80-year-old whiz

Moral: Wherein we look at financial engineering.

We will let the article speak for itself: Bloomberg Markets (March 2015). The image, from the article, describes how an e-bond is constructed.

---

There are words, like reduce risk and maximize liquidity. The former? Did we not hear financial types bragging that risk was no longer in our vocabulary? Yes, right around the time of the downturn. So, a Nobel guy has bought in. So, too, did we see the almost take down of the economy of such types; King Alan had to bail them out.

The latter? Seems to me that liquidity's purpose is to allow constant raking off the top of the cream; thereby, diluting the milk, people.

---

As said, this is informational. However, bear in mind the context in which discussions will resume. 

Remarks:  Modified: 02/03/2015

02/03/2015 --

America and its roles

Moral: Wherein we start anew, with a fresh slate, and cover the bases (congrats, SF) after admitting that there is no jealousy.

Harvard is mentioned several times in this blog (22 posts). Too, though, there have been references to related themes (Harvard, supposed spawning point for world leaders) of American history (14 times - as well, use of "America" is not chauvinism - we're talking way before 1770s) and of civilized notions (20 times - albeit, Brit, as in Magna Charta). You see, the manias related to the chimera (in all of its variations) are very much counter to proper thinking.

So, since we can leave things in the capable hands of Janet and crew, we will be able to get back to considering the issues, as necessary.

--

Now, before we go further, let me make something clear. Look around now at the turmoil. For the most part, we see that youngsters are the ones who are providing the energetics. What has been interesting of late is how many places on the planet are seeing this phenomenon. Say, use the past 10 years to make the count. Astounding.

Over the past few decades, we have seen this time and again. And, the first occurrence, here, can be placed in the 60s. Having started, there were all types (which are well known) that followed over the years. Actually, we could put Berkeley first. But, coincident would be the activities related to Civil Rights.

We are talking more than civil disobedience, in a sense. We have to talk about conventions and such. Yes, it relates to business (in oh so many ways). For one, the bifurcation, so well documented as being so extreme, comes about from the human dynamics that we will explore (essentially, feudal lords ruling over their abstract'd entities seemingly without any constraints - not even from their stockholders).

And, the lord/serf theme is recurrent, to boot (40 times). The modern work environment is so much worse than what our remote ancestors faced (how do we get those supposed smart folk to wise up to the fact? -- let's take them down to the trenches so that they can see/smell the reality).

---

Right now, we will talk about the beginnings of Harvard. There are plenty of stories that tie into the event. Then, there is the long history. For now, we will only be looking at that early point.

It is said that the students rule there. Now, let's see. If that were true, then, it would have been the first occurrence of such a thing. Anywhere. Is that our legacy? Are we now paying the price in terms of the interminable power grabs of the best and brightest? Does thinking about this help us see why the stalemate continues at the top (supposed top - it was to be a government of the people, etc. -- remember?).

And, recall, too, that we started off talking about the youngsters being behind the revolutions. That was not true for the Spirit of 1776. No, it was not.

Old and young (just look at the wide range of ages in the large collection of patriots in the Massachusetts) cast in their lot. Female and male. All the race/cultural types were represented. Except, for the jolly old English (called royalists).

Disclosure: As we go through the analysis/discussion, there is a personal note in the sense of familial relationship with the players of the early days. Foremost, though, is the first instructor: Nathaniel Eaton. But, there are ties, too, with the whole lot of the players: motivators, payers, students, ... Hence, we can make that the central focus (where did we go wrong?).

--

We are doing this exercise for several reasons. Firstly, things are awry. One reason is mathematics being misused (a little knowledge is dangerous - albeit, we have supreme modes of abstracted nonsense nowadays). What has helped make this worse is computation with its inevitable culmination in big data. Secondly, we just had the 200th in a gaga mode. But, look around. Do you really see an American spirit anywhere? How did this happen? Of note, next year is the 800th of King John's first coerced signing (sealing) of the Magna Charta. This whole thing is seminal and will be more so (until the energy peters out - let's hope that it does not).

Thirdly, how did we get so bound into the chimera (personally, I like to keep my distance)? It entraps (the whole game and the potential payoffs - silly for mature thinkers, really). Too, though, go back to the first reason. We are overlaying ourselves (allowing ourselves to be entrapped) in a very strong web - let's wake up and smell the roses now - it's the right of the people). The proper view is not tightly considerate of what Janet (before her Ben and so forth) is doing. And, bemoaning the abstract'd views ought not be misconstrued. We need mathematics. ... But, consider that the metaphor of plumbing and plumbers is more strong for money/finance than the current set of brainy types will allow (add to those, the greedy, etc.). Fourthly, we have been at this for awhile and got off the track. But, not really, Janet and the Fed have put us in an unknown situation. We have been experimented on real time. By cowboys and cowgirls. Why did this happen? Because they could. Yet, Janet is talking data as if that is some silver bullet. The real deal is that the oracle could be more in tune with what is needed if the views were lifted. Harvard is not a lifter (is that the implication?)? We shall see. As we get back on track and start anew.

Finally (not), things will crash. We want to be able to explain the cheshire multiple in terms that are understandable. For now, everyone, please, know that markets (the chimera-typical thing currently in vogue) are set up to guarantee losers. What is annoying is that the loser set is more than 50%. Yes, our task? Describe this and make it clear. After that reality sinks in, then we can start to talk about better ways and means (also, enjoying old Marx's comments about fictitious capital).

Remarks:  Modified: 01/15/2015

12/30/2014 -- Working on using pages to organize the material - as in, the message depends upon the medium.

01/15/2015 -- At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

Savings and savers

Moral: Wherein we use a simple example to start to talk the issues.

Granted that there are several factors involved, but the image shows the reality. That is, the backbone of the economy has been flayed. Backbone? Those who work, live within their means, pay their bills (including mortgages - as in, none of the saving class walked away from their debt: unlike some who, as adults, put on their back, knowingly, debt beyond their means, and then had the gall to just shuck off the burden (the old debtor prison came into vogue for such behavior) and walk away - still cannot find that other than unconscionable).

So, the likes of Ben, the past decade, and, now, Janet, care little for those backbone types. No, the ca-pital-sino (gambling, essentially - plus, illusory gains so that people can salivate about their 401Ks - which, for the most, will not provide what they think - all explainable) is the focus.

---

Let's start with a simple example. 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. You see, those terms were the norm back in those days when bonds were still being sold under a patriotic guise. As in, every payday, whether you were already doing a payroll deduction for bonds, you would hear a spiel about the need for people working in the United States to buy and uphold the country.

