econfuture.wordspress.com

Moral: Wherein we leave Ben alone for awhile and see what ought to be important to the future so that we have the best for the most.

As in, no economic torture (one type), for one thing. There is a lot more to look at.

---

Earlier, we mentioned a few blogs. We have some on a blog roll. Today, via the CACM (member of ACM since the 1970s), I found another that I'm adding to the blog roll: econfuture| Future Economics and Technology.

The topic of the blog, Economics and Technology, deals with important issues. The particular post that I first saw asks this question: Could Robots and Automation cause an Unemployment Crisis? The post has a link to the CACM article (nice, thanks).

---

This post is mainly to point to the blog and to change the subject of focus, for awhile. I worked in applied AI (think of this being analogous to applied mathematics) since the early 80s. The particular discipline was Knowledge-Based Engineering (I consider myself a KBEvangelist, of sorts - except, perhaps, I've broadened the basis, of late). I was involved with a wide-range of applications, heavily involved with applying mathematically-based computing. From this, my look at truth engineering was a natural flow.

Aside: My degrees are in economics during which study I emphasized the overlap between economics, mathematics, and computing. The leaning toward AI came from an interest in the development of cybernetics. See this little section, that I wrote, about some thoughts on where KBE might go. Note, please, that engineering is being looked at as applied science (yin/yang). The computer? It does a lot of water muddying; essentially, things get topsy-turvy, thereby (see quasi-empiricism, operational aspects).

---

So, let's end, for now, with the consideration of near zero being said as of importance. That is to show, of course. Too, all this running after computational assists is problematic from many senses and sides. We'll get to that, folks. In other words. the economy, as defined by markets (especially those of the chimera type), are a house of cards.

Now, one future employment opportunity will be to ride these things. Think of it this way. We have idiots now, pushing out what they see as advanced systems, who have no idea of the side-effects of these things. You see, as long as it fills the pockets of the right people, then who cares? Or, who can fight big pockets?

Aside: Being, which currently is  being suppressed in these realms - as in, no consideration given, thereof, always wins. This is not metaphysically driven, either. It's the reality that has not allowed itself to be over-layed with our mathematical constraints (we'll get to this again).

---

Now, the issue of who will the be bull rider is complicated. There will be a whole lot of intuition involved (trained, of course). Too, though, there very well will be non-elite players. You know, what I am referring has not been recognized, nor looked at, except, perhaps, for some little nuances being looked at by forward thinkers. My hope is that the likes of the elite (of certain types, for now), like the Harvards, will get into the game. To do so will require them to consider that autodidacts aren't silly willies crying "wolf" (or bemoaning lack of genetic makeup, educational opportunities, and the whole list of other things what can lead a person's life to the less than desirable).

---

As we have seen with the web, all sorts have made money, and success (other types), without the imposition of the top-heavy academic regimen. Non-elite contributions will become a central core issue.

Aside: Any consumer driven economy must allow for means for those consumer's to do their thing without the load of debt (that, folks, is a side-effect of the current regimen that went (ought to have gone) out decades ago).

Remarks:

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

08/05/2013 -- Let's see. Financial Engineering needs some attention. Perhaps, with the likes of MIT involved, this discipline can learn to lead the way out of the morass. Expect more on this topic. If things continue as they are, markets will be pure chimera (as in, ca-pital-sinos). Investors? We'll go on about that, too. It's guaranteed that most in the equity markets will lose. Why is that not talked about by those heads we see daily yakking on TV and newer media? No, they would rather go gaga (apologies to the Lady). So, we'll have to address this issue: the point (price) at which loss outweighs any gains to date. All cannot sell to make a profit. Now, there is a way that all could sell high (government as the buyer of last resort - Ben has been doing this, albeit with bonds - yet, it frees up money that can go to equities -- government? of course, taxpayers). We'll have to look at the misuse of mathematics; plus, doers need to be brought back to a respectful position.

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

07/30/2013 -- Oh yes, Watson, and its ilk, will require some thoughtful consideration. You know, that whole thrust makes the human-oriented issues more important.

Modified: 02/26/2014

Near zero

Moral: Wherein we consider that the current times, and debates, really bring to fore the notion that someone always pays (of course, parents know this).

---

That is, TANSTAAFL is a real issue, except for this sense: the universe and its energy are here, ready for our use (to answer the question of why is a t-issue that is being deferred for the moment -- also, remember that there is no perpetual motion machine -- except that which might exist in the fantasies of some CEOs).

Who pays and when can be swept under the rug using techniques that filter, supposedly extraneous, information and that determine that an economy can be a non-zero-sum game. You've heard it said before: win-win.

Lately, we've been hearing a lot about this: Heads, I win - Tails, You lose (think of this as privatization of gain, socialization of loss -- bluntly, fat cat bailouts by we the little people). Yes, the little pun refers to that stacked deck recently given a proper description of casino capitalism. But, let's not go there until much later.

What we must do, it will be argued, is to see that the concept of near zero is what we need to consider. The question is how to describe the notion so as to make it understandable and of use (ah, does that imply value as utility?).

In short, near zero is seen around the world everywhere we find those with (very small set cardinality) and those without (gigantic set, usually). So, to not get labels of Marxist, or other aspersions, thrown this way, please mind your blinders (rose-colored and otherwise) and consider the following from a viewpoint of first principles (of course, it is very much reasonable to ask whose principles).

