Where are we?

Moral: Wherein we weigh in with a reminder that the story of Main Street's lingering effects from having to change the diapers of the gamesters (yes, the ilk of Wall, etc.) still needs to be told.

So, one chapter closed with the meeting of the Fed. According to the WSJ headline: benefit of bond-buying experiment remains unclear as central bank's focus returns to interest rates.

The graphic of the Fed's balancing act is a nice touch as it splits out their holdings by type. Note the amount of mortgage-backed securities. Some of these were from the toxic era. What would closer analysis show? All sorts of economic positions are being argued now.

One fact is clear. Yellen is focal and expected to remain as such. After that, all things are fuzzy. But, let me make two comments here that are very much apropos.

• The downturn, if you remember, was caused by financial gaming, especially that of the financial engineering type. What has changed there? Banking froze as none of the players knew who they could trust. Has that changed (as in, with the spiked punch bowl, who of that crowd cared?)? Has the coddling quit entirely? No, of course, not. Savers are not part of the equation. In fact, it's the opposite. The thrust is to load people up with debt (ah, dire straits to be expected when the rates do arise - like the burden the US will face with its debt). For the poor, it's an abyss of no end. For the smarties? You see, they are still leveraging with cheap (Yellen's) money. The ca-pital-sino soars, however the reality of most not getting money from that is ignored. What that means is not related to those who chose to not be in the casino. That most are losers, by definition - can be explained, is hard to see when you get the Zucks (and others) rolling in the dough. At some point, perhaps, we can describe this a little better (where is that pivotal point?) such that those who are now lost in the mania (of the media) can see these things from a more reasonable stance. 

• Prior to the downturn, and to the present, the blogger has had a mortgage that was taken on only after the banker assured the borrower that they, the bankers, were not selling their mortgages. Now, the same banking company still handles the payments, and such. Except, the downturn time saw the banker (meaning the company, of course, with the head guy's face as the representative icon) buy into a high-flyer (who crashed). The banker thought that they were getting a deal (and were very much surprised). So, what that means is that the bought company is the new mortgage department. I'm watching to see how this impacts things, as I can get out at any time. Too, the banker has received oodles of interest payments during this time (hey, someone has to bear the brunt - and, we pay taxes, too -- will expound, ad infinitum, about this to those who might want to learn about the real economy - meaning sustainable). Yes, the mortgage was 30-year, fixed rate. No complaint, but for this. Has there been any thank you from the banker? Sheesh, no. The banker has been paying fines (related to their, supposed, wind-fall) and licking their wounds. Oh, what a tale to tell (will be told, along with the tale of being thrown out of a bank for having the gall to point out a process that was bordering on illegal -- the Fed's response? oh, banking customer, you sue them - we see the merit of your claim but do not care). ... On the other side of the coin, the Fed then pushed obligations (interest paid, rather than fat skimmed) of bankers for their customers to near zero (aside, when I talk near-zero, it has to do with the fact of the ca-pital-sino not being zero-sum (which, then, allows those pushing it to talk as if they're saintly), but it is close (when one does the proper accounting - as in, not buy into the spiked-punch-bowl-colored  world view). ... 

Stopping now. The tales, to be told, are not, as of yet, touched any more than barely. How many more points to cover? Well, consider this. The view? Economics trained, econometrics focused, computer modeled facilitated, essentially scientifically predisposed, intuitively oriented (as necessary), and more. ... The whole caboodle needs a look (is time infinite?). 

Remarks:  Modified: 10/30/2014

10/30/2014 -- Pause would have a great influence on our models. Now, how to do this? For one, let's get back to the sandbox necessity. 

Financial piracy

Moral: Wherein we opine about the current state of financial affairs now that Big Ben has graced (?) the Tetons with his presence, again.

---

There used to the a thing called "debtors' prison" where one who got into dire straits, whether by fate or by own's one idiocy, spent time. In some of these, people were not fed; essentially, the place was a warehouse to stack those whose fortunes diminished to negative terms.

Somehow, we got to where being in debt was the "thing" to do. In fact, some exalted at how much credit they had and could use.

Sorry state of affairs. Both the physical prison and this virtual new prison. We are going to argue that this latter prison is more insidious by a long shot.

What did we do? We have the USofA now indebted to the likes of former enemies.

---

Now, why "financial piracy" in the title? Some claim that morality left business. Was it ever there? One might say that the last drop of 'morality' ran out. So, we have this monster of a thing, with flashing lights and boisterous hawkers and, of course, the priestly types. And, it is daily proffered through our technical prowess, yes, television and the web and more.

Allah                                              Moolah
Worshippers

The so-called "markets" of such importance to some. In the case of the financial pirates, there is little of 'value' that is bought and sold.

To what end is this crap-shooting ca-pital-sino? To suck monies from the pockets of the hapless into that of the fat-catted ones who are in position to take advantage of the situation. Unfortunately, the politicos (those who salivate at the thought of a buck) have turned their backs on those in need in order to make things better for this upper crust.