Too, there had been inflation during that 30-year period (which is coming back, folks, despite the machinations of Janet - some are already feeling this, in many ways - as she fiddles with the definition of the measure). And, interest moved up and down as has become a regular thing until six years ago or so.

Three years of bonds
Note: figures obtained via the Saving Bonds Wizard
provided by the U.S. Department of Treasury

What happened then had all sorts of rationalizations attached none of which considered savers or their usefulness since "debt" seems to have become the preferred mode.

Now, the image shows three tables related to bonds that were bought in three different years. For each year, a bond was bought every month costing $150 which had a denomination of $300. So, the total cost for each of the years was $1,800.

The tables are evaluations of these bonds (using the savings bonds wizard) at five different points from February 2006, which is provided as a base, to August 2014. Now, by the time of the first evaluation - 2006, the value of the earliest set of bonds (top table - 1993) had already increased by 78% over a 23-year period (that is, 6% a year). Similarly, the 1997 and 2002 bonds had increased, 42% and 16%, respectively.

What we can see with the 2011 evaluation (1993 bonds) is a braking such that the returns reduce substantially. This is obvious for the other two years, with 2002 being the most dramatic (due, in part, to changes in the rules - necessary adjustments: some early I-bonds are paying 5% right now even with Ben and Janet trying to reduce that outflow).

The last column shows the difference for the bonds at maturity, that is, after the duration of the thirty years (after that, there is no more increment). For the 1993 bonds, the difference is only $6.00. However, there is a noticeable difference for the later bonds. This difference, folks, denotes unrecoverable losses due to the unfortunate reality that taxpayers had to bail out bankers who did not know how to do their job.

And, then, the fact that those who control the funny (fiat) money (have you heard, of late, about the Forbes guy talking some other method?) decided that they would set the interest rate at an unprecedented level. Why? Because they could; we still have to get this thing unwound with unknown consequences (by the way, will Janet talk coo-coo under the shadow of the Tetons in order to soothe the feathers of the addicts of easy, plentiful money?).

---

This is one little example. The other side of the coin needs to be seen. As in, the trappings of power in Washington puts serious blinders, many times. There is no reason to continue to flay the savers. In fact, the adjustments to the model that are necessary must be lifted to view so that we can get them discussed and, perhaps, understood.

Remarks:  Modified: 02/11/2015

08/12/2014 -- Leverage is balm for the banking, and finance, folks (but, then, the whole system seems to want to defy physical limits, say thermodynamics). They think that 22-1 is normal (whereas, in the olden days 12-1 was thought the upper limit).

22-1 means what? If someone came to you and offered you 4.5 cents for a dollar, would you not laugh? In essence, there are 22 demands upon the same dollar (so to speak).

Now, bankers make their money as they will take a dollar and give you paper that is supposed to be worth a dollar but is actually backed up with 4.5 cents. At the same time, though, they siphon off their take from the "real" and not their phony money.

Finally, for the economic wags, who will say that "real" money gets eroded by inflation. Yes, that is true; but, inflation denotes "real" pressure (meaning, something behind the phenomenon) on money. What we are talking with leverage (and, for the most part, the markets - that are behind everyone's 401K mania) is "aeration" pure and simple, Modigliani, notwithstanding. The equivalence is not there, as will be shown.

08/12/2014 -- Need to look at FAME.

08/25/2014 -- The Tetons visit might have been the time, but not. No, they want to push equity. So, will the S&P 500 at 2,000 be enough? Or, do you guys/gals want to  just aerated to where the mess is huge? Again, that is, so we can mop up the diapers of that market-playing class?  

09/17/2014 -- The coo-coo, goo-goo goes on. The landscape is strewn with the lifeless bodies of the savers. Thanks, Janet.

02/11/2015 -- Wikipedia: Zero interest rate policy.

Wake up, people, it's your right

Moral: While Janet is dancing in front of Congress and the world today (will she ever wake up to the plight of the savers?), let's look at something that really needs attention. Also, Janet, please. You and Ben have stoked the Cheshire multiple to the maximum (building, while doing so, a massive teat for the addicts who cannot grow up to a real economic status ... need we go on?).

--

So, what needs attention? The entrapment of we the people by the supposed smart. In particular, we'll focus on those with the computational wherewithal to effect such as there are whole sorts of variety of these enmeshing situations.

The Magna Charta will be celebrated next year, 800 years after the fact. The world and its people needs such for web/cloud (or however it can characterized) in order to keep the Lords (with huge pockets) in check.

But, people will have to wake up their minds and see that under the kimono (skirt, okay) of these technical giants is not much but crap of an exceedingly smelly nature. Why? Because they could do so (as in, have the users clean their diapers) without any oversight or concerted reaction by the users (many of who are running after silly apps as if those were the essential order of the world).

---

Now, the WSJ even had some code on its front page (of the later sections - here's an example). Can you believe it? I remember when the bosses kept themselves remote from anything having to do with computers. If they did have a terminal, it was hidden in their desk.

Then, people, Blackberry happened. The result? Those idiots, some world class, could not get themselves away from the idiot thing as if business required that (their addiction - talk to the families of these jerks - who have now morphed several which ways).

Later, the "pads" came to fore of varying size. That pushed the ensnaring web's influence out even further. In fact, some seem to have a worldview based upon these as the primary interface with reality. Or, to put it another way, truth is bound thusly.

---

So, big issues? Yes, one thing is that this is easier than people realize. We can talk an adage: know one, know them all. You see, one important step is to start to think in these terms which can be difficult, for many reasons.

First, there is the fact of abstraction. But, hey, if you could do high school algebra, then you can code. What if you are less oriented toward that? Well, part of enhancing the computational experience for us all would be creative use of technology. We have seen how content is of importance, albeit with a stable basis provided by the technological platforms underneath. It is this latter that has willy-nilly emerged with no seeming interest by users in any type of consistent experience. Ah, the changes that we have seen.

Second, things are cloaked, either by proprietary issues or by subterfuge. Not only do we need to see what is behind the kimonos, we need to lift things to the light of day. But, that concern of mine needs a little more elucidation. We'll get there under the guise of truth engineering.

Third. Ah, that's enough, for now.

---

Earlier, I ran across Codecademy, again. The first encounter was of the type of, hey that's nice. The second one was more involved and reminded me of the power felt back in the 80s, when complicated computing was advancing at an accelerated rate. What happened after that was the emergence of the cloud as perturbed by greedy folks bent upon big pockets and fame.

