America and its roles

Moral: Wherein we start anew, with a fresh slate, and cover the bases (congrats, SF) after admitting that there is no jealousy.

Harvard is mentioned several times in this blog (22 posts). Too, though, there have been references to related themes (Harvard, supposed spawning point for world leaders) of American history (14 times - as well, use of "America" is not chauvinism - we're talking way before 1770s) and of civilized notions (20 times - albeit, Brit, as in Magna Charta). You see, the manias related to the chimera (in all of its variations) are very much counter to proper thinking.

So, since we can leave things in the capable hands of Janet and crew, we will be able to get back to considering the issues, as necessary.

--

Now, before we go further, let me make something clear. Look around now at the turmoil. For the most part, we see that youngsters are the ones who are providing the energetics. What has been interesting of late is how many places on the planet are seeing this phenomenon. Say, use the past 10 years to make the count. Astounding.

Over the past few decades, we have seen this time and again. And, the first occurrence, here, can be placed in the 60s. Having started, there were all types (which are well known) that followed over the years. Actually, we could put Berkeley first. But, coincident would be the activities related to Civil Rights.

We are talking more than civil disobedience, in a sense. We have to talk about conventions and such. Yes, it relates to business (in oh so many ways). For one, the bifurcation, so well documented as being so extreme, comes about from the human dynamics that we will explore (essentially, feudal lords ruling over their abstract'd entities seemingly without any constraints - not even from their stockholders).

And, the lord/serf theme is recurrent, to boot (40 times). The modern work environment is so much worse than what our remote ancestors faced (how do we get those supposed smart folk to wise up to the fact? -- let's take them down to the trenches so that they can see/smell the reality).

---

Right now, we will talk about the beginnings of Harvard. There are plenty of stories that tie into the event. Then, there is the long history. For now, we will only be looking at that early point.

It is said that the students rule there. Now, let's see. If that were true, then, it would have been the first occurrence of such a thing. Anywhere. Is that our legacy? Are we now paying the price in terms of the interminable power grabs of the best and brightest? Does thinking about this help us see why the stalemate continues at the top (supposed top - it was to be a government of the people, etc. -- remember?).

And, recall, too, that we started off talking about the youngsters being behind the revolutions. That was not true for the Spirit of 1776. No, it was not.

Old and young (just look at the wide range of ages in the large collection of patriots in the Massachusetts) cast in their lot. Female and male. All the race/cultural types were represented. Except, for the jolly old English (called royalists).

Disclosure: As we go through the analysis/discussion, there is a personal note in the sense of familial relationship with the players of the early days. Foremost, though, is the first instructor: Nathaniel Eaton. But, there are ties, too, with the whole lot of the players: motivators, payers, students, ... Hence, we can make that the central focus (where did we go wrong?).

--

We are doing this exercise for several reasons. Firstly, things are awry. One reason is mathematics being misused (a little knowledge is dangerous - albeit, we have supreme modes of abstracted nonsense nowadays). What has helped make this worse is computation with its inevitable culmination in big data. Secondly, we just had the 200th in a gaga mode. But, look around. Do you really see an American spirit anywhere? How did this happen? Of note, next year is the 800th of King John's first coerced signing (sealing) of the Magna Charta. This whole thing is seminal and will be more so (until the energy peters out - let's hope that it does not).

Thirdly, how did we get so bound into the chimera (personally, I like to keep my distance)? It entraps (the whole game and the potential payoffs - silly for mature thinkers, really). Too, though, go back to the first reason. We are overlaying ourselves (allowing ourselves to be entrapped) in a very strong web - let's wake up and smell the roses now - it's the right of the people). The proper view is not tightly considerate of what Janet (before her Ben and so forth) is doing. And, bemoaning the abstract'd views ought not be misconstrued. We need mathematics. ... But, consider that the metaphor of plumbing and plumbers is more strong for money/finance than the current set of brainy types will allow (add to those, the greedy, etc.). Fourthly, we have been at this for awhile and got off the track. But, not really, Janet and the Fed have put us in an unknown situation. We have been experimented on real time. By cowboys and cowgirls. Why did this happen? Because they could. Yet, Janet is talking data as if that is some silver bullet. The real deal is that the oracle could be more in tune with what is needed if the views were lifted. Harvard is not a lifter (is that the implication?)? We shall see. As we get back on track and start anew.