---

It may be that the larger part of the basis for a sustainable economy is the consumer. Yet, several things are implied there, the first of which would be that 'piracy' under the guise of financial imperatives would be strictly limited (sandbox'd, in other words).

Yes, those who are in control of the money (and whatever basis that we put it upon) would be of 'simple living' (the military metaphor holds - but, not the officers who become Generals and pains in the asses -- no, talking the enlisted here [E1, in fact] -- ah, but general-hood implies ability and talent to use such, does it not? --- hah! for any officer, there are scads of enlisted who are as smart and talented).

---

This theme will be explored more. If Big Ben were such as to think about Main Street rather than the Wall'd warts (and all of their ilk), he would not have polluted the rare air of the Tetons area with all of those hot-air'd types who gathered last week to honor 'moolah' and its chimera. No, there are countless slums in the world (and in the US) where these types could have seen the effects of their decisions up close and personal.

Oh? Of course, they do not want to do this, as is not their dwelling in the 'heights' too much fun and causes them to disdain the 99.9999% who suffer from their coddling of the big guys?

Ah, think of those who were bailed out, cooling their heels in a debtors' prison? Nice thought!

Remarks

07/25/2015 -- We're about six weeks after the June look back at 800 years ago (Magna Carta). Too, though, poster boys have popped out of the woodwork, including Zweig.

08/27/2013 -- Golden Sacks made some error the other day (the perennial computer glitch - traced back to the best and brightest, okay?) that accumulated to $100M or so. Guess what? They got off with even a hand-slap. What? Put them all in the stocks for a week (or debtor's prison).

05/09/2013 -- Ben needs to take off the training wheels and let the markets go where they may (falling mode, most likely) and let the seniors have a little stability (Slapped silly, again, yesterday).

12/22/2012 -- Fair and open actually used in a WSJ article.

07/21/2012 -- Another thing uncovered, gaming of LIBOR.

05/30/2012 -- As covered by flightblogger.

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 -- Recover missing image (Allah and moulah).

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

09/09/2011 -- Big Ben and the consumer.

08/30/2011 -- A tale from the trenches, not exaggerated. There was a techie company that has a piece of it that has been around since the 60s. The company is no longer around, except in memory. However, the group has been picked up multiple times by other companies over the years. A devoted type of employee (by the way, war vet) has endured with the group during this time. Following the history is a good read on changes over the related decades. The message? On one of the movements between overlords (financial types, of course), these employees' retirement accounts were given to a large, well-known insurance company for management. What was the first thing that they (the cruds) did? Took a large percentage (way beyond what one would think was reasonable) off the top, as their fee? What? There are tales, such as this, all over the economy. Do we pay attention? Do the regulators (ah, remember how they could not even see Made-off when he was right in front of them?) even know how? Sorry state of affairs, folks. Not only are there these tales, but they are legion (putrid to the core - what the hell has happened over the past 30-40 years, folks?). Oh, is it the lack of any sense of responsibility, or ethics, on the part of the boomers? Much to discuss.

08/30/2011 -- The status of Officer versus Enlisted is one of the last bastions of legal 'classism' in the United States. Is it necessary? Not really. All the arguments about 'leadership' run toward what we see with 'politicos' who cannot keep their salivating selves in check when they see, or think of, a buck. Sad state of affairs. Of course, the idiocy started with the onset of the new country. Yes, we're talking over 200 years of divisive methods. It is a wonder that the country has survived the shenanigans. Another bastion? Those new royalty who are the corporate elite riding herd on what the Supreme Court's members say is a 'person' and whose use of their money is equivalent (same type of ruling) to free speech (ah, twisted, indeed). Too, these royals can trample the mere citizen with impunity (no wonder, those who are the masses still yearn -- yes, the chimera has stolen the American dream).

Modified: 07/25/2015

Tranche and trash

Moral: Wherein we go back to the basics to show a few things. Yes, to three hundred, or so, years ago.

---

We have to set the context, first. Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games. What is tranching? Why silly?

---

For the 'what is' part, Wikipedia has a good overview. Essentially, something that has value is cut into pieces to be sold. Each of those pieces can be rated as to risk and payback which we know are reciprocal, in a sense. That is, to the risk taker goes the spoils; this is a long running concept in the western economy, seemingly being the essence of capitalism.

In terms of rating, some type of contrivance is thought to be smart (idiotic, really). Let's say that the thing of value is low in rating (meaning, highly unlikely to be successful - okay? -- or, junk, in the words of people like Milken). Yet, tranching will attempt to lift out something that is AAA. Well, of course, that comes about from the pockets of those buying into the junk.

Not to be long winded here; look at the wiki page. But, the question has to be asked: who thought that this was a step forward? Who would buy such junk?

You see, therefore the notion of 'why silly?' comes forward?