One doesn't have to expect Egalité to know when things smell: to wit, some bank practices that essentially bleed the more poor customers with ridiculous fees (no need to belabor the point, as we all know the issues). Given that we're supportive of law and order, one still has to wonder how some ideas generate and get support, such as the notion that a Corporation enjoys rights like a citizen or that some brilliant stars (read CEOs) think that they are the essence of the human race and we're all to kiss their rings: to wit, even CEOs of non-profit organizations taking extractions worth millions yearly. What? Many times, these positions have regal (or is it royal?) benefits. Do they need their big pay, too? Whose pockets are being picked in those situations?

What does all that have to do with near zero? Well, in terms of big-buck pay, it comes from somewhere. In terms of a corporation, many pay up, including shareholders. In terms of personal wealth, this arises through various means and requires maintenance.

The recent events have everyone wondering about capital and markets. We hear of tremendous losses (not all by shenanigans) and some gains. Of course, 'gain' includes that take from run-ups of the stock markets like we've seen this summer. Is that type of gain essential to economics (ah, think back to what lies behind capital and its use - utility again)?

Business Week, of late, was kind enough to provide a graph of S&P and Treasury Bond trend lines from 1926 to now. This shows that $1 would grow to $28K on the equity side while it would only be $89 with the Treasury. Of course, we would really have to look at the corporate bonds for a better comparison. Notice, though, that since 1980 there has been a steady rise for both.

We saw this in the beginning of the graph. Then, from about 1945 to 1980, something suppressed the Treasury line (we'll look at this) while equity grew. Of course, we all know that the Treasury paper is rock solid (we, the American taxpayers, have never defaulted), hence returns will be low due to limited risk. That suppresses the Treasury line.

And, if we could account during the timeframe shown in the chart for those whose pockets bulged and those who lost hugely, what would we see? Has anyone successfully tried that? Is it, by necessity, something that has to be done as a thought experiment (quasi-empiricism)? Near zero is still constrained by our UUUN limitations (saying this does not excuse malfeasance).

Over the past year, we have been looking at reductions all around that are not equally spread. Due to the downturns, topics include a need to reduce benefits, to assess more taxes, to make people work longer, and the related.

In actually, folks, a proper accounting may show that the two sides of capital (see Modigliani) would play more closely. Remember this. The long term line says nothing about an individual's choices since we're talking about a 30-40 year timeframe in which there could have been gains or losses that are significant (that is, in the long run we all perish). We see that now with people who are close to the time for their retirement and who are without the proper means because of equity fluctuations. On the other hand, there are plenty of examples of people retiring quite well with bonds being the main investment.

What is not seen in the hype about equity is that a lot of the payout (or supposed gain) is actually coming from other investors. Yes, it's true; as some have tried to describe, our economy's ways (gab standard and all) are Ponzi, at best. Have we not seen a lot of discussion about how the future generations are being set up to pay for current choices?

How many high-flying stocks of late have had no earnings (in the classic sense, folks, as gains with casino capitalism need to have another label)? Ah, yes, we like dividends. But, does not that assume profits to share?

Note: So, how to explain the rise in the equity line and still argue near zero? That is the task here as we continue to expand the discussion about the 'near zero' notion starting, as mentioned, from the foundational considerations, like economic growth and the need for sustainable ways and means. There have been other ways proposed which we'll look at further.

Remarks:

06/11/2014 -- The old chimera is still with us, a train at 17K (DOW).

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

10/12/2012 -- Hedge fund mirage. Chimera works, too. Harvard. Its big endowment is the envy of all (but the rational). Yet, Harvard, talk to us about how you feel you deserve big earnings (what? earned?) in term of near-zero. I really need to bring this up to date.

05/04/2012 -- win-win, if it happens, always is accompanied by sacrifice (yes).

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

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

10/18/2011 -- Hopefully, the OWS will bring this type of thing to public awareness.

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

06/16/2011 -- Golden sack'd scandals. There have always been over-accumulators. However, a sustainable economy would dampen that. How? We have not seen such an economy, as of yet.

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

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

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.

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

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

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

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

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

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize this concept. 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.

01/16/2010 -- Fundamentally, near-zero means that what people talk about with a win-win actually requires that some get less than they wanted. That is, the term 'sacrifice' has been applied from certain viewpoints. But, that scares us from looking at the thing correctly. The topic is simple from certain perspectives and not so from others (what isn't?). But, using 'sacrifice' is too strong. Why? That which those who take less lose, from a 'truer than not' perspective, is overwhelmed by the collective marginal, smaller gains of those who get more than they would not have gotten with zero sum (essentially, zilch). It's a foundational issue, folks. So, for now please ponder this: a financial heart, that is robust, run by those who have higher goals, and morals (oh, is that ethics?), involved in their operational viewpoint (monks, as an example, has not been used facetiously - marines, too, as disciplined and self-less).

12/29/2009 -- Thanks, Krugman, for agreeing with the concept; yes, we've just had 10 years of zero. Now, everyone ought to know why.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

12/08/2009 -- Consider current CEOs in relation to Paul. Not fair? Well, these guys/gals have set themselves upon some supposed plane that is above the rest of us.

11/30/2009 -- From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/20/2009 -- Actually, we're dealing with less than zero.

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

10/13/2009 -- Always timely, a WSJ op-ed (Don't Get Hit by Crash at Finish Line) gives an appropriate message to the theme. Holding stock over time does not reduce risk of losing.