Nowhere have I seen any type of user focus (correct me if I'm wrong). Mind you, I'm not talking Congressional oversight, as those who ascend do not understand these things. On the other hand, do I know how these things out to play out? Not really. I'm only raising issues, laying down, so to speak, makers in abstract'd spaces that are supposed to point out areas of concern and potential focus points.

One thing would be to have a populace that knows code. Too, kudos cannot be exclaimed enough for the freebie folks. You know who they are, the Open Source, etc. Not so much for the advertisers who are entrappers by nature, though they do have some use (yes, my profile does not subsume by being, not even by a fraction - rather, it's an irritant - ah, hence the pearl?).

The image is my profile at Codecademy. I've done 25 straight days (which they call a "streak" - well, I have done literally 40 years) of coding of various types. Too, I have looked at a lot of lessons, found problems, learned to like the interface, and more. As well, I had one day of 136 points. It was interest that kept me going as I had spent several years consciously ignoring code (after decades and after accepting the notion that code is the basis of reality -- not so, folks, we have to talk being and to look at what we are). Essentially, I cannot praise Codecademy enough for their presentation (and interpreter).

One thing that this might show is that an old guy (72nd year with more in computing software than not - I did dabble in the electrical engineering department - but, code is more forgiving - after all sorts of developments that allowed conjectures - compile/test - okay? -- in my early years, you had to desk check - play computer, due to limits - resources, compiler technology, etc.) can do this stuff. We need to get the kids involved. But, at the same time, let's talk quality, control, and some things that seem to be without the scope (Zuck's stuff and more). That is a short list; one thing is that I was able to get several projects to SEI/CMMI Level 5 status, even those dealing with advanced subjects.

But, as the agile guys say (hey, I was there in the 80s, guys, so let me speak up about things, if you would), oppression diminished creativity. True. But, willy-nilly (oh, did I use that earlier?) makes for an untamed jungle (open for hacker, and other, types of malfeasance'd thinking).

Another thing is that I want to be technical. Note, please, I've used 50+ languages, in all sorts of environments that were critical, of certain types. So what? All along, I brought along older types. In fact, one older engineer did a conversion of a (nontrivial) system to a new language after only a few days of my tutoring.

All of the arguments of bringing in people since Americans cannot do the work is pure bunk (all of you technology companies are to blame - hell, I wrote up those justifications myself - mea culpa, mea culpa).

Too, we need the younger set to get into these things. For one, it'll straighten up their thinking. In this sense: the computer is purely logical, numeric and does not kowtow, play favorites, -- meaning, it's tediously corrective - like an idiot savant). But, older people need to as well.

Adage: From my decades of experience, I have seen the older crowd let the younger folk work the detail either through laziness, pride (ah, such arses, let us twiddle their brain with mathematics and see their real abilities), status (as if, the highers don't care - yes, arses, again - oh, DC and all of its ills is a prime example), or whatever reason (say, greed, as with the quants - yes guys - you and your algorithmic Smithíans - sheesh, Adam is rolling and rolling in his grave). Yes, it was a major capitulation with far reaching consequences.

So what? Well, these things deal with our future and the essential sustaining of an economy.

The WSJ articles itemize some of the ways that people can make money with code. That's nice. There are ways that we can have all sorts of remunerations from such work.

However. another adage: FOR ALL SYSTEMS (APPS) HAVING RAMIFICATION, OUR NEED IS TO HAVE CONTINUAL OVERVIEW (to be expressed) THAT WILL BE MULTIPLES IN COST WHEN COMPARED TO THE ORIGINAL EFFORTS (agile folks, listen up).

Off shoring of knowledge? Crap back? What do you expect? The out-housed topic will be brought back to fore (opinion, yes, but not unfounded).

Remarks:  Modified: 09/06/2015

03/19/2014 -- As an aside, up until about four years ago, I always had development environments available which were problematic, for several reasons, but here's two of them. And, this applies whether they were bought or free. Either they were not interpretative and were not the easy mode that we had with the Lisp Machine. Or, even if they were, they were heavy (Visual Basic and python come to mind) and took effort to keep up (gosh, early Java was a nightmare, at times). Now, here comes Codecademy with their little interpretative thing. Okay, given, it is oriented toward courses, but it allows us to see the possibility. How many of these types of environments are there (not meaning language specific, rather the access to code handling)?

04/24/2014 -- Revisiting, again.

05/13/2104 - Using a website context to research and discuss issues related to this theme.

06/23/2014 -- Example of true cost being ignored: Phone app in eight hours.

09/06/2015 -- Quora and knowledge? In this case, someone was comparing now to the times of Northumberland before the Vikings came in and ruined the situation for all but themselves. Well, actually, for all. The culture finally settle down. ... Another modern way.

Best and brightest of what?

Moral: Wherein we consider, just who are the best and brightest and why are they so important?

It has been awhile since I've seen an opinion, such as this one from the head of CME Group, but it does motivate a re-look at this subject. The op-ed is in the WSJ and was written by Mr. Duffy of CME.

• A new financial crisis: Keeping the best and brightest - Mr. Duffy argues the opposite position (see disclosure, next) from the one of this blogger. Nice that he does so. Since the link from the page on the CME's site to the WSJ article goes to a page that is locked down (requiring a subscription), I have provided a couple of images (that are photos taken from the print edition) below with commentary. 

---

Firstly, though, a recap, and disclosure. The first use of "best and brightest" was May 8, 2009. This was a reaction from hearing of big bonuses in times when things were dire. Why the bonuses? "Because, if we don't have the proper remuneration," said the Wall Street crowd, "we'll lose the best and brightest." Please note that a major theme for the blogger, in those times, dealt with the fiction in finance (truth engineering context - and, the inspiration for that concept was not Karl Marx' fictitious capital).

One main issue dealt (and still deals) with the gall of naming something financial engineering whose scientific basis has not been identified. As we come forward in time (all the while, the Wall Street, and its ilk, were being baby-glove'd by the Fed), several notions come to fore. For one, that talents differ among folks is as old as the hills leading to all sorts of problematic situations (not the least of which is the Lord/Serf dynamic, especially as demonstrated by the new phenomenon of CEO and more -- Wall Street type as serf (do you really see these as servants? - more below, due to Duffy).

For another, just because someone is facile enough to propose, and has the ability to dispose, of gnarly systems (I am prepared to discuss this at length, in depth, and to any degree necessary - both technically and philosophically - Out of control, May 7, 2010) does not give them the right to run the risks (despite the existence - perceived acceptance - of privatized gain and socialized loss). Of course, in the older days, I blamed the old fat cat who led the young, innocent best-and-brightest down the primrose path to our (and, perhaps, in some cases, their) perdition).

