Ben's blog II

Gosh, Ben is finally starting to sound like a blogger: Say it ain't so, Jack. In fact, I have to admit that I'm impressed.

Aside: I would be more so if he could see that some of us are "appalled" at some of his decisions from which we are still (and will be for awhile) suffering.

Now, you see, Ben's early things looked more like publications. How much help did he have? Well, actually, did he actually use the keyboard on this last effort?

From the beginning, here is the post count (all 2015): March (3), April (9), May (1), June (4). I read the first few (see my Remarks). In April, I had asked how long he would do this (well, he did wind down shortly after). But, as all bloggers know, this stuff takes work. Unless, one is just spouting off (to what audience?).

---

Wait! I started going back. He wrote on baseball, yesterday. Okay. But, then, the prior one is related to a story that I read. Yes, unfortunately, people have to spend oodles of time trying to second guess the oracle who has no clothes. What a sham!

But, he know the technicalities. Thanks for setting us straight, Ben.

---

Now, in the prior post, Ben talks inequality. Does he even know the word? I would argue that, from the position of near-zero, one cannot consider these matter without first addressing the conceptual basis of investor and stockholders as of primal concern. In my post, I skirted around many issues; with time, I will get to the proper discussion (for now, Ben says that he got stocks back to their trend; nice, Ben, but you did throw savers under the bus - this paragraph admits that).

In the meantime, keep converging toward blogger-ness, Ben.

Remarks:  Modified: 06/27/2015

06/27/2015 -- In his post on inequality, Ben gloats, almost, the he got stock back to their inflated state. Earlier, I had said that he liked his index fund, way back in April of 2011. But, surely, Ben knows of the chimeric nature of the ca-pital-sino; or, does he? With his remarks about savers losing (which he admitted), he said that the pain was relatively less. Oh gosh. Ben, if you have $1, it would hurt worse to give up $0.50 than if you had $10, or $100, or, like we see with the fat cats, $1,000,000. What does 1/2 a buck mean to them? Ben claimed that interest bearing income was a small percentage of a retirees mix. Given that, then he could make his policy take that little bit. But, Ben, the future? Heard of that? Nice steady returns can build (to wit, my experience with Savings Bonds - A set of savings bonds that was bought in the year of 1980 and cashed out in 2010 would have returned 422% based upon the purchase price of the bond. ). But, Ben nipped that. Fortunately, those bonds had been almost 30 years in existence before his ways drained, or started to drain, off the gains, minute as they were anyway -- Ben, gambling for the future? - Nash, you know, is not the oracle of all.) ... So much more to say. Ben really needs to consult with the likes of me (I know as much economics as does he - too, my world experiences are far beyond what he, nestled in the realms of power and academia, ever faced. --- Yes, the real world, Ben, that suffered under the downturn and then under your policies.).

Yellen is thinking, mainly, of stockholders?

Moral: Wherein we consider how things unfolded to now.

Yellen speaks; the markets inflate. Someone is priming the pump today; the main problem is that mom and pops are getting screwed (will be burnt). ... And, savers? Oh Lord.

---

First, we'll collect material, by type and time. Actually, Drucker (2011 article) discusses how this bit of insanity came about.

1997 - Rah, rah speech - ah, stock as the prime measure of our economy.

2000 - Stockholder myth - sounds like my stuff - had not read this.

2004 - Tangible versus not - 62 to 38 vs 16 to 84? Change in percent of tangible to intangible from 1982 to 1999. [stale link]

2011- The Dumbest idea - make money or create a customer? No, cook the books (thanks, Jack).

timeless - Investopedia - of course, we know, a priori, how their view will go.

---

We have to do more than just dampen the magical multiple.