10/11/2009 -- Near-zero says that someone always has to suffer. The actuality? Fat cats only suffer monetarily and in pride. Those who lose do so viscerally (yes, as real as you can think). Business Week recently (BW) had an article that weighed in on the issue of India's progress being held back by some property matters. Recall, if you would, that Tata did not succeed in placing one plant where they wanted and then moved over 1000 miles elsewhere. BW described one of the controversies, which demonstrates near-zero. Oh yes, some involved say win-win. Now listen carefully, it's a situation where 5000 souls need to be moved off of land that they have farmed subsistence-wise for generations because it is wanted by some development for manufacturing purposes. Okay, it's estimated that 1000 souls may obtain jobs. Granted some little bit of monies is paid (remember, that it is pittance in relation to the big pockets of the developer), but who suffers here? The 4000, obviously. Too, the 1000, especially if they become enslaved which can (does) happen with industrialization. The whole story is never told. Why? Things that are considered too minor are thrown out, even though they weigh very large, comparatively, to those to whom the suffering is being imposed. Ah, the ways of capitalism cut deep. Yet, we, the people, are the ones supposedly with power (t-issue, of course). So, where is the humanistic capitalism that will show casino capitalism the door? In the US, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are supposed to afford such. Right?

10/08/2009 -- We all want win-win, says former President Clinton. Yes, but a true accounting would show that many times (probably always) that which makes these things near-zero is considered outside of the scope. That is, we push the costs to unfortunates who have no current say. And, in terms of the markets, we don't usually go around and collect the losses to see the longer term aspects. Why? Because the game is limited by time. The Quants make great use of an insight that we obtained from Markov, among other things. Yet, the longer term ramifications are exactly what an enlightened system (society) would consider. No, we forget the losers (large cardinality) and hear too much, ad nauseum (who cares what Buffett thinks), about the winners (very small cardinality).

Modified: 06/11/2014

Alan M. Turing

Moral: Wherein we get back to some technical issues that imply limits.

---

The motivation is partly celebration of the 100th of Alan M. Turing. The March ACM Communications has a series of articles. We'll use one of these. To be brief, Turing's work was seminal to computing; yet, some, like the quants in their race for profit, ignore some basic issues. Then, we, the populace, bear the costs. Too, economists have migrated toward 'modeling' as a key method; they, too, do not seem to have paid attention.

---

But, first, a comment is in order. What we have in the world are two things: those who use these limits to sustain their intake (Made-offs and those who game the system and more) and those who let themselves be led by the nose (as in, the stupid, the Made-off victims, et al).

You know what? This has always been the case. The problem now? Computation. It is not as robust as we might be led to believe.

---

One of the ACM articles is by Prof Cooper (of Leeds, UK): Turing's Titanic Machine? The Prof looks at the background and provides some insight into the current debate. But, we might ask, what debate? You see, many operational stances have been able to skirt around the issues. That ability, itself, can be seen within the contexts we obtained from Turing's work.

For now, let's just look at the categories of adaptation to the reality. That is, even if one has not read Turing's work, dealing with computation causes one to broach upon this subject, by necessity. The Prof has four categories (Note: the order does not imply ranking). We (perhaps, tongue in cheek) could add more.

• Reductionists -- characterized by confidence, these apply what they know. Is this the most? Wait? Isn't this operationalism, at its core? Or, in economics, making money if one can. 
• Impressionists -- now, this mindset has become aware of the limitations of science (ah, is this where quasi-empiricism first come to fore?) and knows that we need philosophical (just keep from becoming too meta) bridges. Wait? Perhaps, the economic schools, and the debates thereof, crop up. 
• Remodelers -- ah, hypercomputationalism or perturbations, one might say. Or, there looks to be something parallel to what we see with the interpretations in the realms dealing with the quantum world. In economics, is this where we have the interminable experimenting with our lives? 
• Theorists -- ..., sloughing off a whole lot of detail, let's just point to Chaitin (pdf), for now. But, one could ask? Where is our meta-economics? 

---

To reiterate the importance of the subject, we can use a phrase from the Prof's article: In 1970, the negative solution to Hilbert's Tenth Problem when combined with results from classical computability arising from contrived priority constructions, circumstantially pointed to a very rich infrastructure of incomputable objects.

Which means several things that ought to give one pause. Of course, we can (ought to) go ahead with innovation. But, letting the best-and-brightest experiment real time (and consideration of the side-effects, thereof) is not something to take lightly.

---

We'll get more into the Prof's notions. However, for now, contemplate the fragile state, please.

Remarks:

12/13/2012 -- Is it time to move beyond the Turing Test?

08/04/2012 -- Alan will feature in coming discussions.

05/01/2012 -- We'll get back on this theme: Technological singularity (note, not too late, page dates from late 2010). This is put here as Alan argued that computational intelligence might exceed human talent (true, in many cases). Yet, I need to ask him: Alan, how are computablity issues to be resolved within the computer? You see, this is what the role will be for humans: cut out of the fog, essentially. The argument will ensue at some future point, and memes will be on thing to consider.

03/16/2012 -- Computability's definition (yes, used in the context of this post) will need to cover some notion of the delta (difference) between expectations and delivery, implying (yes) the importance of the user's values. That is, the providers (ISPs) are servants, not the other way around. Utility, if you would.

03/12/2012 -- Related organization (CiE). They'll feature Alan this year at their meeting in Cambridge.

