Posts of interest - 2011

Moral: Wherein we stop to the most-read posts, as opposed to looking at past December posts, while everyone relaxes in preparation for the coming year.

As a means (an attempt) to freeze a point in time (which we know is not possible), the last post of 2011 will list the top four posts in terms of having been read (well, views, anyway). Perhaps, this will be a yearly event.

Aside: As said in Mission and Method, posts are to contribute to a theme, though there may be divergent ones from time to time. Blogs allow categories, but these are problematic since they collect and present in a time order. From time to time, there ought to be a super-post that gives a more coherent view (here is an example - Truth, Fiction, and Finance). Perhaps, that type of thing will be done more often in the coming year.

Posts of interest, as of today:

• -- Computation, finance and engineering -- From 2009. This post hints at our major problem, but it does not offer near enough emphasis on solutions. That'll change this year. In fact, in 2012, we'll respect Ben Bernanke for undertaking an impossible job; we'll admire Timothy Geithner for being in the hot seat while being cool; and more. Yet, the blogger knows about the issues underlying computation; he wonders how far amiss we have let the younger folks range just because the some only wanted to fill their pockets (see Quants series). If we are to let markets determine truth, then we need transparency (yes, Hedge Funds, you're culprits, too), and a whole bunch of other things.  

• -- Harvard, value and quality I -- From 2010. Ah, this was almost two years ago (give me a break). Now, I hear that some at Princeton are supporting the 99% (God bless them). So, can we ever expect Harvard to revert from its switch toward the secular (mis-guided, which we can show) and allow just a little morality into the equation (they have already started?)? By the way, this year, this blog (and the related) will lay out the foundation'al framework that will support such a view. 

• -- New royalty -- From 2010 . Has it not been the case that American capitalists (and others) have continued to exploit the energies, and the dreams, of workers around the world? Sheesh! They even did it with Communist partners (you guys and gals have any semblance of true humanity in your blood?). At this point, I'll just point to St. Margaret who exemplified how royals ought to be (yes, indeed). 

• -- The ideological errors of capitalism II -- Adam Smith redux -- From 2010. Phew!, where did that title come from? Well, Adam has been the focus for a whole lot of bad thinking. That is not his problem. But, who is there to argue in his defense as he rolls around in his grave? Adam was of his time; we're much later and need to read him with the proper filter. His 'invisible hand' was imaginary (some seem to think of it as actual, it would seem). Self-regulation? That only applies with internal governors (systems). How many seem to have allowed them to reach for states of no restraint? Too bad that 'invisible hand' can't slap these types silly (or until they awaken to their proper senses).  

Aside: the blogger was in the military (ground troops) decades ago as a seventeen year old. Hence, metaphors, and such, are flavored by experience, though some may have been influenced Hollywood-style (media have responsibility - beyond what might have been appreciated in this regard so far).

Remarks:

12/29/2012 -- Summary - 2012.

01/13/2012 --  First post of 2012. 

Modified: 12/29/2012

Rank and file III

Moral: Wherein we take a further look at rank and file, a little more thoroughly.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III

---

Rank? File? Let's take the first one, for this post.

---

And, we'll have to go back to the time of the Tudors. Yes, that continues the theme of the backbone of the economy.

I recently ran across Tim Lambert's site while searching a subject. Both the approach and the content had a lot of appeal. In a short paragraph, there is description of Tudor society with four broad classes. We'll take a look at those below.

---

As an aside, the blogger has railed about several tendencies that don't seem to die out. One of these is to have a pecking order with obvious differentiating features. Hence, we get mansions, mc-mansions, all the way down to huts. Why all of this teeming?

Well, there may be metaphysical explanations, but let's hold those big-T (Truth) issues, for a bit. We all know that the 'teeming' is not productive if it leads to unsustainable situations (but, even our politicians have been bought -- what institution of higher-learning has not prostituted itself to moolah?). Our real problem, in essence, is getting some agreement on what it is we're all after and how to do it in a manner that is conducive to the health of the human race and of the planet and of its occupants.

The general concept might the 'lordly prince trap' yet there are many other ways to characterize this thing and its features. One counsel may be staying above the fray. Is this even possible?

---

So, let's look at Tim's description of 'rank' as it was then. And, in respect to those who are the 99% (the 1% get all of the love that they need), we'll go backwards.

