. The muddy cloud fell to pieces allowing manipulations through ads (run by money hungry souls - and the power seeking), yet the numb nuts keep at it. Why? Stupid mis-interpretation of Adam plus some idea that commercialization (mercantilization) are it. Lots to discuss.

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

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).

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

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

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

09/13/2012 -- Ben, and his cronies, continue to sack the savers. 

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

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

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.

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

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind).

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

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

10/15/2010 -- How do we get back the 'of', 'by', and 'for the people' in all ways, including the economic system? Perhaps, if we could get Zuckerberg (Facebook), et al, to agree to 'simple living' and we could place trust (engineered, of course, as necessary), then computational assistance could help us all rise out of the morass (especially, that associated with politicos - those who salivate when a buck is passed beneath their noses - somehow, evolution has selected for these types?). To date, the promise of the cyber-physical, especially that represented by the web, has mostly pulled us further into a worse situation.

Modified: 10/15/2017

Two views

Moral: Wherein we look at year-end thoughts and such.

Namely, this post's theme is motivated by The Economist's "Christmas Specials" which come out in the final publication of the year. These articles are always worth a read, since they get above the normal routines related to busy-ness.

Below are comments about interesting articles.

• Bleak chic - I liked the use of miserabilism. One might say that this emotional state is more often frequented by the 99% than by any of the 1%, except such a comment might suggest, perhaps, that money can buy happiness. Too, such a thought would ignore the values that relate to things beyond that measured by money. Of note to this discussion will be near zero.   
• A tale of two rushes - The article compares the "gold in California" time with a new phenomenon, namely fracking's boon (put this way as the deleterious effects are, as of yet, unclear). For the 1849 scene, Brands' book on the age of gold provides a lot of the material. This quote, pulled directly from The Economist's page, will be part of our discussion, to boot (Whereas the Puritans dreamed of accumulating modest fortunes “a little at a time, year by year”, through “sobriety, thrift and steady toil”, the ‘49ers dreamed of “instant wealth, won in a twinkling by audacity and good luck”. Among the early settlers, failure “connoted weakness of will or defect of soul”. In the gold fields, by contrast, “a person was expected to gamble, and to fail, and to gamble again”. And “[w]here failure was so common, it lost its stigma.” This idea—that failure is a socially acceptable stepping stone to success—is one reason why American capitalism is so dynamic.) Yes, the recent downturn came about from the second attitude. What grates is that plenty of the do-rights have had their futures trashed by the idiots in the second camp. 
• ...

We'll add in more articles. 

So two views? Essentially, using the second bullet (two rushes), how do we get banking to be of the first category (yes, Puritan in thought)? Why is it that the second category is even allowed outside of a high-regulated playing field (think sandbox, field of endeavor, etc.)? And, didn't Ben just show himself of the second category? So much to discuss there.

And, we'll have to look at the "genie out of the bottle" aspect of the web (wild west, indeed). 

---

The Economist's article locks down after three reads. It's worth a read. Here is an open article dealing with something similar (greed warps the mind). See Remarks below (01/07/2014) which brings in a class-oriented framework that we'll be expanding. We could build a better society by having a national service (military or otherwise) where all have to participate. Too, those of the high-falutin' family histories ought to have to muck manure (or a number of other things - this old guy has done all sorts of the supposed dirty tasks [without getting paid the bucks taken in by the guy with the TV show - let's see him endure some of those environments for a year or so], seeing the people doing these tasks, and never losing his beliefs in the Creator's wish that people uplift themselves and others). I'll be going back again and revisiting the topic (having now spent a deal of time tracing aristocratic descendants in this country, some of whom, actually, are what one would call ideal citizens [based upon the American dream] - others carried their old ways to the new world) of the split (haves and haves not is one way to characterize - there are oodles more) that we see where a small percentage rape/pillage/accumulate (with a real sense of entitlement due to several possible things - heritage, talent, looks, ...) while limiting the majority (we'll look closely a near-zero, and its importance) all the while claiming that this is the way it ought to be (hah, but, even economists are pulled into the chimera - I read recently, to my chagrin, that one big name likes that he made money on the market (ill-begotten gains), from his books, and from his rewards - nice, have to give the guy credit, but, where is the thinking, modeling, being done that goes beyond the materialistic crap?).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/07/2014