03/12/2012 -- Prof Cooper has an interesting mathematical pedigree. With two advisors, he has two 'grandparents' of note: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Wiki) and Alan M. Turing (Wiki). The blogger does not have an advisor/parent, but he claims a heritage via a cousin and an uncle: Carl-Wilhelm Reinhold de Boor (Wiki) and G.H. (Godfrey Harold) Hardy (Wiki).

Modified: 12/13/2012

Indubitably

Moral: Wherein we consider that, in the long run, the little people pay. Has it ever been any different, since those same people seem to have an infinite capacity for victimization? Well, conversely, those who do the victimizing appear to demonstrate that lack of conscience is unfathomable.

---

In terms of a recent series of events, we now see, after a media frenzy and a congressional pummeling, that the focus comes back to the user, in this case, the driver. Of course, the technical issues are not entirely laid to rest, yet. Plenty ask why Toyota thinks that they have 'indubitable' systems.

But, let us return to the macro matters, for which the micro problems are very much an example.

Aside: some are thinking about, and planning for, havoc that will come from solar storms.

You see, with the problems of the smaller domains, like the auto (see discussion about the cyber-physical systems), we can do it right. Mind you, that doesn't reduce error rates to zero, as some would have us believe. But, it would push it to a minimal level with caveats to be careful.

The same type of thinking can help the economy, but we cannot get our hands around the problems. Why? We have been led astray by the best-and-brightest, in many ways. Whereas, the Vienna School is correct to tout undecidability.

You see, the intellectual frameworks on this western side of the pond like to push control, as if quasi-empiricism means nothing and as if we have mathematics and the computational under our thumbs; is it not part of our manifest destiny? But, things are complicated, despite protestations otherwise; what are the protestations? Well, brayings of jackasses who would turn a perfectly expressed operational problem into a game of school boys (pissing contest, in other words - we know the type). They surely like to push blame and to effect punishment without regard to the fact that some things are beyond volition and our control. Okay, we do need accountability - people do play the role of bad guy.

These issues form a conundrum, essentially.

That is, we have the miscreants who use success as a shield (think Made-off, if you need a recent example) and threaten any who want the truth. So many examples could be used.

But, there too, many (ought I say most) want to contribute their part and to not ride on the coattails of others (to wit, not exhibit the lordly prince syndrome as a big factor).

We also have that the little people bail out those who do the jerk (third derivative, folks).

One thing that we need to learn is that even if everyone were perfectly rational and well-behaved (please, apply the most ideal notion that you can think of - but, don't spit out 'utopian' pejoratively - okay? - this is serious business), there would be problems. These problems are the ones that need our attention. Trouble is, the 'noise' from the miscreants keeps us from the proper viewpoint.

And, things get complicated, too, just by the nature of things. We left any idyllic world long ago, if it ever existed. So, we find reasonable people thinking of the issues and desiring to extend some recommendations (as if little Timmy would listen).

Here is an example that we'll be using for several posts.

Remarks:

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.

01/27/2011 -- 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).

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

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

03/20/2010 -- The basic problem of capitalism is that the Made-offs are its chief representative.

03/19/2010 -- The little people never experience this: The floors were covered with plush Persian carpets; the walls were done in rich walnut and cherry woods, and hung on many of them were oil paintings; we were served only with sterling silver, and the fixtures were gold. From a recent book about Madoff.

Modified: 02/08/2011

Some background I

Moral: Wherein we go back further than three hundred, or so, years ago, in order to show from whence the residue (apologies to Weierstrass) that keeps bubbles afloat.

---

Earlier, we looked at our-basis and how that affects our economic selves. That is, what ought to be behind how we treat our beans (current and future)? Too, how is it that the best-and-brightest get us into so much trouble? How is it that they chase after a chimera (albeit, for some, there are rewards indeed - as they get to pilfer, essentially)?

Aside: 3+ years ago, there were predictions of looming failure (we were finding the fiction in finance). There were revelations coming about of trashy tranching. We knew that the idiots had leveraged our futures, but we did not know it had been to the hilt. And, no one got slapped or jailed or even reprimanded (beyond the rogue table). Why? We'll explain that. Too, we learned some of the ways that the finance people are not class acts: George's rant, not fair, culprits, dead peasant. What we saw were people playing with our beans without getting fingered as culprits. No, looking at Jamie's attitude now, it was just business as usual.

---

Let's start from a real early time and leap forward. We'll go back and forth like that for a few posts. George Berkeley is the motivation, somewhat.

Ala Robinson and Poincaré, this is an appeal to the intuition. At the same time, we will not be too inconsistent (nod to Emerson). However, as the argument expands, the intent is to approach completeness as much as we can. Yet, science (the enlightened type) says that we cannot; noting, of course, that those with an operational view don't care.

---

By the way, finance professors, where are these types of basics covered? You know, emphasizing greed (unethics, if you would) is not it (examples abound)?

---

Let's go way back to Zeno (love that guy), namely his arrow paradox.

Aside: if philosophical topics are a turn-off, please read on for a just little. Why? We'll only touch on these things briefly.

The key to this notion is that it's age-old, yet the puzzle continues even to the present day. And, we intend to show that financial engineering has not resolved this issue as it ought.

For those who do not understand why all the energy gets put behind arguments of this kind, we all know that the arrow arrives at its point (with intended consequences if it's path is truth - as in, as anticipated by the slinger of the arrow - er, archer). That's taking the operational stance, somewhat. And, it really is how things get done.