You see, the old fat cats could not handle the technical aspects (again, I'm a 70+ technically competent who can handle any of the discussions, at any level - at the same time, reminding all concerned of the larger issues that seem to fade out of the picture due to various things, of which the old anti-virtues (err, vice, but that relates to a squad?) loom prominent) so they get the younger set to run rampant (I've seen this many, many times while living with the results of emerging prowess - essentially, an advanced technology worldview). But, it was not just the fat cats who are at fault. Culprits abound . Some of this has been resolved; a lot has not.

---

WSJ op-ed

Now, to Duffy's op-ed. Notice, how WSJ's editorial staff (image) emphasized that there has been a decline in Harvard graduates (Duffy points to an article about MBAs; what about the undergraduates?) going to finance. There was a similar reduction found with Yale's and Princeton's graduates.

But, let's remind ourselves of something. We can be more specific, as required, but there had been an earlier movement around the time of the tech boom and bust (late 1990s to early 2000s) from other fields to finance. The blogger mentioned that he had wondered why (not interested enough to really look into the matter -- Nov 23, 2008) finance could be so attractive (if done correctly, it's fairly boring, folks). Well, it turns out that the finance types were given almost carte blanche (best and brightest gone wild) to play with their models. Why? There are all sorts of factors involved here. But, the prime one is that money does talk.

We'll use Duffy's words, though, to frame the issue. He says that "institutional money" does not exist. Why? Of course, ultimately, money is traced back to individuals who have entrusted finance types to care for their little accumulation meant for "savings, retirement or education" (their's, as in, Secured payment, Nov 28, 2012, not the finance guy's/gal's, okay). Duffy says that Wall Streeters can easily forget about Main Streeters (say what? Fiduciary duty - Oct 30, 2008)). From there, Duffy goes into finance's importance.

Yes, but he says that only "a few bad actors" were the culprits behind the latest downturn. We need to remind him that banks froze because they knew that their ilk wasn't trustworthy. How can these types forget those things, so easily - it's like they took their balls home, wouldn't play the game, due to knowing that the whole things was crookedly configured?

Duffy, of course, his firm deals with these matters, talks as if creativity is essential to something that ought to be as mundane as paving a street (by the way, I've been there - it's hard work that ought to receive more compensation than it does). We can characterize this thing many different ways, but, folks, the utility aspect of finance has been put to the background (by the way, not that utilities are angels - quite the contrary).

 ... much more could be said ...

But, let's go to the sweet ending. Duffy uses integrity with respect to Wall Street's business. Imagine that! Yes, Wall Street ought to think of helping people and influencing the world. One would hope that the influence would be for the better; Duffy didn't say. But, how does one get from the supposed reality of the situation where "help" seems to be more involved with picking pockets than not? As in, from the pockets of the hapless to that of the few (Jan 15, 2010). More recently,

All in all, it was nice to see the WSJ print this. Why tie it down so that people cannot see it in order to foster the necessary discourse?

We need Wall Street'ers to wake up and smell the reality related to their ilk. But, it's like the old adage of working oneself out of a job. As it works now, the whole thing, by necessity, runs toward a continuing of the ca-pital-sino. We cannot stop (nod to William F. Buckley), but we can improve, given the proper approach. Can anyone point out improvement activity (to the benefit of the commonweal, not of particular pockets) that occurs on a regular basis?

Again, let's thank Mr Duffy for starting the conversation.

Remarks:

01/06/2015 --  Best and brightest: 3rd most read (7'oops7),  1st most read (Tru'eng), 7th most read (FEDaerated). 

01/08/2014 -- We're patiently waiting for Janet to get her feet wet. At some point, she'll get out of Ben's shadow. Hopefully, it will be soon for the savers who are being slapped silly by the day.

10/21/2013 -- Alan has a book coming out. Ben still slaps savers silly; a new day is coming.

10/03/2013 -- Oh, yes, two posts (Fed-aerated and 7oops7), but no mention of savers being slapped silly. Notice in the savers post that an image says no bullets left. Ah, yes, Ben panicked and used up his ammo. But, has he not shown all of us (and the world) that there was a whole lot of other maneuvering possible? But, too, does he know that he's cowboy'ed us into a corner?

Modified: 01/06/2015

Central Banks and Addiction

Moral: Wherein we let some particular events of the past week (irrational fear of the taper) motivate a few thoughts; too, Romain Hatchuel has a nice review in the 06/21/2013 WSJ that is worth attention.

---

First, what happened? Ben let up with his silly promises (so to speak); or, if we look at it correctly, Ben just talked the truth. What people read into it tells us a lot.

As said here before, the training wheels need to come off some time or another. Too, Ben and his ilk ought to consider savers who have been slapped silly for the past few years. Why? Ben, and his kind, have some type of debt infatuation. Gosh, PhDs, and other brains, are pushing this type of viewpoint?

Addicts would sell their mothers down the river. The whole thing of the past few years has been very much analogous to some type of unstable thinking related to overuse of substances (in this case, Ben's largess).

---

Aside: It's not Ben's fault, entirely (after all, the role of the pusher seems to be a consistent factor in human affairs -- so why not finance, too?); except, he seems to be trying to outdo King Alan as the chimera's main face (Ben, the wizard?).

---

So, as we've said before, let's go back to the basics, please. The whole regimen of Ben's pretty face out there with everyone trying to read something into his communications (verbal and non) is more than plain silly. It's stupid, folks. A proper view would demonstrate why this is so.

I know, how long will it take to get this defined? You see, the addicts want their daily fix. Some cannot live with just the five-day workweek. No, they have to use the other two days, as well, for their gaming.

Ever heard of a sandbox? This gaming type of mind would best be situated in such a thing. You know, sandboxes can be used by "children" for play. Too, though, consider how cats use sandboxes. Yes, those who need such could crap all they want. Then, they could clean up after themselves (unlike this past downturn where we had to clean up the crap from these people - diaper change, essentially).

The adults would run the financial community (Harvard, where are you on this matter? Or, are you in the class of trying to make the fast buck to the detriment of all but those in your class?) with the sandbox isolating the serious gaming minds. Would we learn anything from such play?

---

Now, finally, to Romain's article. He is a manager partner of Square Advisors, LLC that is based in New York. The firm deals with asset management. That focus implies his interest.