Finally (not), things will crash. We want to be able to explain the cheshire multiple in terms that are understandable. For now, everyone, please, know that markets (the chimera-typical thing currently in vogue) are set up to guarantee losers. What is annoying is that the loser set is more than 50%. Yes, our task? Describe this and make it clear. After that reality sinks in, then we can start to talk about better ways and means (also, enjoying old Marx's comments about fictitious capital).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/15/2015

12/30/2014 -- Working on using pages to organize the material - as in, the message depends upon the medium.

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.

The ideological errors of capitalism, VI -- classism

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely, ill cultured-ness, abounding of absconders, prevalence of shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino are not sufficient. We need to look at its classist's basis. Image: see Carnot on Motive Power (capitalism's view of labor?).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

And, how do we address such a complicated subject? Well, let's start with a few remarks that are disjoint, yet potentially coherent, looks at themes which can then be discussed more later.

---

It was almost inevitable given the framework in which the ideas developed. At the time, there was little relationships between the upper and lower classes. In fact, the middle class was always squeezed.

Oh wait, the lowers had no rights (until the Magna Carta) and were basically exploited. That continues to this day.

Too, those who might have been lucky to ascend from out of the lower realms mostly quickly forgot, by design, their origins. Looking at this might be interesting but distracting.

---

The modern conceptual frameworks, that were not available at the time of Adam Smith, can refresh the capitalistic outlook. For one, rather than class, there would be roles as the focus. That is, take labor. The current situation allows serious exploitation of those in this role, as we've seen with the colonization that outsourcing is.

Jobs? Ah, many are without. How can there be offerings of roles that would allow people to take care of themselves and their families? Consumerism, in the sense of 'c' being the largest part of the macro equation, demands this.

---

'capital' itself needs to have another look. Now, it seems to be more analogous to crown jewels than not (to be discussed). Ah, how many kings can this poor world, and its miserable masses (nope, not Marxist), support?

---

Private ownership? We need to look at this in a more enlightened fashion. Given the current vogue, one could very well imagine someone 'thinking' that they own the planet. Oh wait! Was not a lot of the conflict on the poor suffering earth just to show who was boss?

As well, given the advent of mutli-national firms, especially those who have a heavy footprint on the cyber part of our cyber-physical existence, we see ownership that does encompass something that is world-wide.

Ownership, in terms of roles, denotes responsibilities. Unfortunately, what we have seen has been efforts, albeit successful to some extent, to shirk responsibility.

Mind you, did we not just see, up close, privatization of gain and socialization of loss running rampant? Those dynamics still exist, and in more than just the issues related to the toxic assets that we have laying around like mines in a field.

---

What is private? Ought what is a 'pubic good' (a long list, arbitrage, etc.) be put out to the private realm (whatever it is?)?

Many roles, that are not of necessity (we can drive an equitable economy with those who live a simple life and who do not succumb to piggishness), currently milk the system filling the pockets of a small set. It has to be small, as only a few can exploit the situation.

And, any glorification of the role as being the essence of capitalism really ought to wake up the the ca-pital-sino and its emergence. Yes, this was accelerated with improved computational prowess.

---

Management. Ah, the lords and their royal-ness. Consider that computational frameworks could provide 90% of what is required by that role. However, that said, there would still need to be sufficient human involvement to cover undecidable issues (below).

---

One almost hears rings of empiricism (realism) as a major attribute of the capitalistic heart. That is, science and capitalism go together. Somewhat.

Actually, we could probably scientifically show that 'greed' is the larger essence.

Why did evolution produce these types except to support the first wave of capitalism? Is it not time to re-address this issue?

---

Too, innovation has been associated with capitalism. Yes. But, have we not seen bad effects of this along with the good? Science, and its reality, would help temper this, folks.

We could start by putting the markets on a more sound basis.

