The ideological errors of capitalism, V -- culture

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely absconders, shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino are not sufficient. Culture, and the lack of a Magna Carta, need attention.

---

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)

---

Yes, culture has run amok. Capitalism grew up in an environment that stressed gaming since players (serfs) feed their earnings to the lords (fat cats). Then, when the computational came more to fore, machinations that are counter to a sustainable future got more reward than did reasonable considerations about issues, such as undecidability, or did honest labor.

What? We need to look at 'must and may' in this context.

Yes, it's time to bite the bullet and discuss how overlaying our realities with models, abetted by our beasts, is problematic from the get go.

We like to think in musts, as in things being true or false. Gamers bring in 'may' from one particular world view. Thinkers note that the world is more gray than black and white.

One 'must' is what drives arbitrage's necessity. This ought to be a public good, not privatized (as we see with this example).

That we have to manage the 'may' aspects, and agree on the 'musts' set, is paramount. But, under what framework is this to be done?

Where did this 'must' and 'may' come from?

----

ACM published an article in its Communications that struck a chord (Intro, Article). The topic seemed to offer ways and means for discussing some of the issues related to undecidability. The concept was brought up earlier in the context of discussing the Vienna position relative to the mathematization of some markets.

Now, mind you, while reading on, consider how the issues related to programming might be considered in the small as opposed to what we as humans face daily. However, we are overlaying computation on reality and making decisions thereby. In a sense, we're limiting the larger world to what the computational model can handle. Also, if there are problems in the small world of programming of the computer, cannot these suggest that those larger world problems might, in some cases, learn from what we know of computation and, too, ought we learn how to know about the 'undecidable' analogs? It's that latter part that is some troublesome, mostly since people more easily adopt comfortably closed world views than not (case closed).

The article talks about the three main issues. Firstly, there is language. Of course, on the computer side, we still talk semantics. But, closure is easier to impose. What problems do we see from our big set of natural languages? Needless to say, right from the get-go, there is a big thing looming. Secondly, we see a bow to the notion that a duck test is about all that we can do in many cases (especially, politics - joke). But, the larger issue is that dynamic states are what we deal with more than any type of limiting static analysis. Does that not complicate things? Thirdly, we need to make decisions using our language, properties assigned to entities within the frame of reference, and some type of reasoning.

Now, for all of these, the problems in the small on the computer are much more amenable to solutions (to wit, the internet, et al - though, to be fair, you don't have to go far to see failures). In the large, things are much more complex. One benefit of computational modeling is that we can learn how to identify problems and put them into some mode for being solved. Computation, in that sense, is only a continuation of the western mind's orderly (oh, wait, not so orderly) progression along the axis of improvement (ah, arguable, too).

But, the article shows that, even in the small, things are not as easily handled as many think, especially the young (yes, you, Microsoft, for one, -- gosh, I argued with some of those young whippersnappers way back in the early 90s, ..., oh well). You can think of the 'must' and 'may' sets as depicting those things that must follow (either true or false) and then that big thing of unknowns and their may'ness (neither true nor false). Of course, the idea is to have a strong set of musts and an ordered set of mays, these latter, it is desired, being more prevalent to those almost 'must' but not quite.

The point, here, is that we'll continue to use the concepts in trying to lay out why capitalism stinks, in its current form, for everyone but those who are on the taking side (0.2% taking more than 99.9% of the income or some such inequitable, and non-sustainable, number). Too, some fields, such as those related to systems engineering and operations management, are looking at how to do things better (and Lean is a chimera, in some cases, which I intend to show). But, those fields tend toward increasing the overlay. I say, to those folks, hey wait, in the small is loaded with problems. It's to be willy-nilly imposed on us?

Ah, yes, the miracle of superposition.

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.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

07/28/2011 -- Cambridge non-commoners.

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

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

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

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

09/16/2010 -- So, ill-cultured-ness came from the classist's basis.