So, what did Romain write that struck a chord? Well, he writes, for one, that investors have been acting like "a bunch of junkies" using whatever "crack" is being pushed by financial markets. Behind all of this is the dealer with whom we are all familiar (who? Ben, of course). So, Ben just lets a glimmer out that he's limiting the supply, and those who are using his stuff go bananas.

Later, Romain goes into how addicts are drawn to their favorite substance and why. You have to love this little bit of analogy.

Now, after that, Romain compares the period of '50-'80 and from '80 to '10. You see, I am very much familiar with those eras as they correspond to my adult work life. And, from that perspective, I see that the financial world has gone bonkers. Look, since the downturn started, I've been looking to see where things have gone awry. It's simple, folks. As this blog has been trying to detail, albeit in a, probably too mocking, manner.

---

Aside: Academic work touched upon finance, from an economic perspective. Frankly, it didn't look interesting. Later, I heard that armies of youth were heading that way. Why? In retrospect, it was inevitable, given how technology evolved, that finance morphed. Too, though, the whole motivation for truth engineering has a lot in common with the embedded error-ful ways (we'll have to get back to this).

---

Romain's words resonate many ways, but we'll hold that for later. Let's just continue. You see, before '80, the debt to GDP ratio was small. Now, this is more than at the National level. You have to know that it deals with the personal debt, too. Romain says that in the 30-year period, to '80, the GDT grew 191% while debt grew only by 12%.

Now, after '80 (please, note, this is when the upturn of things like the DOW start -- sheer madness, when looked at properly, hint: near zero -- look it up in this blog, okay?), for the next 30 years, the GDP and the debt went up about the same.

Add caption

Aside: Ben, you might think that lowering the rate would help those in debt. But, many could not redo their loans. Note, too, guy, that many of the larger pockets got their debt forgiven (what? you're doing the 7-year thing that we saw in Leviticus? Actually, Romain, I would go further and say that rather than "junkies" which is pejorative, somewhat, what we have are immature ones who expect others to take care of them. There are several ways to characterize this, but "sugar daddy" comes to mind. That is, at some point, we seem to want someone else to pay. Where are the mature minds who will realize this? By the way, don't politicos always have their hands out - like takers?

Aside: Despite these immature takers, we do have those who give. Take the enlisted class in the military who give their all without sufficient reward. Not talking the O-class, who consider themselves, by the Grace of God (I suppose), as better. We, as a nation, have asked for supreme sacrifices from the few over the time periods mentioned in this post. At the same time, we've spawned many big pocketeers who never performed in any type of national service. ... There are many other types of givers. Actually, the whole economy rests upon those many (even though most of the attention is given to the fat-cat errants - the times) who have been striving despite difficulties to perform roles of substance. ... By the way, did you hear about Goodwill managers making 100Ks of bucks while paying some workers cents (yes, cents -- by the way, I was paid, in the 1959 timeframe, less than a dollar an hour for performing the duties of a hospital orderly - my senior year in high school - that was 1/2 a century ago -- this is 2013!) per hour?

---

Yes, debt is borrowing from the future (Romain sees this as do a lot of others). ... Too, the whole talk of liquidity is a game being played (and they're using phony mathematics as the basis for the argument) out by those who want to take the cream off the top -- ill-begotten gains, for one).

Look, some one trolling to find suckers is not adding to market value. Consider, do we let the legal authorities entrap? Yet, we let the financial idiots to this as if they're great brains. Gosh, folks, how did this madness come to be? Financial schools (yes, academia) need to step up as some type of authority. Oh, Ben is from such? What was his problem (besides trying to control a gigantic system with incorrect knobs)?

Romain quotes Krugman on austerity (see Wiki for a good discussion). Of course, Krugman stresses liquidity's usefulness (which we can show is mainly used by insiders to tweak the system in order to enhance their gain potential). Does Krugman consider that we've hocked our progeny's future?

---

The debate will continue. Romain seems to rue opportunity lost.

Well, reading the article got me to thinking about the times of six years ago (see 7oops7, when the first glimmers of idiocy stated to peek around all attempts to keep the public in an unaware mode). When things started to tumble, there was more discussion of things like moral hazards, and such. Of late, it's like the whole game is Ben and his largess and the resulting frothing of the markets.

What does it mean to a saver to have the DOW soaring when the banks slap you silly? Yes, they want you to get into equities, too (as in BofA trying to gain from taking over ML -- yes, nauseating, somewhat).

Aside: Tranche or not - This was the first post related to finance. You see, after the glimmers started, I got back to work trying to see what had happened in the financial world (I had worked in applied engineering - real products) that was so unstable. The whole notion behind tranching struck me as being like looking for perpetual motion (yes, indeed). Finance deals with the abstract and has become more divorced from reality through time. Most of the market activity daily is pure crap, meant mainly to churn and to generate fees. Why this became more problematic in the latter part of the 1900s is due to computation's ubiquitous-ness, in part.

Remarks:

09/17/2014 -- Yes, she did. The coo-coo, goo-goo goes on. The landscape is strewn with the lifeless bodies of the savers. Thanks, Janet.

12/05/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow.

08/15/2013 -- FED site, FEDofNY: Pre-FOMC Announcement "drift"

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

07/12/2013 -- Will wonders never cease? Jon knocks early-lookers?

07/11/2013 -- Wherein we consider that Ben is entrapped by the expectations of the addicts. Too, this warps his view; except, he started to slap the savers early; now, he's torturing them (Guess what? Some nominee for a position admits that water boarding is torture. Ben has been doing worse than that to savers.).

06/27/2013 -- Plenty of talking has been done by several of Ben's buddies (of both genders). Now that the markets show that they have legs (or can, at least, stand?), perhaps, the thing would be to go cold turkey. Or, either quit the latest QE or raise the interest so that savers can start to heal their faces that have been slapped so many times that their skin is in worse shape than it would have been if they had undergone lashes across the face (yes, Ben, and his ilk, need to think of that part of the equation, too). With lashes, one knows when it (the ordeal) ends.

06/25/2013 -- Ben doesn't have to talk goo-goo. No, his hawks can do that. Today, the MN guy saying that they need to continue accommodation due to financial crises. Sheesh. Crises? When do they ever end? And, what about accommodating savers? Those who sold were the ones in early making "gains" almost beyond bound. It would be nice to have quiescence once to do an accounting (about as much a pipe dream - several reasons - as it is for someone on the Fed to argue for the little savers).

06/24/2013 -- The convulsions of DT continue. When, and how, can health be restored? Ben, do you think of that or do you just like to tip toe before the fat cats of Wall Street?