• laborers -- ah, we all know about this level. For one, it's to where one falls if one fails. Too, many have climbed their way out of this level. In some cases, childhood is just this. Tim mentions illiteracy for this class. In New England, universal education was an early goal. Any rise via learning has to be accompanied by opportunity. In a lot of cases, there were none (think Japan's lost generation). On the other hand, everyone ought to be able to do something with their hands that is productive -- besides, labor may actually be the most loving thing that someone could do (to be explained - but, it is more than bear birth). In short, any and all of those who do 'real' work are here (except for a few professionals -- surgeons - did you have to ask?).
• yoemen -- Tim says that this little group worked with the laborers. So, think foremen (not straw boss, okay) and supervisors. On the other hand, you could think of someone who cares about results (how many, seemingly, push-button situations lead to crap? -- don't answer, please -- too disheartening). These could read and write. By the way, did we not know over here, in the 1950s/60s, a dock worker philosopher? My thought is that we ought to look for 'yoemen' contributors who had a grand-scale impact.
• gentlemen -- money, in other words. Fat cats, too. Those who cannot even wipe their own behinds. Do we not know these people? In many cases, pretenders to nobility. Oh, wait, sorry; yes, landowners, having enough money to not worry about the tomorrows, and such. What we, at one time, thought might be the upper middle class. You might say that the first two were the 99%. This group here is on the boundary between the 1% and the rest. Naturally, there are good connotations here; as in, couth behavior makes for good neighbors. Too, refinement ought to be a goal; on the other hand, one can muck manure and still appreciate opera.
• nobility -- now this group for which I'm expending a bunch of effort to define, perhaps defend, what they do and represent is a puzzle. In an advanced sense, it's a role. But, somehow, the role gets internalized (this, folks, is the real personification). Of course, the Brits know this better than ourselves. From whence the first king? God? Oh no, as we have the history of the machinations (Tudors, included). Methinks that it's a combination of several things which would include ability (of course, intelligence, but is it measurable -- say, oh, I'm 99.999th percentile on the college boards?), opportunity (all sorts of things), motivation (the wise man would pass this up, just like Charles the Hammer told the Pope no thanks in regard to being Holy Roman Emporer -- my kind of guy), and a whole lot more. By the way, CEOs think that they are kings (they are, in the sense of the multinational entity over which they reign -- we need to rein them in -- where is our Magna Charta for business jerks?).

I like these four. Naturally, there are many other ways. Like, let's look at the military. You know the saying, officer and gentleman. So, right there, you have the split. Right above yoeman (as in, any wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant can rule it over the highest of the sergeants) is a boundary. Now, people can, and do, cross that line through training (90 day wonders) and education (say, the military academies).

But, as I've said before, and I'll try to collect some stories: there are people in those lower classes who are much more capable than some (perhaps, many) of the uppers. Oh, that's a given? How many fortunes, and dynasties, have been lost by idiotic decisions by descendants?

Look at our beloved Kate (Duchess of Cambridge -- she has many cousins over here). Her lineage has people from a family who had a baronage (that was lost by some nitwit) working in the coal mines. Too, you read about the many who lost in markets (yes, as we've seen of late). Many, even to the likes of Newton (the cap-ital-sino is not representative, at all, of an advanced society, folks).

---

There will be some more talk about rank. Then, we'll get to the file.

Remarks

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/13/2011 -- McKinsey report shows that households hold over 40% of the world's wealth. Hence, the consumer as the major influence on the economy. Now, consider that the household wealth collection (using income in the U.S. as a proxy) is skewed to a very small bunch.

12/05/2011 -- We have a new meme. Rather than have/have nots (which is a moral split), we now have 1%-99% (a metrical space); that is, something within which we can maneuver and make decisions (any more meaningful?).

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' have wide impact (and, in so many ways). Somehow, we muddle through.

Modified: 12/15/2012

Ben, da man

Moral: Wherein we put looking at the human conditions on the table and get back to Big Ben.

---

Ben who? Ben Bumblebutt. Obama had a chance to give us someone new. Oh well. That opportunity passed.

Thanks to Bloomberg, we see that Ben had a conduit from which the big banks could extract as they wanted, without much accounting, and enjoy as a privilege, since they are so 'special' (too big to fail, being a culprit is stylish, I suppose).

So, rather than 'nationalizing' these types, as he ought to have, he played funny games with us, the taxpayers and the savers, and our money. Savers? Those whom Ben has sacked for over three years now.

Yes, he likes to rub elbows with the likes to Jamie and others. Too, he likes the Tetons. Well, he has provided to the jerks the biggest nipple possible (ah, we had to see them get suckled, plus we had to clean up their messy diapers - no wonder the OWS).

---

All the while, the banks froze up. Main street suffered. What we heard about then were the precious bankers missing their big bonuses (which, many times, were based upon gaming techniques that are not necessary for a sustainable, international economy).

And, savers got 0.2 % or less for their monies. Think of the myriad retirees who had to trim their belts; and, this for no reason other than the foolishness of those who seem to be so Lordly (give me a break).

---

Let's pause for a brief look at numbers. Say that some retirees have $500,000 (amount used for its nice rounding features -- too, it's a basis for discussion, see Remarks: 11/29/2011, below) with which to fund about 30 years, or so, of whatever is needed to sustain their lives.

As well, let's look at three interest rates 5% (about what Ben had to start with), 1% (Ben, this ought to be your basis -- big guy, talk to someone outside of the Washington and the academic crowd, please, get your head out of the '30s -- by the way, you need to temper Jamie's influence on you -- too, Ben lose your love of that market chimera whose sirens can allure, big guy), and 0.2% (using a larger number than Ben wants paid).

So, using 5%. That $500K start would accumulate an additional $78K over three years. Not a lot, but sufficient to help with the bills. Guess what was the reality 0.2%? A whopping $3K. That is, the savers paid Big Ben's pals $75K (now, people, multiply that over all of the savers -- we have given a lot to the likes of Jamie). At 1%, the accumulation would have been a mere $15K. Yet, Big Ben could have used his moral arguments (albeit, hypocritically since he was rewarding morally hazardous behavior. Ben, do you know the word or concept of morality?) to persuade the saver that they were helping the economy.