01/07/2014 -- Janet was confirmed yesterday. We'll have to see how things go. The markets are puffing up today. Why is it not apparent to certain views (mostly intellectually founded, I think, even though they tout that they are data driven - God help us from this new illusion) that the markets are as high as the pot buyers of Colorado? Perhaps, in the realm of Janet and her cohorts, the kings and queens (you see, old-time kings had geographic domains - the newer ones have a virtual realm that is beyond control, as we will see with things going forward - the effects of global outsourcing is a small hint at what is to come) of the world have limited perception (say, the 30K feet or more metaphor). Down where the crap is (and kings and queens make as much effluent as does the miserable peon - except they expect others to deal with the crap [we'll look closely at the military imbalance - what? - yes, the responsibility ought to be cast wide-spread, across all classes] or they are of the type that think that their outputs are other than smelly and poisonous [loose usage, okay?]). If you search in this blog for kings and lords, you'll see that I've already waxed on the subject (and will bring those earlier musings up to date). Now, what I will propose is that I can help Janet, and her ilk (through having my feet in the crap, yet, there are no bounds to the mind), get a better grip. And, I am not alone in this talent. But, you won't find me traipsing to their gilded palaces, in awe. I've seen that. No, they have to make field trips other than Ben's type of honoring the Tetons with his presence and going to talk to the best-and-brightest in their little (yes, yes) University-milieu of which he is so comfortable.    

Grandsons of Samuelson

Moral: Wherein, we remember Paul Anthony Samuelson, the Nobel-winning, and highly influential, Economist.

---

Business Week (12/26/09 & 1/4/10) asks, 'did the followers go astray?' which references a forthcoming paper, Sins of the Sons of Samuelson (PDF at Wellesley, David Colander and Casey Rothschild).

As the adage goes (Biblical origin), the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons. Well, hopefully, the next generation can take a re-look, even if it is done autodidact'dly.

It has been said before that we're suffering from the over-exuberances that computational prowess brought forth and sustained over the last part of the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries. Perhaps, we can now take an assessment and be a little wiser going forward (idiocies abound, even those of a highly mundane nature). And, it's not an issue of which side of the pond anymore with the rising of those over the bigger pond being a much larger factor.

In this case, perhaps, we can exonerate Mr. Samuelson and blame the followers. Computation is much different than in his day. That Quants have run wild is only loosely associated with his work.

He, though, is one who worked to get the genie out of the bottle. Can we get it back under control?

Well, we'll continue to consider these types of question, especially as we all share the pains when the economy is malfease'd.

Remarks:   Modified: 01/15/2015

12/29/2009 -- Is the uber-Nerd a son? Also, Paul Krugman says that the 00s were a big zero; well, let's introduce him to near zero. The sons need to realize that gains must have a substantial basis, as in being 'real' and beyond mere model-mania.12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

05/07/2010 -- Out of control, essentially, and not healthy for the backbone.

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

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

05/28/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at! Avatars, too.

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

12/03/2013 -- In a Fortune talk with Larry Summers, there is a mention that he is a nephew of Samuelson. So, that is great to know, as it'll allow some discussion of gene/meme issues (actually, the blogger has been working this topic in another milieu; Ben's thoughts on the failings of meritocracy ought to bring it back to fore here). Too, Larry was in charge when the Glass-Steagall restrictions were relaxed so that the big boys could then play wildly and mess up our banking system. Thanks, Larry. Good to know that he was one of the players in that bad choice. You see, the pusher of rationality had a bit of irrationality; well, was that not a sign of the times?

12/06/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow. He's helped the chimera unfold in unhealthy ways. He could, at least, say a mea culpa.

02/26/2014 -- Acknowledgements for Lucio Arteaga.

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.

Consumer, auto

Moral: Wherein we consider the current Toyota incidents as a chance to ask: who looks out for the consumer who is, essentially, the sink of the economy?

---

First, we ought to be grateful that it is Toyota who is in the hot seat. They (of course, after we acknowledge Deming) led the quality drive (pun) for a very long time and can regain their reputation.

The auto experience is an example of how big business (auto) and big government (and, in each case the best-and-brightest) tell us what we want. However, there is much more to the growing complexity of the auto than we're allowed to think about.

It is obvious that even the best cannot resolve some issues that underly software and its quirks. The net effect is that people, as drivers, will be central to containing the problems. Of course, we must act intelligently as drivers (for example, texting while driving is not smart).

What we're beginning to learn is that the car is becoming increasingly computerized or is becoming like a computer. Also, auto engineering has grown to cover quite a few intellectual domains.

Yet, we're driving as if we've just got past the horse-less carriage? What is the timeline of the current control systems (wheel, two pedals - some with three)? Are they outdated?