---

The way that finance, and markets, exist now, there is no science. Rather, we see real-time experimentation and recovery. Oops following oops.

That undecidability is not a prevalent notion needs to be addressed. In short, this notion could be said to just denote that no one has perfect foresight. The truth? Who has perfect hindsight?

How did you answer? Well, do not forget underdetermination, please. What we see in economic affairs is that capitalism handles these issues a little better than do other ways.

Yet, there are many downfalls that we need to fix for sustainability.

Remarks:

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

09/01/2015 -- This was written five years ago. That was before QE infinity. Back then, any one who had gone through this before was looking for an unwind. But, that did not happen. The Fed doubled down, then tripled, down, then ... So, the addicts ran things to an inflated state (yes, appropriate usage). When Ben did mention some taper, they had a tantrum. ... So, here we are, in a corner, into which we have been painted. What will be the end result? Meaning, when things finally unwind? ... What we know is that Main Street did not benefit to the extent as did the pampered of Wall Street. Too, we see that computation is being exploited by idiots. The WSJ, on Saturday, mentioned one area. But, who is talking anything about moral hazards, these days? Well, you did read it here and ought to know that we have not forgotten its meaning.

05/11/2012 -- Rick getting grief from quoting Marx.

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

10/07/2011 -- Magna Charta, the celebration thereof.

09/27/2011 -- Recover the image.

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.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care? About I-Phone suicides

.01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types

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

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). Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

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

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

09/24/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

09/19/2010 -- England is in the dumper due to its assumption of the aristocratic notion that people who do are not of any use. Hah! God, how many royal pabodies are we expected to kiss what with these people who wander after abstraction (error) or who somehow think that they are the best class (and worthy? - ah, please give us a break)?

Modified: 01/08/2019

The new kings

Moral: Wherein we consider that the sirens related to the big chimera do not have hold on all minds and that there is work related to the real backbone of the economy which is both refreshing to behold and necessary for our future.

----

Since so much effort and resource goes into the daily gaming, as the continual onslaught from all media reminds us, one might consider succumbing to the notion that "capital is king" or some such nonsense.

Well, from time to time, we ought to be reminded that not all economics is oriented to that which results in accumulations of most by the few and in the impoverishment of the many. A recent New Yorker article on Professor Duflo was one such reminder.

The focus is development economics. And, I might add, development of people for more than just making them available to be exploited by the new kings.

Who are this new royalty? Those in power in the multi-national companies who are the supposed epitome of capitalism. Kings in the past were geographically local and were a focal point for power and control. That is, the realm was framed upon portions of the planet and had an emphasis that was political in nature.

The new kings are not tied to any country, have now the global internet as a resource, and enrich a few (even if shareholders are included, their take pales when compared to that grabbed by the stars of the show - CEOs and their ilk).

The new kings are about acquisition: more capital, more glory, ... A recent Supreme Court ruling giving them an unlimited political voice reinforces the company as person myth and leads us to the situation where the largest bank account holder can then bully the rest of the populace.

The new kings are more about entrapment of the work force and customers into continual enslavement than development. The new kings move work to where they can most exploit (colonization). The new kings, and their thinking, have led the supposedly developed nations to a standstill where the developed ones are to buy only (from whence the means? unfathomable debt?) and to sit idly while savings diminish (thanks, Big Ben, saver sacker that you are) to nothing (oh, wait, we could go beyond zero to a negative interest).

We can be thankful that there are people who work on the issues related to economic development, yet the underlying threat is that the main effect will be more resources who can then be seen as fodder for those who are wont to exploit.

Remarks:

07/25/2015 -- We're about six weeks after the June look back at 800 years ago (Magna Carta). Too, though, poster boys have popped out of the woodwork, including Zweig.

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).

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

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

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

05/09/2011 -- This needs to be look at in terms of doers.

01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types?

09/25/2010 -- Capitalism was defined within a classist's framework. We can improve on that.

08/21/2010 -- The new kings are not 'royal' by any means; they're mainly takers (exploiters) extra-ordinaire. We need a Magna Carta, for business (local and global) in which rights of the workers (how else a consumer economy?), and more, are addressed. What would this look like?