But, Ben's jawboning runs empty (or worthless) when he continues to only confab with the rich and powerful (hah, they have no power over the human spirit).

---

This post depicts renewed zeal to bring to fore a better method. Who has defined such a thing? Everyone, it seems, has wandered off after the chimera. How do we get back to the basics of banking?

---

By the way, the WMDs are still there even though Warren has looked away. In fact, he's jumped into the pool, it seems, with the rest. Shenanigans, indeed.

Remarks:

08/27/2013 -- Ben has slapped the savers silly for years now. At the same time (or during the while), he has played goo-goo with the nursing addicts who line up to his large teat (conduit).

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

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

03/23/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

02/08/2012 -- Ben has fed the stock market recovery.

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

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

01/13/2012 -- A re-look at this.

12/09/2011 -- See Taken to Task series.

12/08/2011 -- Shocker? Not really. Also, Big Ben has our interest near 0%. Then, he gives this to Europe. Their low point? 1%. Does Ben want ours to be negative?

12/07/2011 -- Jim Rogers sees saver sacking, too.

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.

11/30/2011 -- I wonder what kind of thrill Big Ben gets when the markets move like today. The DOW is up over 400 points just because Ben offered to give them newly printed dollars (mind you, the savers here are being further sacked). As this article describes, it looks legit (is somewhat), yet the whole thing is a shell game of moving numbers around. The ploy here is to keep people's expectations up, even though the reality is that we're kicking the can down the road for future generations to worry about. Where is 'value' brought forth? Not with financial gaming.

11/29/2011 -- One wag is saying that 5% on a portfolio will be what the upper echelon sees for some time. The old adage was 8-10 percent. And, hedge funds want 20+, even up to 40%. Returns, like 40%, are only done with very illegal (illicit in any reasonable society) means (this we could (and will be able to) show at some point).

Now, as to the $500,000. It has several uses which are listed below. Actually, it can help us discuss requirements for planning for future payouts. Bankers were supposed to help with this; but, they, and the insurance bunch, wanted more to line their pockets (forgetting fiscal responsibility).

• Some will have multiples of this; others may have fractional amounts.
• For any, you can think that this is what you'll need for $1K to $2K, per month (depending upon what rate was used). In other words, your future demand will require current assets.
• As opposed to the strategy of small assets, expecting big returns. Usually, this is attempted through leverage. We've seen the downside of that.
• Those who push to pay low lump sums will try to push upward the expected return. Why? The higher the return, the less the payer has to put out.
• Or, as we're seeing with many pension funds (mostly public), less is in the coffers now than will be needed to cover the requirement. The Post Office is caught in the reverse situation where Congress is asking them to have too much on hand, now, which lowers funds available for operations.
• These things are easy to figure mathematically. What is hard is setting up the model. Now, if you add in malfeasance (or just plain bumblebutt-hood) on the part of those who handle the technicalities of money and distribution, all bets are off. That is very unnecessary, folks.
• How did it come to be? Computationally enabled gaming, yes, the ca-pital-sino. Plus, a mindset that has put this type of idiocy as the foundation for our world view (give me a break, again). Why have they been allowed this success? Flim-flam mathematical ontologies that essentially snow any rational discussion (limited management views using sophisticated schemes that are way beyond their comprehension except from a mere operational (meaning, me-me-me) stance).
• ...

Modified: 08/27/2013

Rank and file II

Moral: Wherein we take a further look at the human conditions with which we are all familiar.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III

---

That is, those who could (or who were allowed to) have made the rules (any different now) and have defined the culture (throughout our history). So, we have had two sets: the minor minority who exploited and the vast majority of the exploitees (even to the extent of carvers and carvees).

---

Of course, there was the set who withdrew from the gaming as set by the exploiters. Some were quite successful with this. If you have a question about how this is or can be, we can explain. Is not this third set the one that is the most progressive?

You know, for awhile, there was a nobility, priesthood, worker split. Usually the nobility was small; some cultures had this set with a larger cardinality. In a sense, the nobility is the top of the top-down. Of course, the workers are peasants to be exploited. The priesthood? Well, some of the more organized situations were of the two sets, too.

However, there were sufficient of the priest (minister) type who really were effective at rising above the fray created by the malevolent. Too, though, we'll have to admit that those who were most effective were martyred (all sides have their own -- we ought to respect that).

---

Clarification: nobility/priest/peasant (the rest) -- this was there for some, for awhile, made up by the toppers, of course. On the priest, the above is by no means meant to imply that we need this type. Rather, adult humans who are effective, don't harm others, and contribute to the well being of all is meant.

Clarification, further: the mature humans are to be recognized and encouraged, as opposed to the sniveling, snotty toppers who want us to clean their diapers (oh yeah, I've known many -- will characterize at some point). These toppers are not mature; rather, they're exploiters of many ideas, such as those of Adam Smith (oh yea, capitalism as the savior, the epitome of the human race --- give us a break). This would only be true if it were couched so as to enhance the lives of all (that would include those who labor (many definitions) as the real basis).

Clarification, further, again: of course, we have those who think that the ways of the vikings/mongols (that is, takers, trashers -- we can point to clans that did this) is the way for a male to go; that is, destructing as a way of life; the adage to apply for these types is that it takes much longer to build something than to tear it down; so, there is no glory in destroying; of course, some of this set act thusly just in reaction to the snottiness of the toppers.