Modified: 01/08/2019

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

Economics and Medicine

Moral: Wherein we remind ourselves that though finance and engineering are two important aspects of the economy, there are others. For instance, even though we can include science under engineering, it ought to stand on its own. So, we can start with medical science.

---

The recent Atlantic provided an analysis of the current status of health care. One article by David Goldhill (How American Health Care Killed My Father) looks at the evolution of the past couple of decades. An interesting notion is the emphasis on insurance in which the patient is not treated like a consumer who is spending money and incurring a cost that can be controlled. Not, the whole thing is oriented toward the games of the providers and the bureaucrats. We need to get the patient back into the focal point. Of course, not everyone could be their own advocate in the proposed system, but that it is being discussed is encouraging.

Regina Herzlinger has been arguing for a consumer-driven health-care systems for some time (Who Killed Health Care?) and is referenced in the Atlantic article. The approach that Regina proposes would rely upon evidence based medicine to provide a basis for making decisions, along with a better medical IT situation.

As a reminder, any new approach, especially that related to computing, would be plagued with the same undecidability issues discussed with finance and engineering computing. Yet, it makes sense in that one reason that capitalism works is its bottom-up nature, when we stay away from errant states, such as casino capitalism. The top-down, planning economies have a worse time handling the undecidable issues.

As well, Regina argues for use of the HSA with some subsidies. As described in a scenario by David, we already have paid a lot (see $1.77M example) given the current situation.

Continuing with the medical focus, we can apply some practical use of metaphors. Even though, the Atlantic article, mentioned above, references a study showing how just a simple check list can improve procedure quality and reduce infections, what medicine shows us, though, is that protocol cannot trump the doctor's knowledge and skill. There's a balance that needs to be better understood.

The same is true for the economy. In fact, there are many parallels since people are the main theme. But, the main motivation is not filling pockets. We need applied use of science and data about more than who has succeeded in getting rich.

Of course, having said that, the question of the overarching metaphor for the economy is still open and to be discussed further.

Remarks:

01/03/2010 -- Sometimes, it seems like a bait and switch.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

Modified: 01/03/2010

Node-it-all

Moral: Wherein we consider two seemingly disparate (but, not) views of current matters.

As an aside, Morgan Stanley is quoted as saying that it's tough to beat the S&P for several reasons. Their research says that only 20% of the actively managed little bundles of money were successful in 2014. ... You know, one might say that it's also a small percentage (overall) who can take out "gains" during boom times. When we have downturns, losses are general.

So, that may call for some dampening notions.

-- Now, for the first issue, someone used "casino" in reference to the millennials. The article called them, the Ben Franklin Generation. Too, though, they will be the youngest set when things do return to normalcy (euphemism for a reversal). So, we need to keep them in mind, as a separate group, as we discuss matters. Their emphasis on technology is short-sighted, however, when things do fall apart, we will be able to, then, get some attention upon the important issues. Which are? Well, they're scattered, by reference, throughout these posts. In total, the view is coherent, albeit integrative work may be necessary to bridge what might seem disjoint to the casual view.  

-- So, let's get to the real issue. Here and in the other blogs, we have used undecidability a lot (especially, in truth engineering). Basically, think of it as this issue: unless we have experienced a situation before, we have very little clue about things that are involved. Or, much of computing is repeat (actually, it's one of the big frames in science's process) - and, I am not talking, in particular, about issues related to deterministic views (an important concept). 

Rather, there is this proclivity toward "vertigo" that is overlooked. Why? Cleverness, essentially (a really simple analog is error-correcting code). ... Now, computation has been more of a boon than a bane, until now, for many reasons which we will go into. But, the bane aspect will become more prevalent, and I am talking more than "data-driven" hell  (Janet needs to exude the "wizard's" aura). ... So, much to discuss. But, in modeling via computer, cleverness entails compactification of sorts. Call it closure, if you would. 