Is it any wonder that people have problems with the intuitive match, since generation by generation, we are becoming increasingly game oriented (which is not a bad thing). Why haven't we adjusted control systems?

Well, that the racing people (Danica, et al) have optimized their handling of the current configuration does lead toward some drivers thinking that being the wheel constitutes that they are in a race. Not so, people. It is transportation, for the most part. There are other enjoyments such as driving in inspiring landscapes, and such. That some drivers divert their attention to other things, and create risks, can be shown as indicative of the problem of the controls not engaging the person.

--- Aside

One question: why is there no user group related to car users? Every modern computational framework has one of these. What does the driver have? Don't say Car Talk, or manufacture brochures, and such. The issue is the state of being a driver and what it means. It is not maintenance, design (though, we need to look at serious modifications at some point), or trade-offs on performance. Those are covered by various interest groups.

Notice that most computer systems now allow some type of personalization? That was a struggle to attain. It did not just happen. The same sort of thing has shown up in the car, to a certain extent. You can set your environment, adjust seats, move the steering wheel, and such.

Ever think about what would be an improved driving experience? Let's look at the current configuration. The stop/go is related to the feet. This seems correct, carrying forward our long use of movement by walking. Then, we have the hands to change gears, signal, steer.

What if we steered by our feet? Don't laugh. Do not we balance with our lower appendage? We could signal, too; it wasn't long ago that the bright switch was on the floor. One had to stomp around to find the thing.

Having the switch on the steering wheel was nice, but there was not a standard way to do it. Of course, only the frequent traveler, who had to use different cars, had a problem. There are similar issues with differences that can be problematic.

However, what part of the game control knobs could be used with cars? There is a lot that could be discussed there.

---

And so, it's in the belly of the beast that we need to wake up to, as consumers. How are things communicating? What are the different chips? How are they used? Even this, what algorithms are being used for control?

You know what, people, some of the testing by the industry has been real-time, using drivers as the subjects. Allowing proprietary shields to some of these specifics ought not be the cause of lack of oversight.

Just asking questions here, folks. The fact of the matter is that we see one problem having a succession of possible causes thrown out (mat, pedal, switch, ...), with each cause and fix supposed to quiet the situation, yet the problem continued.

How many issues of this type lurk? You know, there is the concept of systemic which would be industry-wide.

We can say this: with software being a central factor, there are a whole lot of things that will be required to maintain stability of systems.

Anyone looking at those issues? Here, we have the concept of undecidability (dealing with decisions, especially those computational) to discuss.

Remarks:

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

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

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

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/16/2010 -- Response to Toyota by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. Did Toyota really use 'infallible' in describing their systems? One professor seems to think so.

03/12/2010 -- Toyota's web site that is related to recalls.

03/09/2010 -- Can of worms is what we've gotten from letting the genie out of the bottle.

02/22/2010 -- Business Week uses 'drive-by-wire' in an article about computational driving.

02/10/2010 -- There seems to be a rash of recalls, of late. The problem of value versus quality has been warped by an improper handling of near-zero.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Stable value I

Moral: Wherein we attempt a brief look at normalcy's lure.

What with twit-ville getting lots of press and money (into the pockets of the founder in a big way, then in a lessor amount - but still substantial - into the hands of some who work for the founder) plus the markets being volatile - one day down, then the next up - this past week plus continuing worries about Ben's largess coming to an end (the training wheels coming off, the teat being pulled from the lips of the brats, the narcotic being removed from the presence of the addicts, ..., what have you) plus a lot more, there is one major problem with today's world that we can correct.

Aside: About the monies flowing so greatly, these are ill-begotten and attained on the backs of workers, savers, rational folks, and more (about which we can expand as necessary).

One wag said that Ben has trashed all asset types but equities. That is not far wrong. But, it dances around the problem.

Want to know what the main issue is?

In our relativistic world (thanks Albert - of course, this guy bemoans the bastardization of what he pulled out of the unknown; yes, he did not invent; he merely described a portion of reality) - as seen by certain types of eyes and models, the economy is now such that attention goes to what is really a fool's game (sorry motley guys, you did not invite foolishness) at which we are to marvel and to whose players we are to bow as if they're the epitome of something worthwhile.

Say that again?

Allah           -              Moolah

Talk to any of the financial ilk (if you want to degrade yourself, okay?), and they'll spout off about mixes of asset holdings, principally based upon two biggies - namely, equities and bonds. Now, equities bounce up and down. They have only gone up, of late, due to Ben's largess to Wall Street and his slapping silly of the savers. At any moment, they can trash the landscape and impoverish many.