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.

07/21/2010 -- 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.

07/21/2010 -- Kings of the past had the peerage, in societies that allowed such. Some of these new kings do not have such, with ineffective Boards in some cases. Of interest to this work will be a new look at what roles the peerage had in the US and what this might mean to an improved economic basis.

07/10/2010 -- The machines rule (actually systems going wild). Perhaps, we'll learn from the China experiment.

07/06/2010 -- The real Founders are turning over in their graves.

07/02/2010 -- There are real kings.

06/17/2010 -- Need to collect discussions on development. Trickle down says that letting the big guys grow lifts the waters (hah!). More like the fat arses displace (and, perhaps, squash). What is needed is sustainability (even DAVOS talked this in 2010) that allows the most to reach some sort of potential (unlike the current in which about all is held by the few whilst the rest (most) hold nickles and dimes) .

06/16/2010 --In the past, we had only one king per geographic locale, with numerous henchmen (plus the bullies, would-be kings, that they are). Now, we have a growing set of kings (how many royal arses can we all kiss?) of this ephemeral type (that is, not kings to us in our daily lives, yet they have more than a delusion - just count the benes - boundless inflows of bucks and more). These kings reign in a realm that encompasses an increasingly enervated workforce (which appears to them to be infinite given colonization). Again, the questions arises: whence the means to found a proper economy which does have a large component in the equation, called the consumer? Somehow, we need to get these new kings roped in.

Is the answer a computational framework that replaces these hunks of idiocy with something that we can all appreciate? CEO apps?

Modified 07/25/2015

New royalty

Moral: Wherein we muse about topics that are old yet always seem to have a new place at the table due to open issues, such as, only the favored (not any more royal than any of the rest) getting a fair (supposedly) deal. Image: King John signs.

---

As Jim at the New Yorker says, the very, very rich (0.01%) are pulling away, in terms of accumulative multiples, from the very rich. What we need to look at is the reality of near-zero (excessive takings, of any type, are lop-sided and are really not much different in character than exorbitant taxings (used to support the leisurely life of the royal set, in many cases) - not arguing against a larger percentage tax for super earners, by the way).

This blog is about the dismal field that is so little understood in practice (yes, theory abounds, that there is a lesson) as to be comical (think Keystone cops) except that the consequences suffered by some is dire, indeed. Those in control are looking at each other wondering how to get things moving; there is real pain at the main parts; and, has anyone seen an end to the mess?

By the way, what is a 'royal' in the discussion here? Anyone with an out-sized sense of entitlement; the 'new kings' are more in the set than the lowly worker trying to make a living (usually subsistence). Again, reminder: those dealing with money, and its control, ought to have taken some equivalent of the vow of poverty (as evidenced by simple living).

Those trying to create a proper economic realm could look at what a Magna Carta for the system's role players might look like. Workers would get more respect and support, perhaps lessening the motives behind unionism.

That focus would help alleviate some of the mania attached to capitalism (yes, Adam's little system, so much mangled). Also, the artificial (as in, that basis which has been allowed to grow under the guise of interloped mathematics) would be constrained. Currently, these systems, and those who ride herd for their daily takings off the top, seem to run things, mostly in an amok manner.

Labor needs respect; those who touch matter are of far more importance than the modelers, and gamers.

---

Each generation seems to try to relearn what was known before. But, were things known, or do we impose notions through historical, and other ex post facto, views?

The question ought to be pondered in the context, as an example, of how change has been the most prevalent component in computational spheres, with deleterious effect.

Ah, is there some type of slate that is wiped clean from time to time? Technology, and its progress, seems to have this type of effect.

Or, is it that we, as a kind, have never been successful, across the board, of inculcating the best into our progeny. Of course, there have been families that have excelled long periods of time. Can this be considered the norm?

Yet, the young folk, starting early, spend a significant part of their year, and each weekday, in a milieu, that does include some element of indoctrination.

What are they learning early of economic realities? How are they attaining knowledge that debt, and perpetual accumulation thereof (oh, yes, like the US currently), leads to the state not unlike that of the indentured servant, of old?