The motivation is to allow decisions to be made (albeit, default reasoning can go a long way without contributing more problems) via various intricate means when normalcy will not allow itself to be found. ... In many cases, some type of thing (one might call it a node-it-all) finds itself as the basis - whether asserted or inserted, it does not matter. This "thing" has all sorts of looks; in some cases, it's hidden via a mathematical system definition. Using "node" is meant to imply an emphasis on logic and decisioning. 

And, to equate (associate), in your mind, "node" with "knowed" (yes, true, simple past tense) is not off the mark (we have a whole lot to say about that - let's, for now, defer this discussion of blindness vs delusionality. Okay?             

Finally, there has been much allusion to Facebook (FB) playing all sorts of roles in the discussion. Now, we can offer some hints. FB cannot be a node-it-all; nor, can using FB allow one to attain this state - actually, we don't have to go far beyond the "feed'ing frenzy" examples. Nor, I might add, can anything created (ah, yes, infer here as you wish, we'll get to this). That we seem to have all of this success is due to a lack of proper insight (and hubris); some say that "karma" might apply, as a concept. I say, just wait, the unexpected will bite you on the arse (do we not want that for fairness many times, albeit that we see some who seem to "play with fire" without getting burnt - how many hapless might, though, suffer from the actions of those who play?).

Remarks:  Modified: 12/28/2015

06/16/2015 -- We will start to expand upon the theme as it relates to truth engineering (concepts essential to a balanced proliferation of AI - that is, safe for all of the people, especially the hapless). ... So, what is "eating the world" now? Marissa agrees with Marc that it's software (see Marc's slides at Slideshares - there is a transcript). Some say data. ... We'll weigh in from the viewpoint outside of the mobile mania. ... Eventually.

12/28/2015 - I started using Quora in July 2015. Quora answer using know-it-all (Do-female-users-get-harassed-for-the-question-answer-they-posted-on-Quora/answer/Annika-Schauer) which state implies some type of closure (compactification). When such is displayed in science, and other realms of study, it can be very much problematic.

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

Saturday WSJ

Moral: Wherein we stop to smell the roses, as does the WSJ each week.

We have to love the philosophical tone of the Saturday Wall Street Journal. That is, after the five days of paying attention to the races and watching the numbers, we can step back and ask questions. Of course, some of the questions are only to be pondered; others of the questions just might lead to insights and actions.

Now, given the focus of the WSJ's readership, that action may or may not be driven by higher ideals. Yet, it's nice to think that the whole thing could be looked at systematically and with an aura of justice, even if to a minute extent. And, then, we would have some type of improvement in an environment of non-contention.

---

This week, per usual, there are several re-looks, both of the past week and further, that make a lot of sense. Seeing these, one has to wonder why all of the clamor. As in, bring in that Saturday (or Sunday) hat to work and be a nice world citizen every work day.

Here are a couple of examples.