How? Look, if all holders sold, the mere fact of the sale will cause a downward motion of value. It's inevitable. The total sale cannot be instantaneously accomplished. There would be a sequence, with those in the early part of the sale getting more -- as in, much more -- then those in the trailing edge getting less and less -- this is true despite the billionaires and millionaires we see; why?; near zero - their gains are on the back of the hapless.

Aside: There is a point at which we have nothing left but losers. Of course, the vultures then come in and feed (ah, see below that this is not by necessity the way to run a modern economy - those with the power have fetishes that need to be brought out to the open).

Now, bonds? Well, as we saw this year, when the interest rate goes up, the price goes down. So, holders of these type of bonds -- said this way, as this need not be -- lose value when interest rises. The mere hint of Ben raising rates makes bond holders - of this ilk - quiver.

--

The fact of the matter is that the current model is arbitrarily defined, for the most part so as to enhance the sucking of monies from the hapless to the players. These players, then, add churn in order to keep their obvious necessity (ah so) known to the populace - and this has gone on for years.

Is there another way? Yes, always has been.

Take a "stable value" view. Yes, suppose that you could hold something that would pay you what you expect plus some increase - ignoring, for the time being, issues related to inflation. Would that not be desirable? That is, you would not have to worry about some player putting his/her hands in the till and removing what you need to feed yourself down the pike - by the way, as savers have experienced for the past few years with no end in sight for their suffering.

Oh, say the wags, you would not make enough to retire on. Not true. Stability is a boon, many different ways. There are plenty of examples for us to use.

We will go on about this. That's why the title says, Stable value I.

---

Ben does not see any use for stable value. I can understand that. But, he has to know that his slapping of the savers is not sustainable. Too, he has to know that he's aerated things in ways that are unprecedented and that recovery from which will add more pain - to the savers and Main Street . Ben is leaving, so Janet ought to know (and her ilk).

The economy needs to be based on a stable basis that allows us to have a better look at the future than the one that we have now that is (has been) beclouded - so that the odds lean in the favor of the finance community. That is the core issue.

Then, the ca-pital-sino can be allowed (in a sandbox with diapers on the players so that their crap stays in their little playground) so that those who need the titillation can find solace and comfort. The sandbox would wrap those higher-order, supposedly, instruments which have been so seductive to the players.

---

All of these themes have been addressed over the years in this blog and the related blogs -- at some point, perhaps, links will be provided; right now, this is just air clearing - Ben's been doing that enough.

Whether we address this further with "Cosmology of business" or otherwise is not certain at this time. The game gets its attention, and money, every week - Cramer gets his air aired, to boot. That the shitty nature of the current mode is felt in Main Street will not abate; yet, there is some urgency that is needed.

You see, the computer has exacerbated the problem. Not by necessity. Rather, some, who could - as in, are allowed - have exploited things willy-nilly by enshrouding things in complex ways. Sleight-of-hand, if you would. The stench is still there - the nose will be important to establishing stable processes.

Too, those, with numeracy in their pocket, have been allowed carte blanche. And, powers that be have gone along with the so-called best-and-brightest. Meanwhile, those with the proper talents are waiting in the wings. In fact, determining just what that talent might be will be on the plate.

Remarks:  Modified: 10/30/2014

11/09/2013 -- One Fed guy said that their decision about QE - Infinity and the interest rate would be driven by data. I supposed that this is to help establish an aura of scientific discipline; you see, economics being other than dismal? Isn't that a hoot? The guy (I ought to look up his name) is under the delusion that data are not suspect. Guy, whoever you are - I just saw a headline and didn't go deeper, conflict comes about from differences in interpretation of fact. Using "data" as some abstracted type of glorification of our common knowledge does not raise the issues beyond how humans deal with their world. Opinion? Obviously, the Fed is loaded with people who would rather suck up to the rich, trash the savers and the old-timers, and, generally, run amok since they have the power to do so; rather than what? Talk about Main more than the Wall (unnecessarily complicated in order to hide the extractions that occur regularly - how else the high life styles? ..., why the large bonuses that don't seem to have a reasonable basis? ...). Wait, don't they talk unemployment? Yes, that fetish of the Fed being able to push that string thereby effecting full employment. All the while jobs (never seen in the proper light) are pawned off to external regions under the guise of globalization when, in truth, it's exploitation to the extreme.

11/11/2013 -- The Fed ought to address computability issues with regard to monetary policy. Yes, the genie is out of the bottle, but we can regain some control.

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?

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?).