---

'Nothing new under the sun' is the adage. That events of 800+ years ago are still of interest, and utility (capitalism has usurped this notion along with many), will be a continuing theme. The 400+ of those issues being brought to this side of the pond is the motivation.

Remarks:

07/25/2015 -- We're about six weeks after the June look back at 800 years ago (Magna Carta). Too, though, poster boys have popped out of the woodwork, including Zweig.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

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, new royalty, in other words) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

01/14/2013 -- Jamie, the banker, talked about some running around like children. Worrying about their career, when things fell out with the "whale" deal (remember that?). Well, Jamie, it's the childish stuff that pushes people to be like yourself, attention seeking, et al. How many really wise people rise to that level? Not, as it takes incompetence to even make the first step. Now, these folks are the new princes, princesses, and kings and queens. Yes, indeed. Their may be some necessity for the ilk; playing games is one of them. The more I read on the type (as epitomized in the royals of Europe -- elsewhere, to boot, but, let's just keep to one continent), I see fratricide, maniacal maneuvering, and more. Gosh, are we doomed from the get go, a cynic (which I'm not) might say.

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

10/20/2011 -- The spawn'er of the new royals.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof.

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

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

05/09/2011 -- This needs to be looked at in terms of doers.

04/04/2011 -- Need to look at some background.

01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types?

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

11/01/2010 -- von Mises' thinking applies here.

09/21/2010 -- Facebook, as metaphor.

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

08/31/2010 -- The chimera needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. Those running the money systems need to take a vow of poverty and simple living (period).

Modified: 07/25/2015

Ill-begotten gains

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 07/22/2015

Cheshire multiple

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

Remarks:  Modified: 06/01/2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

Early Fathers

Moral: Wherein, post the fireworks, picnics, parades, and such, we consider that the real Founders set the stage for those who are usually thought to be the luminaries deserving of our attention and that those real Founders were not of the 'new king' type.

---

The U.S.A just had the annual celebration, on the 4th of July, of the Declaration of Independence. That is, the occasion of the signing is the focus. We hear about the Founding Fathers and see the portrait of the inking moment. We also are reminded about John Hancock.

Yet, the framework for this event started over a century earlier. We will be touching upon this as it applies to the contexts of the blog. For starters, let us just look at three of the folks who might be characterized as Founding Forefathers. The order is chronological.

• Firstly, we do have the backbone, as an example, whose contributions, through his progeny, were multiple and necessary.
• Secondly, we have the Church of England luminary who argued for church-state separation. He founded Hampton, NH with several leading families after removing himself from the clergy-run state to the south.
• Thirdly, we have Rev John Wise who was characterized by President Coolidge as one of the inspirations behind the Declaration. Through his wife, Abigail Gardner, Rev John was a great-uncle of President John Adams.

This list is by no means complete and will extended. One intent will be to include Founding Foremothers, to boot, which will be the subject of the next list.

--- Post note, added July 4th, 2014 -----

Founders, yes, but forefathers, too. Again, we are looking at three (ggps - great-grand-parents) who, in chronological order of arrival, are considered further. None of these were heavy into the Puritan ethnic mores of the heavy-handed type. The contributions of two of these were 100 years prior to the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Gardner (d. 1674) - The subject of this blog, we can point to a recent Gardner Beacon issue for further information about his life. We know little of his origins, however his character is known by his children and offspring. 

Stephen Bachiler (d. 1656) - Oxford graduate. Disliked the religious state that was Massachusetts. Being 70, he was not easily subdued, hence we have New Hampshire.  

Rev. John Wise (d. 1725 - of Harvard) - Took on the King's representative, Gov. Andros, in regard to excessive taxation. Too, Andros had the notion that the colonists gave up their rights as English citizens when then left to come to the New World.  

Now, we also need to consider how the Magna Charta concerns itself with requirements that are still unresolved in terms of the life of the average American and of humanity, in general.

Remarks:

01/31/2019 -- Lots has changed in these nine years. We will be summarizing them. One context: 400 or so, for one. We're building an example portal at TGSoc.org. Coverage is broad: 10th year, Content vs configuration, Culture/history/technology, and more.