Aside: Philosophers and ilk can deal in the abstract, as someone puts food on their tables. The rich can be idle, as the multitude want to, and must work. Finance folks reap ill-begotten gains because they are allowed to, as others do the real work and suffer from want. At the core of the economy are a whole lot of people doing the remarkable, under dire circumstances and straits, on a daily basis. Has any economic/finance hotshot, or system, ever looked out for the people (and, I do not mean any collection of that thing called the corporate entity to which the Court gave personhood)?

---

Except? Notice how things are going toward the benefit of the geeks and wizards? Why? The pervasive use of the growing computational prowess seems to be unlimited.

Yet, know this, please. At the core of computing is something very much akin to vertigo (the really insightful people know this). Too, the resolution of this deep problem rests upon the backs (and, insights, intuition -- albeit trained, and good sense) of people.

Topsy-turvy is how it has been characterized. Quasi-empiricism, by necessity, is not a bad thing to use for this.

Quants, show me any of you who are insightful in this sense. Please.

---

Now, coming forward, the computational progress rests upon the work of a whole lot of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and experimenters. Tis true even now, to wit, the profusion of apps (and related effort) upon frameworks that have come out of ideas that were outside of corporate mindset (to wit, social media and much more).

It is to the basic, and residual, effects that we are going to put our attention here.

---

But, we have to set the context such that we can build a picture that makes sense and that suggests how to proceed.

Is this not what we see within the economic realm? Things start, bubble, and then collapse (see

George Berkeley - ghost of departed quantities, indeed)

, as we are all so aware of, given the past few years. And, the effects will linger a long time. Does it have to be that way?

---

In order to build the right mindset, we jumped back to Zeno. We'll now jump forward to George Berkeley (mentioned above) who argued the idealist position. Now, don't get upset with George (after all, we have a University, in California, named after him), as I've heard a philosopher of science argue that the table that we were sitting at did not exist. Of course, he was using the modern parlance and talking boundary conditions. Too, I have heard modern versions of Zeno's thinking casted as jokes for engineers.

Where we are going with this is that there is a strong, trainable, human intuition that has been given no (or little) attention in business schools (actually, the western world's view has thrown this out, for the most part -- except that it has not, rather only a few are allowed to dabble -- we'll get into the necessary role of the autodidact, to boot).

Aside: A few years ago, most enrollments were in computer science. Then, it went to finance. Say what? I thought, at the time. What the hell is there in finance that is so intriguing? Oh, I must have been sleeping to miss out on the shenanigans (give me a break; who would have thought that this idiocy would even gain the light of day?). What is the goal of many students? I saw Business Week with a review (only a couple of years ago) that characterized MBA pursuers. Essentially, it said this: CEOs, we're after your jobs; everyone else, we want to make lots of money (implied: get the hell out of the way).

Of course, the argument for those who agree with this is that the high tide lifts all boats (did we not hear that a lot? Simultaneously, the set of enriched grew their assets rapidly whilst the majority sank into poverty and want. The middle class? Squeezed out, for the most part).

The trouble: each of these succeeding cycle is putting us deeper into the crapper. The past 1/2 century has seen effects multiplied on the event of a downturn. Without due attention, it'll only get worse (ah, let the banks self-police, it was said).

---

So, what is behind a lot of belief, and energy, that goes into bubbles (besides, of course, the aeration by the FED and the like)? We'll get back to that next time, after March Madness is over.

Remarks:

06/05/2012 -- We have the cause wrong?

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

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

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

05/03/2011 -- With George B being mentioned several times, we need to address, more fully, the notions of adequality and what it means (Katz & Katz, Robinson) in the context of modern computation and its open problems related to certain types of applications.

04/19/2011 -- Some basics need attention, to boot.

04/04/2011 -- We will get technical with things like linear logic. The numerants (opposites of the innumerants - remember the discussions of innumeracy?) have over-laid upon themselves, and us, a choking cloud of numbers that will strangle out our very human essence if we do not wake up and smell its gaseous emanations.

04/04/2011 -- Gross seems to know the bankers well. Note that Big Ben (from our pockets) gave them (while sacking the savers) oodles of free money.

04/03/2011 -- For preparation, be sure to look at the 5 issues to be addressed.

Modified 09/21/2011

Making money

Moral: Wherein we consider that money has a lot of meaning which we'll be looking at. Of course, there is the economic sense.

---

One way to make money is to print it or wish it out of the air (extractions can be of several types). However, let's change the subject slightly to talk about making a living (money as bread).

He who orders the printing doesn't make too much, in terms of pay, as one would expect with a government job. Nor do those who actually run the printing pressess as they are of those who toil. Others have flows that are outrageous, such as the head of a major health agency whose income is on the order of 1000s of bucks per minute.

While many today, it was said on the tube, live from paycheck to paycheck. Well, that's not new. As we know, many others are without a paycheck. Some try to make money from financial manipulations.

Is profiting from the financial casino, which some see as making money, really so? What, profit comes about from mere winning in a shell game?

Or, is this thing that has been allowed to develop and to take most of the economic energy just some allowed manipulation of near-zero situations because we don't understand yet how to model the full impacts? Is it that accounting always lags in its political maneuverings? Ah, perhaps, we'll have some type of mathematically based approach someday - albeit, even with undecidability and quasi-empiricism, it would be a step up.

An Atlantic article mentioned the IPO rage that persisted for some time, with some making oodles. Others not. That is profit? Those who had the ka-ching in those deals were the consultants, such as those of the golden sacks.