• Spreadsheet slips - Bialik, a regular, notes the discussions about a spreadsheet error. From the verbiage, it looks to be a simple thing. Could the thing have been caught? Well, someone would have had to take time and energy to do it. From my experience, we are getting away from that (to our detriment). Checking seems to against the modern way (after all, Lean - we'll go on about that ad infinitum - says to do it right the first time). The whole notion of the "7oops7" blog deals with us getting ahead of ourselves (one of the comments stressed that some of the data was estimated -- ah, I'll show you higher-order systems feeding data from one sub-system to another as if these were obtained from sensor rather than being derived from some type of model estimate -- and similar examples). In fact, a recent post dealt with two banes: optimization and lazy evaluation. We can step up from a simple spreadsheet problem to one encased (encapsulated) in a modern development paradigm. These are hairy, folks, and can lead to contemplation of singularity (ala Kurzweil - no problem there due to undecidability). Then, we can get beyond the software and modeling and look at the basis for discussion. Economics has been known as dismal for a long while. Lots of mathematical apparatus has been overlaid on flaky foundations. Yet, we run off, during the five days of business, willy-nilly. We talk about these numbers as if they really mean something. They could, folks. But, it would require lots of effort (next bullet).  
• Dark side - Schmidt of Google visits North Korea. He's from the open side, to an extent. There are some who would push it further out. Schmidt notes the mechanical (rote) use of the system during a demonstration by the troops. What we have in the west are cadres of peers all resident in a morph'd space to which they have to focus their zombie'd eyes. North Korea believes in top down. The guy is charge's worldview rests upon himself (and, perhaps, his ancestors). We see that in the west in babyhood. Most rise above that (except for ego-centric CEO-types - too many to name). Schmidt notes that the natural urge is to get access to internet-based material, in one's own way (perhaps, for the peer-pressured younger cohort - but, not in general), and that the consequence is expression of thought (ah so, all those intellectual tweets). His thoughts about the cost to control the "natural" flow is right on. Very costly. But, Schmidt needs to realize that what he sees applies here to finance, too. As in: since the financial industry seems to run on greed, to put in the proper controls - as in, lift the view to the sophomoric level, at least -- we need to have daily quiescence and review. The cost for this would be much more than the North Korea guy would have to face. Now, to what end would be the oversight system? The type of transparency that we would need in order to have a stable financial system whose risks are handled properly. All of this is to be discussed further. Yes, banks run by monks who are not driven by profit for themselves would be nice.  

As a final note, notice that we expect our military to be self-less. You don't agree? Go join up and see it up close and personal. Still don't agree? Were you of the O-class (then, try enlisted)? Now, those who make the sacrifice daily, hourly (by the minute), are expected to support a system where fat cats, egoists, and opportunists scalp the system for their own gain. Why do you think that there is the disparity that people complain about? This unbalanced situation is age old, but it has increased the past few decades (partly due to the computer issues that we'll continue to address). Ah, I'll continue to describe this situation. 

Give me a few of those smart military types, and we'll put in the utilitarian banking system that the U.S. needs in order to lead the free world to the future. What would be lost? Silliness where culpability is never assigned, losses are socialized, and much more.

----

Briefly: the cost to maintain a supervisory system for finance would be as much as the Great Leader would need to keep North Korean's in control. Obviously, to pay for such, pockets, such as Warren's, would be a lot smaller. 

Remarks:

04/21/2013 --

Modified: 04/21/2013

2nd December

Moral: Wherein we mimic the look at a couple of 4ths: 'Oops, etc. and truth.

---

We've been at it enough to have two last posts for a year. It might be interesting to look at these with some commentary, starting with the one for 2009.

• 2009 (11 posts) -- Year-end recap -- Yes, those who do not suffer innumeracy ran amock, as if this was their right due to their higher-order insights. Yet, many with innumeracy have better ethical, and practical, sense. How is this, that mathematics (that old queen) has been so mis-abused? Well, it is our task, in part, to talk this issue. The trouble? Those who are so smart have no conception of undecidability (oh, they have learned work-arounds) or of entanglement (ah, this I do not understand as they cry over humankind's non-particle-ness - but, then, Godel gives them inconsistency as an out).
• 2010 (4 posts) -- What is truth? -- Somehow, the monied players have misused notions from biology (to wit, evolutionary theory) as their chief argument for being a**es. Then, Adam has been abused, to boot. Now, do we hear that they do not want any ethical overlays or concerns? Ah, that would un-fun the games, would it not? Yet, we have the right to want to know if someone is pushing us toward perdition-laden paths. Actually, the daily clamor of business covers a whole bunch of mischief. How did this come to be?

--

Dismal? Oh, let us count the ways.

Remarks:

12/29/2012 -- Summary - 2012.

02/26/2011 -- Added links to each month's archive.