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

02/11/2012 -- Example of the senselessness of the ca-pital-sino give to us by the best-and-brightest.

09/19/2011 -- Not Foremothers yet, but we're getting there.

06/29/2011 -- See Gardner's Beacon for continuation on the theme.

08/21/2010 -- Some who came here were of royal descent (this characterization used to honour the heritage and yet to acknowledge that the traditions did not continue here). It would be interesting to see what overlap there is between those who take/accumulate and a royal heritage (that is, it's in the genes). However, there may be many who held to the ideals associated with the undertakings here and who live simply (meaning, they have no role in the current messes which are directly attributable to several malefactor's ones).

Modified: 01/31/2019

When Boston was the Frontier

Moral: Wherein we look at a review of a recent book.

Theme: Our heritage (see backbone series, for instance) as the twain of old England and of our own doings (far enough away from home to learn to want to be independent).

---

Quote from the review which quotes Taylor (my emphasis): On the other hand, “more than has been recognized . . . American ‘innovation’ used English models.” Those models included the pursuit of “prosperity and liberty for some” by requiring “others to be poor, subordinated, dispossessed, and shackled.” Indians died, and African-Americans worked so that some Englishmen could get rich (but others remain poor) in a new land of inequality.

Between Two Worlds, Alan Taylor (WSJ review)

---

We need to get back to the series on Economics/Finance. From the get-go, capitalism creates classes. Oh, I know. The gospel for this worldview says that anyone can lift themselves (note, above, the American delusion).

It's more like this, folks, We ought to have a draft (national service - of course, being sensitive to limits [many types] that some people face) in which all get their hands dirty. And, I'm not talking what the military academies put their students through as being enough. No, exposure to down-and-dirty jobs ought to be included in everyone's little step to maturity.

Then, we could work ourselves away from the type of social bifurcations where idiots who fly on their magic carpet (internet/web morons, to boot) have no regard for the myriads of folks who clean their diapers, labor for their comfort, etc.

And, folks, it's a long litany. Reminder. As a youngster, I was into hard labor (examples - [1] also, capable of handling advanced material - in fact, in one graduate math class which I attended with dirty fingernails, having come from my laboring job, my desk mate wondered how such a person as I could score higher on tests; [2] worked with a crew out on the rail, in the summer; as in, heavy, physical crap, okay?; ..., [n] many more ...).

My favorite example of an American? Someone of old New England stock who has a PhD but who can, and does, tear down and reassemble an engine (and capable of a whole lot more).

---

BTW, there are a slew of things to bring up here, including the need for peripatetic views and ways (especially for some of these clowns who are almost disembodied in their intellectual focus - to be explained). ... Don't get me going on these types (I just read of some hardball players who like to use CDS [ah, let's really look at those] to browbeat others and to fill their pockets - if you must know, look at recent WSJ articles on such) who manipulate financial matters to their advantage (the whole of the ilk that think that things like dark pools are a necessity, etc.)

---

Anyway, from where we sit, we are just observing and suggesting improvements (in our own time - the upcoming 400ths will allow us to relook at the American experience, again, and hopefully get the warts more fully exposed).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/29/2015

01/29/2015 -- This year? The 800th of the first sealing of the Magna Charta.

Wake up, people, it's your right

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

--

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:  Modified: 09/06/2015

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

04/24/2014 -- Revisiting, again.

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

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

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

Coherence?

Moral: Wherein we start the year, as we ended the last one, by looking at posts that are being read.

---

Why? Is it laziness? Well, not really. As one progresses through time at a keyboard, stuff accumulates. Now, on the web, it seems to just continue to flow (even in nature, one doesn't find continuous (see below) eliminations - err brain dumps) without any thought (this is a very demonstrable, rather than just arguable, remark). Where are the editors?

So, since coherence is one goal with this post [blog] (and its relatives), we'll take some time to review past positions [posts and their content] in order to make corrections and to form a more firm foundation.