Then, we have things like someone from another health organization saying, on the tube, that a return of 25% is desired. Mind you, that is after all expenses! Sheesh, where did that notion come from? Even the nun-based seem to have been influenced by the lure of bucks. As we know, many patients don't (or didn't) get the care that they need so that the health provider could profit more. Like the one organization (same as above) where the head went out to the pasture with almost a billion (yes, billion) of bucks.

Huh? And, we can't afford general health care?

Note: We can go back and see the history behind the current state, with the increasing trend toward the vacuous financial state. Sort of going backward, we are now where a very small percentage holds a very large part of the wealth. For the past couple of decades, the middle class essentially has become paupers. Oh, I know, they have goods up the wazoo out there for them to buy and to contend themselves with. Ah yes, all of it quality stuff. On the upper end, we have the ever-increasing houses (way beyond McMansions) and boats (football field in length) and planes (personal flying apartments). And more. Of course, there is the Madoff type (who may be more prevalent than we think) working hard for illegit gains. Also, we had the computer come along of late causing lots of things to change, including the financial game's basis. At some point, let's say early 70s, there was probably some rational link between capitalism as an ideology and the reality as practiced. That has all been lost. The best-and-brightest, who are to be our saviors, have for the most part been lured into greed and egoistic assuages (read that, CEOs). Methinks that Adam Smith is turning over in his grave from all this disarray that has been promulgated under his name. Things, folks, are way off base. Of course, the game continues daily, or, at least, five days a week. Thankfully, there are the two days of the weekend. How long would it take, and under what circumstances, for the realizations of things being awry to take hold and for the steps to get it on a better platform to start? That, folks, is one goal of this blog, to bring this discussion to fore.

Remarks:

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

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

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

12/01/2009 -- The consumer as focus.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/05/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of.

Modified: 09/21/2011

Lemons problem

Moral: Wherein we nod to an Ivy school (not Harvard), in the form of Sanjeev Arora, Boaz Barak, Markus Brunnermeier, Rong Ge, for offering insights about financial games that are remarkably accurate, in our opinion, and really bear on the issues (12/11/12 -- see: FAQ, at Princeton).

---

The title? Yes, if the buyers know that sellers only have 'lemons' (not, in any way, disparaging the wonderful fruit), then buyers will not buy (without heavy discounts) and the game ends. To whom will sellers sell?

Did we not see that with the recent affair where the bankers (and other financial types) essentially froze their gaming as they knew that they were dealing mainly with crooks (like themselves).

Liquidity left; the economy dumped. What happened?

Big Ben, and his ilk, put savers, and taxpayers, on the line to provide a huge pile of wealth so that these idiots would get back to their gaming. And, folks, we have not yet unwound from that. The chimera's rise is due, essentially, to our monies being offered to those who crapped on the economy (diaper changing, folks).

---

The 'lemon' concept is used in a very timely paper that covers some of the issues brought by computational support for finance. We have harped about that (many times).

(ACM Communications): Computational Complexity and Information Asymmetry in Financial Products. Abstract: Securitization of cash flows using financial derivatives transformed the financial industry over the last three decades. Derivatives have attracted criticism, but others say problems with derivatives would disappear with use of more accurate financial models, more vigilance by buyers and better governmental oversight.

---

The authors talk about financial derivatives, their use, and the troubles. The example derivatives are based upon mortgages, which is a timely subject. The use, supposedly, is because we can: modern environment, global scope, computers, mathematics, oodles of money, lots of suckers, and so on. The troubles?

Well, they are several, and we'll get technical about these later. For now, let's just itemize them with some comment.

• The lemons problem - as mentioned above, this problem is why auto dealers offer a warranty. And, we might add, states enacted 'lemon' laws.
• Complexity - ah, dear to our hearts, as undecidability lurks, everywhere. I like the example that they use for intractability -- which then leads to the decision problem, as how can you decide when you cannot compute? Oh, intuition? Yes, folks, as an aside, one job, in the future, will be trained intuitionistic overseers (ah, have we not tried that from the beginning? - no, the computer turned things around - think quasi-empiricism and Chaitin, et al). But, in particular, they show how it is much easier to check an answer than it is to actually find an answer.
• CDOs - as a form of derivative (remember, Buffet said that these things were WMDs) for which there may be some value to we, the people - and, not via our bailing out the idiots. They talk tranches (trash, as we explained earlier).

---

Their conclusions? Well, for one, how do you determine that you're not getting crap, after the fat cat 'cherry picked' out the best? That is, the 'wedge' (difference between what the banker who wants to sell you junk thinks something is worth and what you can discern with your limited information) can be complicated to discover (actually, we deal with this type of thing as a general rule (such as, measuring progress in any of our endeavors), yet do so well when the cards are not stacked against us as we find with the current financial game).

In short, ex ante, even with the best of efforts, is not 20-20. We know that. One solution? Simple living folks driving our money system - it can be done (the military personnel who put their lives at stake are an example - not the best and brightest).

Then, transparency (no, dark pools, idiots -- by the way, this needs attention, too).

Even, ex post can be a problem. Yes. Who the hell has gone to jail out of the rogue table?

The paper is well worth the read. We'll go back through this whole thing, with some technical focus (adding to M&M and ergodic states).

Remarks:

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

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

12/13/2012 -- In the 12/11/2012 Remarks, the use of barbarian was in the context of either migratory (or invasive) movement of people from one locale to another with the result of the populace in the receiving bit of land undergoing an adjustment that could range from minor nuisance to major upheaval and death. That, then, motivates a look at why there might be migration, such as being forced. Turns out that the Wikipedia editors have done a good job of collecting the instances that we know of: Diasporas.