02/08/2011 -- A topic of a year ago: 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 -- Added post counts by month by year. Also, the chimera shines. How did I miss Grandsons of Samuelson?

01/24/2011 -- Here are a couple of related items.

• Turn the clock, and score, back by destroying the evidence.
• Chaos engineering is the ultimate Quant dream, in terms of conquering complexity (SOS and application -- we'll look at this closely).

01/02/2011 -- One basic problem is that systems are in place, and in development, whose consequences are not scrutinized beyond their ability to fill certain pockets. Oh, let the boys play. Is that the attitude? While, all around, our butts, and those of our progeny for generations, are sliding further into the mud. Way to go, smart guys and gals.

Modified: 12/29/2012

Quants ignore complexity

Moral: Wherein we note that the title may not be strictly true, but we could rephrase as follows. Quants find interesting solutions to money seeking problems, in doing so they skirt the boundaries of undecidable regions, and, then, they tell an improper tale.

---

Starting from the rear, the successes, when if looked at closely would probably be a small subset of tried approaches (we have Merton as source for such a criticism). And, given the reality, that the solution was 'magical', is not told since the fat cat paying the quant doesn't want to hear such.

Continuing to step back, the undecidable argument comes out of studying Vienna school thinking about the economy. We, on the western edge of the big pond, like to continue our 'manifest destiny' ways in the realms of the virtual and digital. Ah, only if it were to be. On the eastern side, their longer history leads to some insight about how easily we can be misled by statistical mechanics and, especially, game theory as it may be exploited via better handling of differential equations (namely, the partial types).

Look, folks, near zero is real.

The use of undecidable here is fairly broad (to be discussed, including the specific use within mathematics of independence).

Now, for the first point, that fat cat approaches to money making would include computational advances, and flim-flaming mathematics, is to be expected; exploit all avenues to maximize pocket size structure and fill. Yet, they need to be called for this. Why else do the hedge funds want rules that allow them to cloak what the hell that they do? If they were so smart, they would show what their shorts cover with the knowledge that no one else could figure it out.

Too, we see high-frequency trading leading to very smelly tactics; ah, intellectual cesspooling that it is.

That Madoff got away with his shenanigans for so long is directly related to his computational authority (access, support, etc.) and his ability to keep away proper scrutiny.

We'll look at this type of thing further.

Remarks:

10/24/2012 -- Goldman skimming via Quants and their creative finance.

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben).

05/25/2011 -- Are lemons the norm in finance?

05/17/2011 -- Hedge funds need some of our attention.

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

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

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

02/10/2010 -- Recent auto events have a similar basis, folks, to the mismash out of 'quant' thinking.

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

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/02/2009 -- Let's put undecidability on the table, please.

09/01/2009 -- Not just picking on Quants here, as we see product and process people making similar errors. Though, it's hard to talk error when money is rolling in the door.

Modified: 10/24/2012

New School

Moral: Wherein having mentioned, several times, the Vienna School (also, known as the Austrian School) which is continental, it stands to reason that we need a link to something on this side of the pond.

---

So, we'll use the New School's site, though it is mainly a development of an extensive view of "The History of Economic Thought" with links to a whole wealth of material, including commentary. "New School" refers to the university, not another economic school. This site allows a look at the breadth of economic thought.

We see categories, such as the Classical and its Neo follow-on. Plus, there are the alternative views.

One area that we will look at will be the heterodox approaches which were mentioned in a post related to money. The reference, then, alluded to other views, such as thermodynamics as a motivation, and model, rather than just having a gab standard with its star player, the saver sacker. As well, this approach might be better if it were extended with bio-dynamics, too. However, there are other equally valid view to consider.

A lot of the categories are top-down and heavily theoretic. Notice the use of "themes." These we'll look at too, as it's where we can see a focus on game theory or finance, perhaps allowing a bottom-up construction.

