Wednesday, September 28, 2011

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



Saturday, September 24, 2011

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

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

Wealth

Moral: Wherein we stop to look at a basic theme and leave Big Ben and Little Timmy alone, for awhile.

---

The theme is? Wealth.

Those of the libertarian bent like to say that Obama's position on the far left does not appreciate how 'wealth' is created. This points to the main issue. What is wealth? To whom does it go? Etc.

The 'right' sees all wealth as personally owned (with multitude of thugs to protect the few rich). The 'left' talks as if wealth were a commonweal yet, in truth, let it be controlled by thugs (to wit, USSR, et al). Whose thugs are worse? The right or the left?

---

In either case, wealth is created through work (of all sorts). Throughout history, there have been those who create (builders (city, nation, et al), artists, agrarians, et al), those who steal (marauders et al), and those who destroy (how do you name these?).

In almost every case, those who do the 'work' have not enjoyed the benefits of their efforts. The sole exceptions are little islands that have occurred in the unfolding of the American dream. These will be looked at, in time.

---

The urge to wealth is universal. How to control excesses that might accrue to the urge has always been problematic. What determines excess is even more of an issue.

---

One fact is: wealth does not come from nothing (related to this is much more than TANSTAAFL). Neither is it solely due to the efforts of some John Galt type.

The truth: 'wealth' is due to some type of transformation. For whatever we do to get to the 'wealth' state, plenty is consumed.

---

Off-shoring, in many cases, is the attempt to keep the 'true' cost from being realized. In fact, the whole regimen of the top-down is the same thing. Sacrifice is always done from bottom-up.

---

Even if John Galt did dream of the creation of the wealth, he will have used innumerable energies from his large cadre of exploited workers in order to make it a reality.

To those masses goes what?

---

Now, the transformation, mentioned above, is using material (essentially, substance) and energy (a lot of which is human in origin) given to us by nature (in the case of the former) or by the culture (in terms of how a valuable resource is seen, for the latter).

We are not adding anything. In fact, if we looked closely, we'll see the near-zero-ness of the whole framework here.

---

Somehow in terms of wealth, notions that are predominately associated with the immature (pointing to life changes that we all experience) continue into adulthood (yeah you, arrogant CEOs) as if this is okay. Topsy-turvy, indeed. There have been plenty of experience obtained about this, endless thoughts and words on the subject, yet 'the thing' remains hard to handle.

---

That, of course, begs the question of what is 'mature' in these contexts. Is the blogger of such mind that he knows how to discuss this? Absolutely, as they say.

---

We need to continue this theme and will. For now, consider what an analyst said about Roubini's remark about Marx (remember, he has been mentioned a few times). Yes, we've bantered around the term 'capitalism' (with an update of ca-pital-sino). I agree that we probably need some new terminology.

But, the whole discussion needs to respect that labor/laborers are human (and consumers), that we need sustainable/equitable economics, and that exploited resources are not owned by those who do the exploitation (yes, oil companies (and much more, especially those related to the taking of 'natural' resources) need a little humility - don't we all?).

What to expect here, next? A start of a coherent, foundational approach, from real first principles (to be updated), is the goal. The timeline? Unknown. Besides, it's the journey, not the end result, that is of importance (in other words, re-traceable by any with some rational effort).

Remarks

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


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).

12/13/2011 -- 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.

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.

10/09/2011 -- 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%).

09/29/2011 -- 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)?

09/21/2011 -- Another piece of the constructive pie.

09/21/2011 -- Way to go, Fortune! The MVP CEO. These people (and they are imitated) pilfer pockets prolifically; is that not enough?

09/20/2011 -- Any look at wealth would have to consider its opposite, peasantry. Methinks that the whole best-and-brightest concept is no more than an attempt to let those with the talent (the few --- too, though, those without conscience) grab the lion's share of the goods. It's an age-old dynamic that needs to be reviewed using a sustainability eye. Again, we also need to re-look at the spirit of the Magna Carta and at the necessity of a modern re-mix. And, a lesson: 'simple living' does not imply any inclination to 'peasant' leanings (for the jerks who may think that this is so).

09/19/2011 -- It has occurred to me that some reading this might throw labels of sophistry, idealism (love Berkeley), and such (perhaps, even naivete). Not! Since time is not of the essence, we, probably, ought to stop and review the background (and truth) issues again and in more depth.