12/11/2012 --  Rick asks of the new barbarians from a historical perspective. ACM Communications, this month, interviews Sanjeev. The issue is locked, however this FAQ covers the topic very well.

01/01/2012 -- Recently ran across the work of Kazimierz Dabrowski. We need to pay more attention to his theory on development. Yes, CEOs (and other takers) as immature (seriously, so).

12/05/2011 -- It's interesting how idiotic the supposedly smart can be. The real issue: the failings of an idiot have a small influence; the failings of the 'real idiots' has wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

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

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

05/31/2011 -- Lil Timmy. What a guy!

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

05/28/2011 -- We'll put avatars to more use than just being glorified (hyper-dimensional) icons.

05/27/2011 -- It's good to see others raise questions: why are the too big still doing crazy things? Why were there not prosecutions? ... It's disconcerting to hear that the feds (as in our elected officials, and their appointees) allowed (are allowing) the bank's sleight-of-hand in order to not 'rock the boat' or to keep the ease for the fat cat (miscreant aristocat).

05/25/2011 -- What they're talking: How do we control financial sleight-of-hand, which may even be unconscious, driven by humanness? Is the 'lemon' the norm in finance (and its gaming)? We have to learn how to 'engineer' truth, thanks to the growing prowess of computation in the hands of the idiots.

05/25/2011 -- The referenced article is under controlled access. However, here is an editorial review (appears in the magazine as a one-pager right before the article) that is available.

05/24/2011 -- How many times did we hear bankers say that they weren't going to lend? Despite all sorts of jawboning. Well, we could have nationalized (what does that mean?) the game more than we have so far with the hands-off approach (oh, they're adults, can self-govern - hah!!)? Their not lending is like the kid who takes his ball and won't play the game (so obvious, yet do we see any embarrassment, at all, of recognition on their part of their immaturity?).

Modified: 06/11/2013

Cyprus, no lesson for Ben

Moral: Wherein we consider Ben and Cyprus.

Last time, we said that Ben has slapped the savers silly. Then, the EU tells Cyprus to take a tithing out of deposits in order to cover the shambles left behind by supposedly smart financial types. Who, by the way, we bailed out (still an open issue, as Ben knows; he won't let an unwind happen so that we can see the real crud).

Now that EU deal was last week; an article at Seeking Alpha (to which I commented -- Aroound the bloock) suggested that the equity markets would go down. The week isn't over.

As well, "tithe" is about 10%. We, the savers, have given much more (a multiple of that), and Ben tells us, with a straight face, that he'll continue to slap us silly.

How do we know? They, (the FED money printers) met this week. Someone asked Ben if he would pull a Cyprus. Evidently, he doesn't think so. Yet, he does not see the equivalence of his slapping savers now (and for the past few years) with the EU suggestion.

Today, The Daily Ticker, had on Jim Rickards who says that Ben is stealing, in a sense, from depositors. But, Ben must not see this, as I'm sure that he knows the moral issues (unless, he's taken the secular route to the extreme - screw the helpless - that is what power leads to - corruption -- thanks, Lord Acton).

---

There may be another issue though that needs to be explained to Ben. He's heavy into mathematics and modeling. But, Ben doesn't seem to have insight into the issues related to quasi-empiricism that need to be updated to the modern context. In short: computational power has leveraged the misthoughts and misdeeds (of the financial ilks as they focus on unfair games, err "products" - can you imagine? almost implying some reality to these things - chimeras that they can be - almost if we can eat or wear the things) enormously so as to present us with out-of-control situations. The related notions may seem to be subtle and to be a stretch, quite frankly. But, that is one of the issues; these people run off (as did Ben) with new ideas spawned out without suitable foresight (unless it's to the amount that can be gained) into impact on the wider economy (we need a sandbox for these folks -- anyone trying to define this, Ben?).

One saving grace might be the new guy from Harvard. We'll see.

So, Ben puts out the message, No bubbles. Yes, we'll have an interesting look-back, at some point. At that time, we can also put a number on Ben's little negative impact (let's say, a 30% loss to date which has no floor as Ben continues to stumble along, albeit suavely, while slapping with both hands -- must be doing so in a sleep-walking mode).

Remarks:

03/26/2013 -- Let's see, some (many) who were under water on their house loans got bailed out (even to the extent of 6 figures), some in the equity markets have gained (a whole lot more have not - but, one could argue that it was their own misdeed - as stupid as that argument is, I'll put it here), banks are rolling in the dough (enough for some to get big paychecks, okay?), et al. Now, on the other side, there are the unemployed and the underemployed; there are those who lost without any means to recover; et al. Then, we have the savers who are saints. We've given up 30+% of our deposits to Ben's little scheme; many of us have no recourse or way to recover. So, think of it, folks, as a gift (that's why I used tithe - except that it's in the church of money - yet, money is the blood of the economy and has some spiritual value -- which does not mean to take a bath in it like old Scroog or whoever that comic character was who would fill the but with money -- what about paper cuts?). We would for Ben, at least, to acknowledge that he did wrong and that he ought to see that means are there in the future to offset his (the next FED aerator) harming ways.

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

Modified: 03/26/2013

Why not?

Moral: Wherein we ask 'why not? which question can go a couple of ways. We're going to look at one of these. Actually, there is a third that is the mantra of the toddler learning about its will, that of others, and boundaries (say, good behavior), but we'll not go there either.