Probably, the first reaction to looking at all this thought is that there is not an answer, hence we know economics as dismal. Yet, perhaps, some physically-based model would have more appeal and application than we've seen so far. After all, nature and life have been there a lot longer than have been our analyses and other little intellectual schemes.

Note: We'll also have to address how we see stability in nature, and life, all the while knowing that there is uncertainty, undecidability, unpredictability, and such. The main problem? The computer exacerbates the issues, more so for finance than for engineering. Yet, they both face problems.

Remarks:

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

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

Modified: 03/23/2012

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

On the behalf of

Moral: Wherein we consider that one may need to act on the behalf of another is an age-old situation in human affairs. Parents perform this role for their children. As we can see in many cases, a grown child may accept fiduciary duties for an aging parent.

---

All civilized people point to the 'golden rule' as a primary in this regard. This is true, as well, in economics in so far as ethics may apply. Trouble is that some want to use a metaphor more from what we think of nature and its dwarinistic ways.

So, there is the issue of caveat emptor. In financial affairs, one might think that some counselor is looking out for one's interest, however, in many cases, this is not the case. The financial guy is more into selling something that will line his or her pocket, not in really considering the client's interest.

Then, we have the Madoff type (thanks, WSJ). As said earlier, we need to update the label for this type of thing as Ponzi was so long ago (we now have Made-off).

On 10/2/2009, the USA Today reports that there are many schemes being uncovered all the time. That somewhat points to having something like Fisher's view about smelling a rat to be taught on a regular basis. That is, the nose is a talent to hone.

Other notions that apply here are accountability and being aware. On the former, whatever role one has ought to have some type of review from time to time. Just being prepared to give an accounting can be a good discipline in any endeavor. Trouble is, under what circumstance can such a report be warranted? Some business methods have gravitated toward yearly reviews for employee evaluation. Also, in terms of work, the efforts to determine earned value have some appeal. Yet, these are not easy problems; even doing assessment of fair value is not without problems.

In term of the latter (being aware), we have to consider how the counseling role evolves. The fact of the matter is that there are more things that we do not know than that we know, the hubris of the know-it-all aside. That is, no one is expert at everything. Using the medical experience as an example, all one has to do is try to talk to some doctor about anything that is outside of his or her specialty interest or training.

So, given the existence of things like innumeracy, one can see why the financial adviser community as grown to be so large. Let's forget, for the moment, the whole thing of whether financial engineering (despite MIT's involvement) is even a valid field and consider the need with a few questions that we'll consider in more details.

Does the need for the financial expert really exist? How do we know that the flim-flam of casino capitalism isn't the main culprit? If that is the case, ought not the brains (yeah, best-and-brightest) be looking at more robust ways and means?

Can all this be put in framework that allows the normal person to make reasonable decisions about financial affairs? Is it by necessity that the underlying instability is exploited by those who have been allowed to game the system?

Note: Just because we have the difficulties involved with determining value is no reason for those who can (like anyone close enough to the market's workings to extract regular pocket fillings -- hey, work under a vow of poverty people, that is, anyone dealing with other people's money) to exploit the situational issues arising from complexity and undecidability.

Remarks:

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

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

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.

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

01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.

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.

12/29/2009 -- Time calls Ben an uber-Nerd.

12/28/2009 -- Ben was named the Time Person of the Year. Nice. We can't call him 'King' as we saw with Alan's 'cult of personality' reign.

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

12/09/2009 -- The Street loves Ben who loves 'em back: The Street utterly loves the Fed's largess, earning massive profits from trading unstable currencies, the carry trade (borrow short-term dollars near zero, buy longer-term assets abroad), and the high-margin process of transferring America's capital abroad.

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

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

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

10/06/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of. It is clear that Alan and Ben act on our behalf, though one has to wonder what 'our' means as it sure is not the little guy. Finance, people, can be (probably ought to be) run as a non-profit affair. AND, the CEO (or whatever the titles at the top) would not make $1M and more! That is absurd. We have people who put their lives on the line for this country and its ideals for pittance. As said before, we really need a national service (Remarks 09/03/09) experience for the young'uns, especially for those of the privileged classes.