---

So, we're talking the top-down view, that seems to think that there is a passive bit of idiots (of endless count) beneath them who love to be trod on, who just adore their masters, and who exalt in being a slave. Yet, from time to time, that seeming mass of humanity rises and throws (or attempts to throw) off the yoke (then, we get those waiting in the wings -- essentially, latent dictators awaiting their chance).

Nevertheless, the ultimate drive to a middle-out then advances a little. What is middle-out? Essentially, that which is at the core of successful engineering, product'ing. and more.

---

As we know, bottom-up leads to chaos, always. There has to be a tempering. Even science knows this. Without theory, to what would the lab effort lead? Too, though, we know that theory, alone, is a mobius situation of nose to rectum (image: a circle of elephants, nose to tail -- mutual admiration society, in other words).

---

The bottom up can endure for awhile. Not for long, though, as the top-down force is powerful, indeed. We'll have to explain why (it has to do with that which some of the intellects strive hard to deny - as if their denial weighs on any but their own being). For one thing, class structures were always top-down affairs.

And, as said before, the rules and definitions come from the top. But, there is more. The masses energy dissipates without focus. This is nature (ah, too, the importance of earnestness, essentially the imperatives in action).

---

We are seeing, with the OWS, an attempt to use the web as a coordinating agent. This may have some effectiveness, but the power of being is way more than anything captured by the abstractions founded on the web. In a sense, the social media is top-down, too. The social media cannot trump being, as we'll see when the infatuation wears out for this current generation who has gleefully taken to being collective idiots in public display (the nerve).

---

Some say that the OWS is over, has grown rancid (the Post, for one). The current thrust may have worn out (arguable). However, the reality (being) behind the thing is still there and will, in the end (expression only, as we're dealing with something that has no known completion state), prevail. We have seen this time and again.

---

Related to the motivations of the OWS are a whole of of financial shenanigans that need much further scrutiny and correction. Bush looked for WDMs in Iraq. He had them right there, under his nose, in the financial system that his views help propagate; these WDMs started to be problematic right before the coming end of his ruling period.

---

While looking at the grievance list of the OWS, it seemed to be a review of the views of this blog and its companions for the past four years. So, ought we do a mapping of the 20 points to posts over those years?

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/30/2011 -- Uprisings have been there from the beginning. Wiki has a nice list (peasant revolts). Mind you, these are the poor suckers trying to shake off the yoke that was laid on them. Not some conniving aristocrat trying to usurp the power structure. Yes, poor people. The salt of the earth. Striving for something better.

Wait, isn't that the appeal of America? Or was?

After a revolt, things were generally worse for the poor suckers. In the collective genetic pool will be inhibitors for acting thusly in order to avoid the consequences.

Mind you, the U.S. start was not of this type. Not. After the fact, those of the top want to 'crown' Washington. Lucky for us, he knew not to want this.

How many after him thought that their role was indicative of some sort of coronation (leading to canonization?)?

As said before, bottom up can be problematic. So, what would be a good middle out system? Ah, so much to discuss.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

Modified: 12/15/2011

Rank and file

Moral: Wherein we continue a re-look at themes related to labor (persons), corporations (the wannabe person), lord-serfs, and much more in the context of the development since Sept, 2011.

      12/15/2012 -- Rank and file I, Rank and file II, Rank and File III

---

Which development? OWS, of course. Their grievance list (image from that page).

Rank and file? Yes, denotes another type of split: leaders (and egos) and the rest. Other concepts, of the same ilk, are the masses, et al.

---

The truth? Within the 'ranks' are many who are more smart (in about any way that you want to measure - except for 'ego' and out-and-out amoralism) than those of the 'elite' classes that seem to want to differentiate themselves (mind you, that statement implies, in no way, any denigration of refinement, and its usefulness to help us relate peacefully).

In fact, some autodidacts (what is this? the anti-thesis of the lobbyist's ilk) may very well out-weigh the smarties in those esteemed institutions, which are supposedly the foundation of truth. But, such types of comparison can be counter-productive (except for those who want to rise above the rank-and-file -- where God is (as in, in the details)? -- thereby pulling away from any semblance of the truth -- the source of problems, in a nutshell).

---

If the best-and-brightest (their term) of the generation are led toward egoism and selfish grabbing, from whence will come any progress? Oh yes, they work to establish (impossible) a firm basis for gaming as the sole metaphor for us (yes, and, this take does not populist make, rather out-and-out realism -- same planet, the elite's poop is more rank (as in, odorous - due to the rarefied airs within which they dwell), et al, ..., and much more, of course).

Who is helping us look at near-zero's (engineering) characteristics and control issues (not command and control, by the way)?

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/03/2011 -- There are examples of those who rise above the fray. Which, by the way, motivates another in this series.

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/26/2011 -- Continuation.

Modified: 12/15/2012

Themes and memes

Moral: Wherein we awaken ourselves from deep contemplation of the messes with which we find ourselves faced, economically and otherwise.

---

And, we do this in time for the Thanksgiving reviews. That is, are we not to be looking at what there is that we can be thankful for?

---

The related blogs have provided a short look at a couple of items.