06/23/2013 -- As we expand the cosmology of business series, we'll get more into why mathematics and computation have led things astray (you'll hear it here, first).

06/22/2013 -- WSJ editorial: Central banks can't keep floating the world economy forever, and our view is the sooner the withdrawal begins the better. But as with all addictions, the withdrawal is going to be volatile.

Modified: 09/17/2014

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

Evolution of business

Moral: Wherein we look at the influence of families on the evolution of business as we try to understand the appeal of the chimera.

---

Evolution? Yes, business reflects the times and the memes set. Time moves on, so too do things change.

At any point, some think that they may have reached an epitome. Dynasties arise. Some fall. Others amble on. Generation by generation expectations grow. 'Having it all' describes one type.

One can just see the mind storms of a well-endowed best-and-brightest on the Street (not Main) gloating in the bonuses (excessive by any definition) and fat-catting down life's highways, expecting that the getting will always be good (creating copy-cats).

Then, those who play took their balls home in order to stop the game, froze the economy, knew that their partners were as crooked as they, and more.

And, the common folk suffered.

---

While doing research for an entirely different reason, I ran across a family that would serve as a good example (Moore). Henry, of the mid-1800s, epitomized the mentality behind buy-outs. One grandson was a decorated marine, a priest, and liberal. There will be others, to boot.

Looking further at this type of example would extend that done so far: backbone, commoners, non-commoners.

---

The latest realm of busyness is heavily computational and global. Exploitation of workers, and consumers, is not new; we haven't learned the real lessons there, yet. When can we?

---

It's not hopeless, though how many eons will be needed? Well, hopefully, it's not a PTIME issue. Yet, one knows that the lessons can be learned quickly, given the right circumstances. Which are? ... Another topic.

Remarks

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

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

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

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

08/10/2011 -- Weird stock market. Removes all arguments for the legitimacy/sustainability of this financial mechanism; that is, how ought this be done in a civilized, sane manner?

08/08/2011 -- Oh well, Little Timmy is staying. Anyone for a DOW of 8K?

08/05/2011 -- In case there is a need to be more obvious (the meme: the chicken or the egg -- below), which is the oldest profession: head-butt or mate. Note, if you would, that the latter is usually preceded by the former, in many cases.

08/03/2011 -- There are several ways to ponder economics within an evolutionary framework. However, starting with the two (no, not one) 'oldest' professions might be of interest: head-butting (see Remarks 07/29/2011) and, then, that which is usually cast as the oldest. Which came first (the meme: the chicken or the egg)?

Modified: 12/15/2012

Salem Commoners

Moral: Wherein we start a look at the 'chimera' (and its lemons) in terms of an approach that is sustainable.

---

Perhaps, Big Ben and Jamie can learn something. Little Timmy, too?

We'll use the context of the recently passed Fourth of July.

---

I have been reviewing European and American history, using a genealogical framework, for the past couple of years. Somehow, putting flesh on the thing can create a whole new look.

And, it seems obvious to me that we have gone astray from the ideals of the early entrants (and those across the millennial span who may have wished that things were better) . Why?

Many reasons. We'll get to that. But, the thing to look at is how to recapture some of that 'spirit' (and, politicos, you are not 'it') that was behind 1776.

Adam Smith would have loved this, it is my opinion. So, would have Samuelson.

---

What we are starting here will be a constructive viewpoint which has the intent of showing how to tame the chimera, to establish a more fair approach, and to do so without breaking the bank.

The series will be dedicated to George Edward Kimball, III (1943-2011) whom I first met 46 years ago in the central part of the U.S.A., who was continuation of a line from the early entrants to the 21st century, and who was for the 'little' people as many have said in their remembrances of him.

---

In my research, I had earlier run across a book with 'Salem Commoners' in the title and finally decided to read the thing. George's ancestor settled in Watertown, MA (later, moving to Ipswich, MA), but that is a mere stone's throw away (at least, to those of us from the wider-expanses of the western US).

Aside: in the past two years, I've been trolling the Internet's ever-growing database (thank you, Internet Archive, for instance) and collecting material related to several genealogical trees, including material related to the milieu and the times (to understand motivations, etc.). Of course, some material I read (or scanned). A lot of it is there waiting for attention.

So I opened the book (use 'Read online' for a wonderful GUI presentation). The title can give pause; is it exalting in not having any royal or aristocratic blood and more? Mind you, no one is in power, ever, without some exploitation of situations (yes, unfortunately, John Dalberg was right -- even though he knew not of situational ethics). Too, there is noone from any time who does not have something in their past that people cannot harp about (should they choose to do so).

Yet, we know that many people want to know of their royal gateways, if they have any. We didn't continue the traditions here, yet we can find these things interesting (aren't Kate and William just great, for instance? -- by the way, she has royal blood -- it took an American to do the proper research) since it is the past for a whole lot of Americans.

---

The above-mentioned book is a record of meetings that started in 1713. To put it in context, this would be about 90 years past the first group coming into the Salem area. What we see is a group of people who decided that they needed to organize efforts at maintaining the commonweal (we've mentioned that before). The attendee list consists of many stellar families.

Aside: a mere 50 years later, similar meetings had the role of 'shadow' government.

Now, one might ask in the context of the meeting, as opposed to what? Royal rule. Remember, George III stumbled here because he failed to see that 150-plus years of self-governance (despite royal overseers) led the American people to desire freedom sufficiently to risk their lives, health and wealth. You see, England had just gotten over decades of civil war. So, George III decided that he wanted to reign in those over here who had blossomed under the lack of constraint.

By the way, what were the British troops fighting for, in comparison? Oppression?

Aside: Because of the sweep of time here, we really need to look at the Crusades' influence on some modern dilemmas. Too, bottom-up (self-governance) versus top-down (aristocratic -- many, many types -- intelligence being the most insidious) is an age-old theme.

Ah, the allure of ergodics.

---

So, this is the first of a series. 'Constructive' will be looked at next time. You see, the chimera is the result of mis-used mathematics and computation, pure and simple. 'How to show this?' is the problem. Of course, we'll try to be other than PTIME in the development.

---

What is the historic-genealogical connection? Well, it'll unfold. But, Naisbitt was right in drawing parallels with our times of 400 years ago. We'll do the same drawing from a collection of individuals (including Richard Kimball) whose progeny continue to play out the 'American dream' (as it ought to be).