Remarks:  Modified: 12/13/2016

06/18/2015 -- So, Yellen talks. No rate increase. Then, the markets jump up. Too, the wags (shrilly) start to say, come into the ca-pital-sino. We have several months of rise. ..., So, someone pumped (as in priming) up the system, today. And, we know that the huge leaps are the mere artifact of the accounting. ... Too, we have "investors" who are the focus (supposed). Good companies have gone toward a more balanced view in which customers get a lot of attention as do the workers who get things done and make the customers happy. What the hell does the investor do? Sit on their fat arses and give us attitude, as in, I'm entitled to this. Says who? Oh, Adam Smith (silly me)? ..., So, much to discuss in order to get a better framework. ... The WSJ recently quoted Friedman (the monetarist) who talked greed, this is the way, etc. Almost barfed, quite frankly.

06/22/2015 -- However far from effective this post might be, the message will improve. Just as we see Ben moving toward blogginess.

12/13/2016 -- New link from TradingSim (does not imply endorsement).

Node-it-all

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

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

So, that may call for some dampening notions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:  Modified: 12/28/2015

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

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

Dampening the magical multiple

Moral: Wherein we drop the first of several hints.

One step toward a more balanced financial situation would be the following:

Take some of the computer power that is being "wasted" on algorithm (and high frequency) trading and apply it to lowly bookkeeping (databasing). 

That is, each financial entity would be addressed and tracked, individually. That is, for the millions of stock for a company, we would track the sale history of each item (piece of paper). 

... 

Oh, that would lift the transaction details so that we could see a history of who bought and sold? 

... 

The goal would be to remove the cheshire multiple's gaming effect which started before automation. At that time, the current peanut-butter way was all that they could do. 

Since computation has come on the scene, it has basically been applied to serve the 1% (and less) in gaming the system rather than to do a proper accounting. The progression of increased assists by computing during the past thirty years can be related strongly to the emergence of troubles that are far more complicated than we saw in the earlier markets. 

...

Vested interests argue for their necessity (job security in the longer term) of their convoluted schemes (say, dark pools). Do we need those who are big takers (say, upper east siders)? Do they not see the riches acquired via gaming the markets as an entitlement specifically for them?)? 

---

It is too revolutionary to (attempt to) do a proper accounting from the beginning? Can we say that the markets have not devolved with a continuation of age-old gaming the influence of which has worsened the economy? Is the bifurcation of haves and have-nots of an essential nature?

---

What is the cheshire multiple? Magical multiplier, Let them eat cake, Beyond your wildest dream.

Remarks:  Modified: 07/22/2015

06/08/2015 -- Yes, the underwear of the benefact'ees of the bifurcation is showing. No, they're not naked; their exploitative ways are very much skyclad, though.

06/18/2015 -- We have to see how this insanity got its start. Then, we'll see why most do not get their money (the value is strained out daily by those who run the game). Everyone, it seems, has bought into the game (but, we're not tilting either at an illusion - despite having used chimera).

07/12/2015 -- We saw a couple of things today that did damper. First, we saw companies (very many) in China stop trading on their stock. How can this be legal? However, it does suggest that the real buying and selling of securities ought to be handled by companies (yes, they would bear the cost). That is, get rid of the fat-cat middlemen. Second, we saw the NYSE's computer go down. For hours. That halted a downward slide. Very effective, as the traders had to cool their heels. ...

07/22/2015 --  On the Google pop the other day after which the press has gone on and on, and on and ..., about the $billions increase: a very small amount of shares outstanding were involved in the activity that caused such an increase. ... Ought we use, priming the pump? Getting the suction going so that the pockets of the hapless are (will be) emptied? ... Not picking on Google; it is just that they make a good poster boy for this issue (of which, the Fed is (has been) an enabler).

07/24/2015 -- Last night, we had an Amazon pop based upon activity of about 10M shares out of 500M (about) outstanding. Then, we have the media bragging about the Jokester's big payday (which would require him to be able to sell at the price) all day. These little games would be okay if they did not help preserve the less than 1%'s ability to suppress the remainder. See Remarks (this day) about the incident.