09/18/201 -- We will use this example from sports. Would you believe that the NCAA (albeit, inadvertently) offers itself as a proxy for all the issues (and related parties) that we need to discuss:
  • rhetoric's influence - taking the student-athlete notion; application to wealth? what we have is largely seen through rhetorical eyes; the negative effects of 'potemkin' events are more real to those at the bottom than those at the top (or, no safety net for the most); the chimera is more 'real' to those at the top (gravy train - plus socialization of losses), the bottom-up view sees (up close and personal) the failings of the underpinnings.
  • markets - so essential, so misunderstood, and so misused; yes, the pay of coaches versus professors (yet, does not the institution head now pull in major bucks?).
  • sportsmanship -- is it about this? if so, things would look different; perhaps, players will one day get their say; too, the success of player efforts in this matter will have direct association with the larger economy's exploitation of those who labor.
  • ...
09/15/2011 -- Partly motivated by Bookstaber; a dedication.

Modified: 07/06/2012

Friday, September 9, 2011

Big Ben and the consumer

Moral: Wherein we opine that Big Ben's trip to the mountains didn't help him.

---

Come on, guy. Get your head out of the 1930s, please.

---

If one uses 'bernancke blames consumer' on Google search, one gets a bunch of hits. There are many of note, but BNET and QOTD are of interest here. The latter has a list of what might be causing caution.

---

But, two things come to my mind, after listening to President Obama's jobs speech. He made note of the veterans, after WWII, getting the GI Bill's support for college. If we looked at the sociological aspects, we'll see that WWII was a threshold event in many areas.

One of these was allowing access to the many to the possible futures that had, before then, been available mostly to the offspring of the privileged. Of course, this is an arguable point. But, putting that aside, for now, consider the following.
  • Post WWII, we allowed the many, who could, to tackle, and to attain, an aspect of the American dream that has since diminished (next bullet). Except, I might add, for those best-and-brightest who have their experience at Harvard (note, please, this was the first University here -- we have to ask whether it has veered from its ideal path -- again, debatable, but I have a lot of time and interest in the subject). Then, those who excelled in the post-WWII times went on to, essentially, change the landscape of business, academia, and more. The post-WWII times were loaded with many progressive steps; yet, things went awry a lot, to boot. However, that which can be termed the American Dream continued its appeal; in fact, the number of people who could look to the Dream multiplied, too. As Obama said, people worked hard; one can argue that most worked their fingers to the bone (not the fat cats, though, despite claims of such and of their accepting risk -- hah, the game is to push risk off to others -- such as, let the military obligation be met by other than their selves).
  • Then, things went awry several ways. Post the GI Bill, there were several ways that students could fund college. And, there were programs oriented toward educational attainment that were successful. But, guess what? These all devolved into some type of quasi-governmental thing that led to exploitation of students and to the fattening of the pockets of some cats (idiots, oh Lord, please help us get these a-holes into line). Yes, that was a recent affair (last decade or so), but it, combined with other factors, staunched the flow that some might have had toward realizing the dream.
---

This, and other things, are what you ought to be looking at, Big Ben. And, if you really want to know, I'm here.

---

Talk about throwing water on a dream. And, Big Ben's largess is just further abuse. You see, those who are the workers (a very large set of consumers - albeit, not of luxury items) have been under increasing pressure by the same fat cats that Big Ben, and Little Timmy, like to hang around with.

How can the consumer, who is weighed down by debt and by exploitation, even think of laying down a buck for other than necessities? A buck, by the way Big Ben, that you have been doing everything in your power to trash.

---

Nationalization of the banks would have been the right move, a couple of years ago. Too, we need respect for workers (manual and otherwise); how can this come to be? If you look at the early settlers, they worked. Except for some of the hoity-poity clergy who thought that they were God's gift to mankind (ah, is that Harvard's heritage?).

Remarks


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


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

12/05/2011 -- Now, he's giving money to Europe, on the backs of our savers.

10/19/2011 -- Big Ben lets B of A put its hands in our pockets: are they ready for Chapter 11?, Ben tells the FDIC where to go, but golden sacks was allowed to do it!

09/27/2011 -- Yes, Ben, keep steering us toward those who pick the pockets.

Modified: 12/13/2012