---

Aside: the past few weeks have been spent following threads that results [resulted] from Christopher Hitchens' departure. As you would expect, that trek [reading venture] wandered across many loci in time (and virtual space). One thing that will be forthcoming, soon, is discussion about why business cannot be more like science. Now, wait! There is a serious overlap between these two. In fact, business exploits science more than vice versa. Too, any scientist who goes after greed will not be a good scientist for long (yes, lesson there for Jamie (yes you, guy, the last man standing) and his ilk (the bane of the earth)). See Last Man April 1, 2011 (unfortunately, these people are not April fool's jokes (wait! that's it - they are puns on us -- actually, scourges and a daily source of pain) whose mischief is limited to one day a year.).

---

• Ben, da man -- Nov 2011 -- Yes, Ben may irritate in his efforts to appease the bankers (and their ilk). But, they have the money. So, it's understandable. This year, we'll be a little more circumspect with regard to the impossible task (set, of course, by the idiot politicians who salivate at the thought of money) that he has taken on. 

• Gravy train I -- Jan 2010 -- Saw the reviews of McDonald's book which motivated interest. It is nice to see an insider's view. Yet, we're going to have to go back to an even lower basis in order to correct these problems. How long will that take? Those who can (small set) have always screwed the others (the very large set),  when allowed. We need to bring in a Magna Charta for these jerks. By the way, Harvard, you are going to have to accept some responsibility at making things more sane. 

• Continuous and discrete -- Aug 2009 -- Ah, yes, the numerant[s] have taken their little bit of understanding of the thing, with the aid of the artificial beast (its been said many ways here -- to be made more cohesive, this year), to extremes that are far beyond their control (again, to be updated this year). 

• Ben and Timmy -- Aug 2011 -- Yes, if only that biological part of [the] equation dealing with the 'act' (yes, the male disinterest in anything beyond conquest) were not the thing brought into business. See above comment about science. Because [as] 'truth' (but, not necessarily 'being') comes to fore (usually), there is less of the contentious mating calls. (Aside: Jamie, are you up to changing the game?) What about the care and feeding (and, a whole lot more! like seeing leveraging as the games of a male teen's brain (yes, you guys, smell the roses) -- this just past go-around extremely exacerbated by computational mischief - ah, the gaming generation's debut)? By the way, we're going to look closely at the decision of Boeing to leave its 85-year relationship with a mid-western city as an example. Ah, that is going to be fun!! Talk about sucking a place dry (tax breaks, jilted lovers (as in workers who put their heart and soul into the place) -- Jim M's brain could not even start to grasp at the reality. 

Remarks:

05/10/2012 -- At least Jamie admitted that his bank lost two-thousand million in a few weeks time. 

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

01/16/2012 -- Ah, Jamie did an "ah shucks" interview. How can one demonize him and his industry? Yes, he even talks OWS without barfing. Is he after Timmy's job?

01/15/2012 -- It is or It is not. Jobs, labor, and disrespect.

01/14/2012 -- One thing to do this year will be to move pointers to a more permanent site. That is, new feeds, like Yahoo's, degrade. Just updated Last Man. Fortunately, the feeds copy part of the title and identify the source. But, sometimes the original article leaves cyber space. Even search sites have links that are of no use. Some make a copy, but that requires space, etc.  

Modified: 05/10/2012

Cosmology - preparatory view

Moral: Wherein we continue to set the stage for describing a (the) cosmology of business.

As we know, Ben is leaving. So, we'll miss the guy. Too, how long before we wished that he were still there?

USA Today had a nice opinion written: Fed battle is about gender. Here are two quotes.

• Summers, as a certain kind of dominant man, is aligned with Wall Street, and hence with money, and hence with the existing power structure. He embodies the inclinations that have gotten us into so much financial trouble.

• Yellen, as an unshowy (read middle-aged) woman, is more academic and collegial in nature, and has done long and unheralded stints in government; she represents the collective self and hence a higher level of public selflessness and probity. 

Not my words. But, I wonder what would it be like if these two were switched (except for gender). As in, Larry and probity? Janet and megalomania?

Could that ever be? 