---

The query could indicate an awareness that something ought to be done or to happen, say like realizing one suggestion from the President's speech. Stay in school and be a good student (as good as you can be). Or, why not build a new plane with entirely new processes and material, that is, re-position the decision framework on an unknown center plus relax constraints along about all decision axes? In other words, the little engine that could. Or, why not pursue globalization? That's not the focus, for now.

The query could relate to reasons for something not happening, such as causal analysis tries to effect. Oh yes, risk analysis tries to do this before the fact. That use is what we're going after in order to pull together some 'un' words with a coherent message. For instance, 'undecidability' has be thrown about here, thanks to its use by the Vienna School. And, 'underdetermined' has been used, mainly due to its usefulness in resolving how we think about several dilemmas. We need to add 'unpredictable' as the risk people don't seem to know the concept.

Let's try this sequence of using these concepts (U U U N, unfortunately, not as meaningful as TANSTAAFL) in order to explain why these have appeared as well as to start discussion about what their applicability means to our difficult situations. There are other orders; this one seems to have some power for explication.

• Unpredictable - Actually, this ought to be used for the fact that we have no a priori knowledge of how events will unfold, for the most part. Of course, some stable events recur without our involvement or worry. For instance, days succeed one another. Yet, how many lost their wealth, and income, of late due to some idiocy (not necessarily their own) that can be explained? Do we know of any problematic programs? Say, has weather forecasting in your area been 100% on (whatever that would mean) this past summer? That the quants have run off after their stochastic taming attempts we'll be looking at further. That CAE folks have broken the rules of map/territory differentiation is another variation of mis-handling of that which this sequence denotes.
• Underdetermined - Well, what does this mean? We can use the wiki definition. Since predictability, and its complement (ah, is that so?), are figured using mathematics, albeit a subset dealing with things called statistics, let's use that type of story here. Basically, if we have a series of equations and unknowns to be determined, we like them to match in cardinality. That is, if there are too few equations, then we'll have to sort out the extra unknowns by various schemes (assumptions, swags, etc.). If there are too many equations (too few unknowns), then we're on the other side of the bad boat. The case, with computational modeling, is just this. Too much fudging (sorry, techie folks, but the truth has to be told). Also, note that we talked about unknowns. The equations would contain variables, to boot, whose definition and handling can be problematic.
• Undecidable - Now, we have to mention Turing's, and related, work, briefly. Then, we can just discuss the issues involved with the complicated concept, in general. It is more than just a computation problem, as we see from Hilbert's query. To shorten a potential long story, we can say that some issues are not related to time, sequence, or any type of order. Yet, we can always re-frame things to be decidable, within limits (meaning choice, allowable error, etc.), of course.
• NP (Nondeterministic polynomial) -- We're using this to introduce complexity. You see, even re-framing does not guarantee some solution unless we're exceptionally good (which some people are) or lucky (again, we see this). Yet, it's the computational aspect that is troublesome, such as using approximation, heuristics, and more. Why? We have had many of years to learn about human dynamics; yet, there continues to be intractable problems. Adding in the computer just exacerbates things incredibly. But, for thinking of complexity in terms of using the computer for solutions take the chess game. Well, that little game, on a small board, is highly complex. Something as seemingly simple as checking if two circuits are equivalent is, to boot.

Having gone through this, can you see other orders? It's the chicken/egg thing. For instance, 'undecidable' might be made the basis, with incompleteness being a key thing. The order, shown in the list, comes about since we're dealing with things that have gone awry due to our immaturity with using computational resources.

One could suggest a decision framework based upon this order that is operationally effective (with a bow of acknowledgment to quasi-empiricism). By the way, with NP at the core, how can we proceed? Ah, that is the essence of truth engineering's contribution.

But, this question of 'why not?' and UUUN ought to be part of the program management vernacular, and jargon. So, we'll continue this next time.

Note: An important concept will be separability. On predictability, some say, well, the sun will rise. Sure. But, weather was added in for this reason: will it be clear enough to see the rise? You see, NASA faces this problem all the time with shuttle launches. So, various windows of opportunity can be identified, with some ranking of certainty. Yet, the operational scheme is to be ready to take advantage; and, how many times does weather cause a mission delay? Now, if the parts of engineering that relate to business would just go back to their true framework, perhaps some of the hubris would diminish. The issues of underdetermination, undecidability and NP are important just because predictability, as a highly mathematicized approach, can be easily mis-used. Too, people play power games in these complex situations where someone who fails to solve an essentially intractable problem has his head removed. Sheesh. How the hell can we expect to learn without failure? Those who try and fail ought to be honored. Except in this situation that is very much apropos for mention and current: playing silly games with other peoples' monies in a risky fashion is verboten, by definition. Because of near-zero, we ought not even honor those who win. Stupid game, folks.

Remarks:

01/15/2015 -- This week, this post is getting read. Great! Nice little piece of work (kidding, in part) so many years ago. ... 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.

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

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

12/08/2009 -- Consider current CEOs in relation to Paul. Not fair? Well, these guys/gals have set themselves upon some supposed plane that is above the rest of us.

11/29/2009 -- Rationality and risk. Need a new look.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

Modified: 01/15/2015

Tide that floats us

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

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

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

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

---

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

Essence of the Cheshire multiple

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

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

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

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

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

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

To summarize:

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

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

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

---

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

Remarks:  Modified: 11/11/2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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