• - We ought to be thankful that we do progress, albeit at a slow pace. Fortunately, we got rid of the royals (oh?) and their influence; too, we don't draw and quarter anymore.
• - Too, the common man can have some influence via the consumer focus of the modern economy (would not you think?); that is, if there were sufficient pay (the concept of rent applies, somewhat) to support purchasing. As we have seen, indenture'd-ness has been the game given us by the best-and-brightest. They have ensnared almost all countries, and their citizenry, into almost interminable debt burden. Smart, you guys! Anyway, Big Ben continues to stiff the savers (says that he'll do so for some time --- gosh, Ben, you haven't made the savers less thankful, but you sure have tried as you kissed up to the bankers); the local paper says that the banks are reeling in profits (very little lending, though --- strange state of affairs, indeed). So, we are thankful, for some little things, such as the fact that some retailers step up and do it right.

---

We have had recaps before on several subjects. Probably, another ought to be in order before going forward. As, memes do evolve with our predicaments.

Remarks:

05/01/2012 -- We'll need to talk singularity in the context of Alan. The computer has as many holes as do we; however, we can cut out of the fog. 

12/05/2011 -- We have a new meme. Rather than have/have nots (which is a moral split), we now have 1%-99% (a metrical space); that is, something within which we can maneuver and make decisions (any more meaningful?).

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/25/2011 -- We'll go into the use of theme/meme. Let's, for now, use one example: rank and file.

Modified: 05/01/2012

Harvard, again

Moral: Wherein we re-look at the esteemed institution (375 years old) that is (will, ought to, be) a focal for many things.

---

Earlier, we had harped about Harvard and raised, no doubt, some hackles and may have confused some things. So, it's time to restart the dialogue and, for now, here are some of the themes that pertain to the necessary discourse.

---

Harvard is a collecting point for the best and brightest. Who are the best and brightest? Those with mental acuity who, unfortunately, are not plagued by innumeracy (poor dears, those numerants, or poor us for being subjected to the outcomes). As such, they (not only those from the big H) have led us all astray through the mis-use of mathematics.

That is, they see the field in an operational sense leading, of course, to exploitation as motivation. Ah, our beloved mathematics, trashed.

Aside: What talent determines membership within the best-and-brightest set? Well, some of this is measurable using standardized tests, as we have seen develop (note the early interest by the U.S. Army -- there are analogs galore) in the past century or so. Some of the talent may (can) not be (subsumed under a metrical ontology); for instance, we see plenty high scorers who flunk out of life (but, then, we all know just how complex this issue is). Why the difference in scores (or what appears to be shown by scores)? Acuity was mentioned above. But, there would be energy, to boot (as in stamina to finish -- and, as well, trying to answer how perpetual motion is not assumed -- what? think about it!); also, patterns, and recognition thereof, are an important fact. It's an open-ended issue, folks (we'll get back to that and what it might (does) mean). And, preparation, as in S.A.T. tutoring, does NOT overcome innate issues (remember, as said above, that which is measurable is founded upon the very mathematics that is being mis-used -- so, suspicion is in order).

---

The image came from BING which likes to put out an interesting bit every day with comments. This particular one celebrated the 375th of the big H and got more of the blogger's attention than usual. What's this about the H-bomb (Lord, what does that smell like?)? Perhaps, their opinion is that anyone who doesn't bow in their direction is too stupid to know better (or something similar -- these types of things (egoism) are inherent and inflict even the, supposedly, best-and-brightest types -- many of whom never scored high on any type of ethics scale).

---

So given how higher-order education has kissed the behinds of the moolah'd, motivations related more to greed than not come to fore in those who pursue such achievements. What games are played by those who are possible candidates in order for them to be even considered by the institution? And, folks, not being accepted there does not make one a failure. Far from it.

Oh yes, being in Cambridge raises one's IQ (Institutional truths?)?

---

Why is greed mentioned? Harvard decided to leave the Lord's work and become secular (and elitist). From whence, then, will come any direction? But, have we not seen others (meaning, of course, non-big-H) who tell us that they are serving the Lord and then founder under their greed, too?

Aside: Lord? Yes, early on it was that One about Whom the Protestants (even amongst themselves) and Catholics fought. Then, it was (and still is) the One at the core of the battle between the Muslims and the not. ... But, there are many more from which to choose, from the modern view as expounded by big H. In fact, that there is NONE is considered (without any rational support) by many. Why that assertion? Modern theorem proving techniques show that Anselm's view on the matter reduces to one premise. Does that not say that it's an either-or choice? Yet, the blogger mentions the Lord. Why so? Again, given the basic choice, one can pick what label to place on that which is beyond what one knows (even in the sense of the total). Why not 'Lord' for this reason? There are many, many connotative attachments (call them memes, if you would) that can make it more interesting and emotionally appealing. Except, there will be those who would prefer anti-Lord. You see, has the big-H ever followed through reviewing the consequences of their secularism especially since it has bled over to our culture and times (leading to massive indentured-ness at the personal, institutional, and national levels)? Another aspect to this is whether or not the Lord is embodied. Some have a long tradition of saying so (too long to mention). What 'Lord' is there for the best and brightest (see above reference to moolah'd)? Too, whether it's known or not, the Lord is there!