---

Now, given this juxtaposition, and little bit of reality, we have to comment on how it relates to the economy, especially its basis in banking (assuming that we need such for handling money -- providing liquidity). The ilk of Summers needs to have a sandbox where they can crap all they want. How can we do this? And, clean up. 

The other side was represented by Ben who did not seem to shy away from shotgun approaches. Essentially, he has created a state of matters from which we don't know how to move forward. Mind you, don't know how means that science works from knowns. It just does not cast about in the unknown realm trying to find something. 

Same for engineering (are you listening MIT and the financial engineering crowd?). It's methodological, to the extreme, even though such is hidden under an avalanche of mathematical expression of knowledge states. 

---

The main focus, as in origins, will have to deal with people. Those two types depicted, above, are along one type of axis. There are many other such polarities, actually spectral relationships. 

To where do we appeal, or begin, with an approach that is constructive. On the one hand, we can look to the U.S. Constitution. Before that, we can look at the Magna Charta. There are other forward-looking attempts at describing "mature" adulthood.

What is on the other hand? Ah, want me to venture there (not that I'm not prepared for such)?  Fortunately, we don't have to do that, just yet.

---

We all know that being free to apply one's creativity is part of a healthy, happy existence along with a whole lot of other things. But, as we have holidays to remind us, there are those who put themselves on the line for the American way (by the second). We can look at that in depth, too, and at how this service/disciplined attitude differs (almost as if there were two universes) from the gluttony of the ilk represented by Wall Street (and many other descriptions exist for this side - not many of them flattering - oh, "I screwed an old widow out of her last dime today" sort of thing - get the drift?).

We'll have to talk about the middle which is fairly broad and its importance. Of course, we'll do it in an new way; fortunately, the current Congress has represented the antithesis of the ideal (making comparisons available that are apropos and up to date -- thank you, gals and guys).  

Remarks:

09/04/2013 --

Modified: 09/04/2013

Summary, 2014

Moral: Wherein we take a look at 2014 and a new approach for 2015.

This is our fifth year for a summary: 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013. In first year, there were more posts - 2009 (57). This year we only had 36 posts.

Part of that decrease might be due to the early focus of the blog to which we'll have to return. Perhaps, by 2010, the realization of the Fed's largess continuing, and increasing (QE infinity), sank in and caused depression. Not. Rather, it has taken time to get to the current situation which is just loaded with things to discuss: FED backed into a corner, the few pilfering the economy, savers slapped silly and flayed to within an inch of their lives, ... So, we will be getting to all of this.

However. let's look at this year's numbers for Past 30 days and for All time.

Past 30 days                     All time       

Given that 2015 is a year for celebrating the Magna Charta, we can use that to talk about economic issues. The King and the Barons. Ah, how many ways can we map those to characters here now? We have already mentioned Lords/Serfs.

Finally, in the "All time" sense, the "Chimera: sellers and buyers" has overtaken "Computation, finance and engineering" which is interesting.

It is nice to see "Reorganization of sorts" get attention (we will need to talk about a lost generation or two - unfortunately, this is true even if their pockets bulge with money).

---

The tone of the blog will lose its scoffing flavor. When Ben was in charge, raspberries were in order, after all he ought to be able take the heat. Trouble is, he gets more heat from other sides. This blog is, basically, rationally based. So, we'll get away from the barracks (yes, was in such as an impressionable 17-year old; at the time, it was WWII and Korean veterans - POWs even; so, give me a break, okay?). Yes, the operative word will be the absence of uncouth thought and actions. Hey, ever heard someone like Patton carrying around a recording device when he was in the field with his men?

That last bit is mentioned mainly to bring forth the fact that a whole lot of veterans got their start with the Bill that enabled their education and economic progress. Many of these were as smart as the privileged best-and-brightest (yes, right under Harvard - see the image). One could argue that the push toward fullness in the economy was related to the efforts of that generation and those who followed. And, it was pre-computer.

I was later, but I spent my career working with advanced computational systems. So, I know the lot. Who of the younger set can say that? Actually, the thing that I wrote several years ago needs to be rephrased. We'll be doing a lot of that as we go back and lift back to now the nuggets embedded in this work for the past few years.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/31/2014

12/31/2014 --