• 01/19/2010 -- ... Anyway, how do we get a new look at Adam Smith? We'll use US history. In particular, we're going to go back to Massachusetts Bay Colony and look at a few economic realities. We'll focus on several people, such as families of settlers, blowhards (like John White), and others, at first. Then, we'll expand it to other developments that were congruent in time. Note please, these things pre-date our friend Adam. ... Why do this? To honor Adam, for one. Also, Naisbitt, the futurist, is at it, again. His comparison of China with the U.S. two hundred years ago motivated me to look at his example's basis. Well, then we have to go back further than that (old planters). And, we expect to see that his paralleling example is not as well-founded as he may think. This look will be Economic History and Philosophy rolled into one.

Remarks

07/24/2012 -- Chompsky on the Magna Carta and our rights to Commons.

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

09/15/2011 -- Henry and George.

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

07/12/2011 -- Posts here evolve, but they eventually settle down. GEK III is quoted as saying that life would be better without editors. However, they do slough through a lot. Unfortunately, bloggers (assuming that the person cares) have to do that work themselves (as we all know, multitudes do not).

07/12/2011 -- Big Ben wants to ease for the fat cats, as if they will create jobs. Guy, you know that you've trashed the heart of the economy, the savers, for several years now? Answer this: do you run your household economy by debt (I already know the answer, no; somehow you are enthralled by equity's sirens)? That is, are you indentured up to your eyeballs (wait, what political pull are you trying to buildup for the future?)?

Modified: 07/24/2012

Early Fathers

Moral: Wherein, post the fireworks, picnics, parades, and such, we consider that the real Founders set the stage for those who are usually thought to be the luminaries deserving of our attention and that those real Founders were not of the 'new king' type.

---

The U.S.A just had the annual celebration, on the 4th of July, of the Declaration of Independence. That is, the occasion of the signing is the focus. We hear about the Founding Fathers and see the portrait of the inking moment. We also are reminded about John Hancock.

Yet, the framework for this event started over a century earlier. We will be touching upon this as it applies to the contexts of the blog. For starters, let us just look at three of the folks who might be characterized as Founding Forefathers. The order is chronological.

• Firstly, we do have the backbone, as an example, whose contributions, through his progeny, were multiple and necessary.
• Secondly, we have the Church of England luminary who argued for church-state separation. He founded Hampton, NH with several leading families after removing himself from the clergy-run state to the south.
• Thirdly, we have Rev John Wise who was characterized by President Coolidge as one of the inspirations behind the Declaration. Through his wife, Abigail Gardner, Rev John was a great-uncle of President John Adams.

This list is by no means complete and will extended. One intent will be to include Founding Foremothers, to boot, which will be the subject of the next list.

--- Post note, added July 4th, 2014 -----

Founders, yes, but forefathers, too. Again, we are looking at three (ggps - great-grand-parents) who, in chronological order of arrival, are considered further. None of these were heavy into the Puritan ethnic mores of the heavy-handed type. The contributions of two of these were 100 years prior to the Declaration of Independence.

Thomas Gardner (d. 1674) - The subject of this blog, we can point to a recent Gardner Beacon issue for further information about his life. We know little of his origins, however his character is known by his children and offspring. 

Stephen Bachiler (d. 1656) - Oxford graduate. Disliked the religious state that was Massachusetts. Being 70, he was not easily subdued, hence we have New Hampshire.  

Rev. John Wise (d. 1725 - of Harvard) - Took on the King's representative, Gov. Andros, in regard to excessive taxation. Too, Andros had the notion that the colonists gave up their rights as English citizens when then left to come to the New World.  

Now, we also need to consider how the Magna Charta concerns itself with requirements that are still unresolved in terms of the life of the average American and of humanity, in general.

Remarks:

01/31/2019 -- Lots has changed in these nine years. We will be summarizing them. One context: 400 or so, for one. We're building an example portal at TGSoc.org. Coverage is broad: 10th year, Content vs configuration, Culture/history/technology, and more.

06/14/2014 -- Cognitive elitism. Will be getting back to this.

02/11/2012 -- Example of the senselessness of the ca-pital-sino give to us by the best-and-brightest.

09/19/2011 -- Not Foremothers yet, but we're getting there.

06/29/2011 -- See Gardner's Beacon for continuation on the theme.

08/21/2010 -- Some who came here were of royal descent (this characterization used to honour the heritage and yet to acknowledge that the traditions did not continue here). It would be interesting to see what overlap there is between those who take/accumulate and a royal heritage (that is, it's in the genes). However, there may be many who held to the ideals associated with the undertakings here and who live simply (meaning, they have no role in the current messes which are directly attributable to several malefactor's ones).

Modified: 01/31/2019

Harvard, ..., II

Moral: Wherein we consider that even the best-and-brightest (big endowments) can get lured into playing the games offered by the sirens of technologically driven business; there are many of these games, but the big chimera (many faceted demon of our own design - Rick, of course) is a huge one. That shell games get out of control, now and then, is a lesson that does not seem to stick (no, the little people suffer and pay, always). No wonder the backbone of the economy breaks under such nonsense.

--

There is much to look at. However, we will review this paper, at some point: Educational Endowments and the Financial Crisis: Social Costs and Systemic Risks in the Shadow Banking System 2010 (PDF at tellus.org). In the meantime, a few thoughts are collected.

In terms of disclosure, all this will lead to the following: discussions of near zero and its necessity.

The biggest brains are no better than the lowliest worker. That emphasis has gone so heavily into out-housing (use of this does not imply the inability to see the reality of our inter-connected and global world) results, in part, from a seemingly endless set of new exploitees always around the bend.

Too, talents not related to numeracy are essential to the planet's future; yes, techies, innumeracy is not idiocy. How can the numerant (those with numeracy) be allowed to innovate financially without oversight?

The Gulf spill might be a perfect metaphor. We can exploit only so far; at some point, real costs have to be considered. Oh yes, the current state of affairs shows just how easy it is to fall into a debt, and enslave the future, pattern.

Was it Harvard that led us on the path of short-vision'd and, ravage the landscape, business (Cat and mouse)? Well, can it dig back into its roots, those prior to the ingestion of the secularist potion, and develop a coherent non-secular stance that is so sorely needed by the world for a peaceful and productive future?

Suggestion: where is the notion of ethics ever brought into the minds of those who are going to lead the future? Ought not this be more prominent, period by period, throughout the educational experience? Can ethics even be absorbed by one who is reinforced in elitist thinking?

Divine right of the endowed (pun, of course, for best-and-brightest)?

Earlier posts that are related to the theme under development. Not picking on Harvard. BUT, you Crimson guys and gals, you were the first on this side of the pond which, then, brings especial responsibility.