---

Again, as we have said before, Harvard can extract itself from its mire by opening up to fostering the autodidact (perhaps, even pushing public service). Of course, their argument is that their students are self-directed. But, we want them to look at the talents beyond those amenable to numerant manipulation and to help these progress as needed to save humanity.

Again, they'll say that they do this in a sense. We'll see, if they can show this.

---

One has to ask, are not some of the best and brightest out there with the OWSs?

---

Now, when you consider the roles of the aristocratic over the complete history of us (the people, who else), what were these roles and how did they get to play them? Well, the types were smarter (see above about the best and brightest), in a way (or several ways). They were dumber in many others (this deals with being which is something still to be discussed). Yes, particularly the royals. What we have now is the means to measure to try to identify these types early on.

A perpetuating scheme, at the least. Then, we pave their way. As the crap of the recent downturn shows (and the big pockets of those who let loose the young'uns without supervision -- heck, the big pockets cannot even supervise themselves, how could we expect them to help others to be better? --- mind you), money as value is not much more than crap (who will lead toward a proper definition of wealth?).

---

One could picture a world in which the Harvard area would be where the dynamics related to those who rise (or can rise) come into play, even doing so in ways that we have not thought of. Are we talking sandbox?

---

Too, as we would learn things, we would improve situations such as preventing things like the most recent downturn that came about from the gaming of the idiots/geniuses (yes, computational mathematics is at fault, for one thing, since it empowered the a**es) in the finance world (our, as in OUR, beans). There are so many other ways that we will be at this for awhile.

---

Yes, the real princes and princesses (of all types) would be in that New England area having gathered from around the world. Highly endowed responsibility, indeed, would be accepted by the institution.

Actually, one could argue that it could not be replicated elsewhere (ye olde country?), except that we don't want to deny that internationalism will be imperative at some point (before the little green men show up?).

Remarks:

09/19/2013 -- All's not lost. Some accountants see a change that is problematic. But, first, savers are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent. Now, that was once considered a virtue; in fact, one could argue that it was expected for fiscal responsibility. However, some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things such, too, so the whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). Of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. But, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

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

03/22/2013 -- GW at ESPN (see image on right) has a nice point of view on the madness (and related comments). We ought to have something similar for the financial folks, using play money, with prizes. That's the sandbox, folks. Then, the real stuff would be handled by mature, stable adults (not the greed ridden - and similar ilks -- okay?). The madness has to do with animal spirits just like the market (ala Adam). Too bad that one loss gets one out the door. Perhaps, at the final four level, there ought to be a round robin, like college baseball. --- Now, having just written the above, this glorious bit of madness is really a sham (see comment at madness, 03/12/2012). The whole madness pits kids against each other, who are playing for naught (comparatively), being coached by millionaires, with big buck media behind the affair, and a bunch of other lucrative ploys benefiting from the labors of the few. If one looked at qualities (as in, abstract out a truthful look at this), one could find parallels (many, many) all across history (these things being not consider our best behavior). Granted some (as in, not all) of the kids go on to big bucks. Others find glory in their endeavors (what would be be without school spirit?). Yet, besides the commonality with historic events that aren't looked at as being our (humankind's) best moments, there are all sorts of analogs in business (which we've seen of late, in glorious detail, as being problematic at its core - the heart that is supposed to be related to finance). By the way, see the below comment (madness, 02/08/2013); that particular team ended up with a #1 seed. Also, Harvard Crimson made it out of the Round of 64.

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

12/16/2011 -- Elizabeth Warren changes the opinion, somewhat; imagine, what if we got beyond situational ethics?

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.

10/18/2011 -- How many of the 99% end up at this institution? Not fair? We know for a fact that not all of the 1% are related to the place. By the way, it's not always that ratio (1, 99); the ratio's use is effective in stirring up the pot, though.

10/17/2011 -- Finished the text on this old topic and added links (there may be more).

Modified: 09/19/2013

Reflections on Steve Jobs' work

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

---

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

There will be much, much more to look at.

---

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

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

---

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

---

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

Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Modified: 10/05/2012

The public's heart

Moral: Wherein we mention a couple of items related to the public's view (that is, the other 99%).

---

Protests about the best-and-brightests' gaming? This emerging scene is reminiscent of several that the blogger has seen personally, including early civil rights sit-ins, anti-war demonstrations, and even the be-ins from four decades ago.

---

In reading about the Wall Street event, I ran across a news source that is of the new media and seems to have a fairly broad coverage (alternet.org), though the Kochs think that it is 'subversive.'

Aside: Yes, though it might seem beyond belief, the blogger just ran across this site a couple of days ago.

Another thing about the protests is that the abstracted views of theory (economics, political, ...) do not consider the 'heart' of the people. Who looks at that large source of power?

---

We'll have to go back to discussing the need for a Magna Carta equivalent for busyness, among other things.

Remarks

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 

06/25/2012 -- Washington Post on Congressional non-ethics.

11/30/2011 -- Need to respect the bottom up. Will the computer finally let that come about?

11/29/2011 -- Ah, Big Ben helped his friends more than he said, at the time.

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better? The OWS can find all sorts of examples like this to use.

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

10/15/2011 -- The recognition goes global. Banking ought to be handled by those whose greed is close to nil.