Modified: 05/11/2012

Quants, again

Moral: Wherein, we are reminded, well, that Ben, saver sacker that he is, is getting his job extension. So, we'll have several more posts on this theme of the quants.

---

Why? Well, it stinks. Tell me. How does coming into finance with an indoctrination in the physical sciences and mathematics add to our knowledge? On what basis do these quants make their applications (scientism?) or is it just pure mathematical flim-flam to fool the populace?

Oh, those quants have to admit that they would be lost without computing.

Let's put it this way. The only motivation may be that fat cats have paid for the work since some of this type of modeling and computing does fill pockets. Oh, boy, does it ever. And, that is sufficient from a certain viewpoint since the status quo seems to be moving large amounts from the majority to the minority.

Oh, you see high-frequency trading as a level field for all of us? Ever notice how things like the 'flash' seem to be a natural consequence?

Also, the fact of near-zero says, hey wait a minute!!

One argument that you hear from the quant's view is that people are not like objects with which physics entertains itself. Oh, so this makes it difficult to predict the future. Yes, we are very hard to pin down with modeling as that thing called volition, and more, comes into play.

Hey, that the reality folks. If you would just read the insights from Vienna, then we could discuss what undecidable means in this context. But, that is not necessarily scary.

The view over here, this side of the pond, is that mathematics has the answers. That one thing is what we need to talk about.

The politicos (they who salivate when the buck is passed under their noses), management (the clueless, essentially), the hapless (hey, always getting screwed, even when the Democrats are in charge), and others need to hear about these issues so that we can all be better informed and dampen those crazies who are (you know who you are) pushing casino capitalism.

The world needs us to get our act in order.

Remarks:

11/15/2015 -- Quora coming into the scene.

03/03/2014 -- Acknowledgements, including math pedigree, will be expanded.

10/24/2012 -- Goldman skimming via Quants and their creative finance.

03/15/2012 -- Okay, might have used incomputability (see post on Alan M. Turing) but stand by the context, the issues, and the need for resolutions. Wake up, quants (you, too, Ben).

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

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.

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/02/2009 -- Such as, undecidability.

08/27/2009 -- Let's start talking computational issues and how they contribute to systemic risk.

08/26/2009 -- Some statements here deal with the Philosophy of Science (here's another nice little rundown), in particular as it applies to one issue contended by mainstream economics against the Vienna school: Critics of the Austrian school contend that by rejecting mathematics and econometrics, it has failed to contribute significantly to modern economics. Additionally, they contend that its methods currently consist of post-hoc analysis and do not generate testable implications; therefore, they fail the test of falsifiability.^[5] Austrian economists contend that testability in economics is virtually impossible since it relies on human actors who cannot be placed in a lab setting without altering their would-be actions.

Ah, falsificationism, but what does that have with making oodles of money by the best-and-brightest (see Goldman's Town Hall)?

Modified: 11/15/2015

Ergodic hypothesis

Moral: Wherein we start the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks and, thereby, honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

Ah, did we ever say that we have the answers?

Last time, we were looking at a constructive basis for capitalism; that goal is still there. However, a couple of concepts ought to be introduced into the argument. These are the ergodic hypothesis and fixed point issues.

• Ergodic hypothesis -- We mentioned this as a comment earlier, while talking about the problems brought on by misuse of mathematics by the 'quants' view. As the article said, Samuelson noted that bringing in this principle was needed to make economics more scientific. That is, we can solve the game of risk, it is thought.
• Fixed point -- Deep with the thinking that would apply the ergodic principle is some notion about convergence that may be stronger than warranted. In the large, we do not see much that is really divergent. The sun rises. The car runs down the road that is usually passable, without overly large potholes, and so forth. But, in the small, convergence relies on equivalence.