• Harvard, value and quality I -- from whence will come the multi-faceted minds that we need and the training that will raise the worldview?
• Gravy train -- that is, will raise above the notion of massive taking?
• Gray areas -- and, will not try to exploit situations or potential exploitees?

• Win and lose -- success breed hubris; failure causes whining.
• Hedge Funds -- they say that money talks or that money has it privileges. Evidently, one of these is to make your own rules.
• Lessons to be learned -- gosh, the problem? Who's the daddy!
• Oops and more oops -- stumbling going on everywhere, almost densely.

• Cars and quality -- wonderful metaphor for the current economic mess.
• Roles for schools -- more than merely funneling out takers on a massive scale.
• Swarm proof -- even the brightest are under the laws of nature (more full use than normal).

Remarks:

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

10/16/2011 -- Harvard is 375 this year. That, one might say, will precipitate a closer look, soon.

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

04/20/2011 -- Simple living (see Remarks 04/15/2011 - game theory), as opposed to greediness.

04/12/2011 -- Now, we hear that Harvard wants Bernie to teach ethics to the best and brightest! It is obvious that he ought to be a case study and a specimen of what not to do. That is, analyze him to the core. His motivations would be included. The biggest lesson? How we have dumbed down ourselves in order to make the system, and its artifacts (see comments on hive mentality), work.

04/04/2011 -- Boston U's opinion.

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

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

07/02/2010 -- Anyone at Harvard with the sense of justice like Perelman's?

06/01/2010 -- Some young MBAs want to get their reputation, or that of their discipline, out of the crapper. Nice. An oath is one theme.

Modified: 05/08/2014

Backbone of the Economy II

Moral: Wherein we consider the basis upon which an economic system ought to be built, from the viewpoint that capitalism has been usurped by interlopers.

---

We can start by addressing the issues related to the wielding of power through accumulations, such as money, access, and a whole lot more. At some point, we'll go back and look at royal continuance and its supporting peerage. We don't have to go far: our old Mother whose hammers we threw out a couple of hundred years ago.

In that vein, the upcoming 400th celebration of New England events will provide plenty of opportunity for discussion of the whys and wherefores that we see.

Thankfully, we do have a Constitution-based framework here with which to attempt to build a more solid future, albeit that we see plenty of side-roads due to human nature's ways. Too, we do see economic mobility, somewhat, though the past couple of years have pointed out how illusory this whole notion can be.

Yet, we do have the wherewithal to do these things better. That is, the ideals from the 60s seem to keep resurrecting themselves in the public eye suggesting that there are motivating factors involved that are other than our creation.

That wherewithal does have a heavy bit of numeracy (hence mathematics) involved, yet part of the problem is that we have not learned the main lesson, innumeracy is not idiocy. Our current 'now' is just crammed full of marvels acquired by improving our knowledge of the world and by applying this knowledge. Yet, hubris seems to be the norm from observing our prowess.

For instance, the blowout in the Gulf can be used as an example of how wrong things can go. That is, we are not as much in charge as we kid ourselves into believing.

That might be how peerage keeps the royal view sustained. A situational scheme of mutual admiration that keeps the fires of the balloon lit thereby allowing ascent. To where? Sort of like the market, as currently defined, do you not think?

Everywhere, dissenters are cast out. By the way, having dissenting voices is how science is supposed to work. There is no view that does not need some scrutiny, even if attempt at such obtains the casting of labels of 'freak' or 'pseudo' upon that one brave enough to venture the contrary position.

That we are here and now, in part, results from the many on that little island across the pond who could not abide their milieu. Some of the early ones who came over here were quite astounded, or would have been had their efforts not been mostly involved with mere survival, at their new-found freedom which turned out to be a brief dream (no cynicism meant).

The third and successive waves brought more of the same over to this side. In actuality, things here, at one point, were much more deleterious than would have occurred across the pond, one has to think. Put a bunch in a new milieu without the usual social constraints and watch out (nod to William Golding, of course).

Granted, for some of this freedom we see here, we ought to be thankful (law, etc.), yet one cannot but considered 'what ifs' when reviewing what has happened the past 400 and when looking at where we are.

Guess what? Economics is full of what-ifs as if by necessity. The main trouble is that the set of what-ifs is heavily controlled by those in power. Consider, if you would, why else was the past decade mainly characterized by the deceptive movement of work to another set of bonded slaves under the guise of giving the consumer, the supposed backbone, more things (of questionable quality), and a lower price, yet, at the same time, luring the same consumer into a recursively deepening pit of indentured-ness?

At the same time, a very small number (less than 0.5%) grabbed loot of massive amounts (greater than 90%). Too, we had the manifestation of the CEO as the new King, many times with a domain that was world-wide.

Yet, at the time, the politicos were salivating with their hands out, and that includes the top guy. Oh, one might respond, that is the nature of the times. Money is needed and is how the talking is done. Ah, is that so? What exactly is money? Ask, Big Ben to give you an accounting that doesn't allow him to wave his hand.

As a final note, the recent recall of the SUV was resolved by a software fix which ought to raise some eyebrows for a couple of reasons. Firstly, earlier, there were adamant arguments that the computational framework used by the automotive industry was robust and almost considered to be faultless to the extent that no question was allowed to be raised without aspersions being thrown at the one asking. Oh, some little shift here? Secondly, there is now a fix that was hacked (okay, tested) and pushed out. People, the 'blue screen' of death is called just that since it can happen at any time and without reason many times. Have we really looked at what is required for 'safe' computing enough to allow seemingly thoughtless application of it everywhere?

Our economy is so much dependent upon the computer that the car incident could almost be the metaphoric example. Then, we allow the amoral best-and-brightest, urged by the malevolent fat cat, to monkey with the keys to the domain in an ad-hoc fashion.

It's beyond cap-ital-sino. Due to oversight, any legal casino can (has to?) tell you the odds. We have no such thing with the economy, as it's being run by the likes of the golden sacks. The Nevada guy was right when he mentioned this at the GS grilling.

Lots to talk about, later.

Remarks:

02/05/2015 -- Recently on the most-read list. The subject needs a little updating, as, at this time, Ben was starting his QE (we still do not know the full ramifications). The chimera flew sky high (helped by many assists, along the way). ... That illusion is sustained by debt of an almost unimaginable amount. ... See: Chimera and the dismal, Tide that floats us (will extend this to show how the house of cards comes about), ..., 80-year old manipulator is still at it.

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

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

07/06/2010 -- The real Founders.

05/06/2010 -- Out of control, essentially.

Modified: 02/05/2015