10/14/2011 -- One thing that has always concerned the blogger was the trickery that finance did with student loans which ought to be as straightforward as mortgages. Yet, some play games with those needing the support and, in doing so, made oodles (atrocious, in essence). Some of have this in mind as they join in the protest. Yes, it was turned over to bankers of whom there are many types; and, do not bankers exist for the purpose of filling their pockets?

10/13/2011 -- It is our economy.

10/11/2011 -- Topics related to this theme have been addressed here from the beginning. One example: shattered dreams. Busyness has stunk to the high heavens for some time now.

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

10/10/2011 -- The new media in action. The best-and-brightest who are behind the faults that trashed the financial world (early 2008 finger pointing) were good at playing the issues (exuberance plus fairy dusting) seemingly without any repercussions (where were the clawbacks? -- zombie, indeed).

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

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

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

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

10/07/2011 -- See Remarks, this day, about innumeracy. Those who are numerant think that they are the smarter (smartest) -- even science has trended toward reinforcing this notion. But, the jury is still out, folks. We'll go into that. Go, protesters! Keep it legal, though.

10/07/2011 -- Magna Carta, the celebration thereof. We need one of these for business. What would it look like?

Heard, from others, that the Wall Streeters jeer: we cannot help that we are good at what we do, find a job you lazy protesters. Oh, yes, Wall Streeters, you are good at what, exactly? Oh, yes, having defined the shell game, then you keep it running so that monies are sucked out of the pockets (no fair deal) of the hapless.

10/06/2011 -- It seems like old times, almost reminiscent of the late 60s and early 70s. Notice that the tea party seems to be the favorite of the rightmost (Republican) minds. Labor and the left seem to be on board with the Wall Street protests. Great play on the major stage; ought to produce a whole lot of material.

10/05/2011-- We need to appreciate the dedication of the protesters and their supporters. The site in NY has an infrastructural basis, in a sense, with its medical, legal, and other support. Now, who would have thought that the requirements for, and recognition of, 'morals' related to money would play out in this type of fashion? Somehow, there seems to be a different tone about the whole thing.

10/04/2011 -- Dedicated to GEK III.

Modified: 07/06/2012

Public service

Moral: Wherein we start to look at Dick's book, he the friend of Big Ben's predecessor.

---

Who is Dick? Cheney, of course. Why is he of importance? Some think that he is at the core of all types of faults that triggered in the past few years, including those of an economic flavor.

---

Of course, Dick was not an economist; he was in the position of influence on a lot of decisions.

---

The book did give the blogger a different view of Dick. From the press' print of the past decade or so, the 'dark side' seemed to be the most prominent thing. That made Dick the focal for those who have angst about all sorts of thing, both political and economical. Of course, he seems to like to reinforce that sort of thing, as some claim when reviewing the book.

For one, he is not of the 'prep' crowd that subsumes most of the seats in the best-and-brightest collection (some of whom showed themselves to be idiots). Yet, he's a member (but, not by birth). He talks about getting booted out of Yale; then, he went out and lived with the lowly working type until he started his educational efforts again. What 'preppie' type could do that? The blogger, on the other hand, studied the alternative reality that surrounds us all.

Too, he is about the same age as the blogger, yet the his path and the blogger's path were quite divergent within the same milieu. Of course, his focus was politics and power; the blogger's focus was economics with a mathematical bent that tends to attempt resolution of 'truth' and its necessary maintenance. Yes, the blogger's work has been in computational models; why else the blogger's stance on how bad these have turned (and will continue to turn) out to be?

---

Aside: the top-down and bottom-up resolve their issues through the middle-out (conceptualization to be updated), in a sense. That is, if power lets truth come to the fore. Does the top-down need to be the political mess that it is now with the disparate partisan views? We'll have to look at that when considering issues of economics. At the lower levels that support the bottom-up, what does 'politics' mean anyway? From that view, the imperatives are more important. It is nice that Dick's book will allow a re-look at this type of thing.

---

Dick mentions the time when he heard President Kennedy talk about public service. I, of course, have had both military and civil service experiences in the support of this country. Too, I've worked, as did Dick, in the business world (including an international scope). He, of course, was of the CEO MVP type; the blogger was more of the technical type who work to make things better all around, including advances in systems, and product, engineering.

---

Aside: engineering has given us marvels. What has politics wrought? Too, the current jobs problem brings to fore another unfolding. Many went from engineering to finance (the blogger has even heard of a MD going from practice of medicine to financial gaming). Then, their 'train' wrecked (despite the fairy dusting). Such could have been (was) foreseen. Now, if the cadre of youth goes into politics? Perish the thought.

---

As the blogger has said before, finance is in trouble since it is not considered to be a realm of public service. Nope. It's a trough for the fat cats (pigs, actually) to gorge themselves. It ought to be run by those who take a vow of simple living, plus who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose (yeah, Dick knows all about this trait).

Think the core of the military (no, not the star officers); even thinking of monks would not be too far off the mark. This is not strange, people. It is the only way to keep the arses from screwing up things.

---

As the blogger has said before, all Americans need to do public service. Yes, even the preppies. And, we need to have it like the barracks experience of old. All classes, and types, together in an environment where they live and work together.

That would help remove the egos who now run things. Too, it would allow people to attempt to resolve their preconceptions, and such, about those of the unknown classes.