Now, given that we mentioned equivalence, please note that this is not an easy problem. And, I'm not talking about what 'is' is. You see, any equivalence decision will have been set up within a predefined framework supported by axioms, and other assumptions, in an operational sense. Yet, in order to attain an equivalent choice, all sorts of, supposedly, unimportant properties are thrown out or trivialized into a type of norm.

What do I mean when I say that 'equivalence' is hard. Firstly, the problem is NP of some sort. We looked at that earlier. Secondly, there are undecidable issues involved related to the context.

----

The basic problem that needs attention is that concepts, like Arrow-Debreu equilibrium, furthers the delusions brought on by mathematization via computation. But, perhaps, that was inevitable; the latter progresses so the former would try to make use of the new facilities.

In short, though, not only do we not have 20-20 foresight (and hindsight) due to undecidability (and more), some things cannot be computed which begs the question of the Church hypothesis which will have to be addressed, to boot.

Remarks:

02/02/2012 -- This post's subject motivated the Ideology series.

04/02/2011 -- Weierstrass did not banish the motivations behind Berkeley's concerns.

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

10/13/2010 -- We'll get back to our itemization, soon. But, cannot resist mentioning that the foreclosure mess is indicative of the types of problems that 'capitalism' will face, especially as it facilitates movement of money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats. As well, analysis of Paulson, and how he benefited Goldman Sachs - who were rolling in the dough while others lost their livelihoods -- with his actions, and inactions, pertains to the next Remark.

10/07/2010 -- You know what is funny? Those who tend to ca-pital-sino laugh about State planning, to wit the failure of the USSR, etc. You see, these people claim, models, like the Input-output model, are touted as the means for that type of planning. Who can think of handling all that is necessary? But, then these same people see 'the market' as the means (look at the Arrow-Debreu view) based upon what (as in, what the hell is that? the money-sucking methods of Wall Street?)? The invisible hand?

Wait! What's the answer? Well we're getting there, albeit without any compunction about when.

Modified: 02/02/2012

Value, fair or earned

Moral: Wherein we consider value, yes, both fair value and earned value.

---

These may seem like two different things, however, much of the underlying technological (and mathematical) issues are the same. Hence, they both are NP and have (actually ought) to deal with undecidability. Yet, what we have is greed or hubris pushing us to chase after rainbows. Of course, in terms of greed, some do obtain a status of bulging pockets to the detriment of others.

In terms of hubris, we have projects running after glorified goals without due risk assessment. Of course, in this case, the risk assessors are wrapped in their own limitations.

How did we get here, folks? Have we "collectively become idiots?"

Well, it's true that there are means to tackle intractable problems. In fact, that's the cause for high pay in many cases. People who perform 'miracles' on a regular basis are employed and highly remunerated. Notice, though, that some want to make the playing field (peeks, look aheads, ...) to be in their favor. So, we ought to ask, what types of 'miracles' do we want to pay for? Is a CEO a 'miracle' worker?

Or, is it those who succeed despite not being appreciated? The trouble is, though, that many times people are punished for attempting, and failing, a solution, as if they didn't try hard enough, when the real reason is the hardness of the problem.

Gosh, that is how we learn! Through failure! The smart learn through the failure of others.

So, we need to change the terminology, perhaps, to get these concepts discussed and in general us. Hardness, and undecidable, do not require infinite sets, just very large, and complicated, domains.

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.

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

06/26/2011 -- The chimera, as the basis for our decisions, makes value issues to be more problematic, for many reasons. How did this come to be?

11/21/2010 -- Three years ago, it was said: Computational foci raise miraculous need. Still applies.

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

09/09/09 -- We'll need to look at UUUN, as a framework.

09/04/2009 -- It has been decided about Ben, the saver sacker. We still need to discuss the overarching metaphor for the economy. Quants are it!!

Modified: 01/15/2015

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