---

The blogger's reading of Dick's book allowed the blogger, somewhat, to see beyond his 'dark' facade. He is more shallow than the blogger had feared. Dick, if you want to understand the American phenomenon (as it has unfolded in the past 50 (and 400) years) from a deeper sense, come talk to the blogger. Yes. Of course, you'll have to perturb your political worldview, somewhat.

---

The turmoil, and those who want such, that Dick sees all about is not a wrong perception. But, it is no more than the natural state of pecking order. Did he really think that he raised the perception (in the several senses) of the U.S. through his thoughts and actions?

---

To be continued.

Remarks

07/06/2012 -- Today, we have the one-year remembrance of George Edward Kimball III (GEK III). 


05/11/2012 -- This week almost got by me. Let's hear it for the government worker.

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

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

12/16/2011 -- Those in power need their carvers. See Remarks 12/16/2011, Hitchens (the recently departed) undergoing a waterboarding experience.

11/30/2011 -- Need to respect the bottom up. Will the computer finally let that come about?

10/17/2011 -- The king maker ought to awaken to its errors.

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

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

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

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

09/27/2011 -- Some like to polarize thought and opinion; to boot, that means that other humans are demonized. So, for some reason, Dick took it upon himself to play such a role on that right part of the spectrum. Oh, it's a spectrum? Now, something that we'll have to look at closely as we unfold the real basis are conflicts of a nature that are 1200 years old (look at Charles the hammer, for instance -- look, that's 700 A.D. -- we're having the same conflict -- sheesh). Some have awakened to the idiocy; others are still under the influence of those in power who like to perpetuate the misinformation. Now, is Dick one of those? When Dick and the blogger were younger, the badie types were 'communist' and out to get us. Since Reagan, some seem to think that the conflict there is over. Don't count on it (if we look at the characteristics involved, we'll see many analogs). These social issues pertain to economics? Of course. To whom can one go to see some coherent philosophy, and history, of the economical as it relates to the human experience (which is?)?

Modified: 07/06/2012

False positives

Moral: Wherein we consider more background, such as some 'problems' related to economics.

---

While looking at EconoSpeak, I found a post with 'Economics is not a Real Science' (09/23/11) in its title. The theme of the post refers to the recently obtained data that might suggest that changes may be needed to Einstein's view.

That is, if the data turn out to be correct. A whole lot of analysis is needed to remove any doubt of measurement error.

---

There was a remark that many didn't want their names associated with the findings, just in case there were errors found. Evidently, avoiding such a stain means more in that scientific world than it does in the dismal one of economics.

That is, just as we've claimed that changes are pushed out (like some of the recent Big Ben moves) without any framework for seeing how it works. The 'cowboy' mode is used in some circles to describe this sort of thing.

Dorman uses the concept of types related to hypothesis testing. In fact, he points back to an earlier post: Annals of Unscientific Economics (04/05/11).

---

Before proceeding, comments to these two posts bring in a couple of blogs that are of interest.

• Maison Fluery -- makes the very correct relation of economical thinking with systems analysis which then can be used to show that the monetary system is unstable. Is that arguing against fiat money? Of course, it's nice to see Minsky (7oops7, Truth engineering) brought into the argument. (see Comment at the 9/23 post)
• Very Deep Left -- on the dogmas of economics. (see Comment at the 4/5 post)

---

Science must (can afford to) be consistent, since it cannot be complete. Even with all of its effort, you can expect to find problematic findings. Why? There is no science that is not filtered through the human experience.

On the other hand, can economics get away from the human frailties? Perhaps, if it dampened those who perturb at the top (firming up the basis might help here). Bottom up? Yes, all sorts of initiatives, such as neuro-economics, need to be pursued.

Too, though, effort ought to be put into a 'sandbox' with which to maintain a little more stability.

How? Well, that's why we're here.

Remarks

09/29/2011 -- The question remains. Even with 'financial engineering' what is the science behind finance? Gaming, only? Who has the basic ontology (other than wealth for the few)?

09/27/2011 -- Science cannot be complete, therefore it can spend its time (and energy - enormous requirements) on being consistent (or, more formally, sound). Yet, we cannot wait for science in our daily lives; nor, can we entirely run ourselves on this limiting (yes) viewpoint.

Engineering (as one of the application frameworks) uses much more than 'science' in its achievements.

Economics is different from (some) science , as it deals with people and their lives. The reality is that Economics uses types of compactification as the basis for arbitrary (some better founded than others) closures that then are, or are not, operationally effective. Our problem is that this creative effort can be stable, if done in a mature manner; yet, it is mostly pirated (and made unstable) by those who take advantage of situational opportunities (because they can or are allowed to; or, because we are all idiots in their view).

A good example of the situational is what is called the 'quants' (original post) phenomenon. Supposedly done by the best-and-brightest, this type of activity essentially exploits differences (as in, that which is behind volatility) in a manner that is not unlike siphoning off the cream. The net effect (near zero) is an almost guaranteed impoverishment of the many whose health and welfare serves as the source. The sink? Of course, the pockets of the fat cats and their players.

People, these types have 'played' with us, humanity, forever. It is time to grow up and let them know that we are more than mere commodities (kleenex metaphor applies) for their use and exploitation.

How to do this? Again, that's why we're here.

Modified: 09/29/2011