---

Firstly, the whole mechanism rests upon mathematical, and technical, advances of the past three hundred years which really accelerated around the 2000 year change. These are not as unproblematic as some would allow us to believe. That, of course, relates to the quasi-empirical nature of what we can know, even by mathematics.

We can also propose that those who want this type of chimera are those in position to milk the situation, via continuation of the scam.

As an aside: is it not scary that behind the derivatives, and other, markets is just such type of flim-flam?

---

Secondly, the approach tries to spread risk amongst several players. Yet, the underlying basis is not improved thereby. Assume that I have $7K. If you loan me $93K, I'll have $100K to play with (this a nod to Little Jamie, as opposed to Big Ben). But, is there, for me, really any more than that $7K?

The leverage is way out of line, except if there is a certainty in winning. That, folks, is one key which we'll get back to. For now, realize that if there is loss, leveraging amplifies the downward movement.

Please note, too, that all this stuff demands some type of accountability and bookkeeping. That is another area open to manipulation (via the book cook).

Tranching would split things into various layers and get buyers (probably by some overly optimistic selling) for these. Yet, does the reality become stronger thereby?

---

Thirdly, the whole money system seems to be based upon this type of insanity. We have funny money (whose value come about via jaw-boning). Who has clearly shown that money cannot have a physical basis? Is not the confusion from fiat money used to exploit the situation?

---

Fourthly, as said before, we go from one craze to another with reality becoming more bleak for the many. Too, moral hazardousness seems to be the thing that is reward. Why? Surely, it is not because we need the distraction, as entertainment.

---

Fifthly, we have that which appeals to the abstractphile (lover of the ephemeral). Such as, the M & M concern. For what it's worth, Milken (see Remarks 06/17/2009) thinks that structure is important. Or, things like the ergodic hypothesis wherein we see stability as the norm.

There is no end to the source for these concepts. Are they ever put to test? And, financial engineering has not met the challenge, yet.

---

Hence, we will pause to use George Berkeley's thoughts which, by the way, are very much apropos. Now, Weierstrass may have banished the 'infinitesimal' in an operational sense; he did not remove the motivational dynamics. This residue, folks, is what we see now behind the madness.

Remarks:

08/13/2013 -- Yesterday, we mentioned that President Obama wants to change the mortgage arena.This seems like a good opportunity to start a look back. One would hope that those who are in charge of the changes know the intricacies of why we have idiots running things now. If not, we'll attempt such an analysis here. Idiots? Yes, such inconsistencies of tying up money for 30 years, at a low interest (without acknowledging that taxpayers allowed this to occur in the first place, early on for veterans coming back from WWII). There are others things like this that seem so like chasing after the perpetual-motion machine. Finance, built upon bogus money, has no way to ground itself, essentially. So, let's start with Investors II.

02/12/2013 -- We ought to have nationalized these guys' playground.

06/05/2012 -- We have the cause wrong?

05/28/2011 -- Tranche on tranche, okay! If it has become apparent, this blog tries to attain a sound, naturally expressed (as in phrasing that is understandable) rendition of something. Tranches, trashy as they are, were thought to be some epitome of the best-and-brightests' schooling in mathematics (hence, flim-flam). Give us a break!

05/26/2011 -- This post appears to merge the concepts of leveraging and tranching. Well, folks, I'll be more careful in the future, but consider that the 'lemons' article talks about CDOs being built upon CDOs being built upon CDOs. Okay? Can you tell me that the motivation behind tranching is not to allow further leveraging (that is, raising the multiplier)? As I was writing, I assumed a position that would try to cut through these layers, looking for the basis. That is, at any point, something would collapse to what was behind it (which would be a fractional amount). You know what? I would bet that noone can say what is the basis at any point. OR, are not willing to admit publicly for many reasons, one of which would be to not look stupid. But, the nose knows when it smells stinky stuff which this whole financial apparatus apparently is at its core. So, again, tranching is trashy in many cases. When ought it be allowed, and what would be reasonable controls?

05/24/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/14/2011 -- We ought to have nationalized the bunch. Cowtowing to them (thanks, little Timmy) reinforces their egotistical notions of their necessity and worth.

04/03/2011 -- On the 7% example (second bullet), some will quibble technical issues, much as multiplier effect, margins (upon what?), etc. True, enough, I'm using a broad brush. However, consider my example a gross approximation that bounds your technicalities (why? ergodics, man!). One of our problems will be defining a more solid (yes, or gaseous - based upon some type of matter) basis for how we account for wealth (and our beans) in a manner that gets away from the house-of-cards (and its gravy train). Another is the sand-box. There are many more, of course. Let's, at least, enumerate the more compelling.

04/03/2011 -- Changed the title to 'Tranche and trash' for reasons to be explained (earlier, Tranche and truth). But, first, some background.

Modified 08/13/2013

Suckers and sackers

Moral: Wherein we suspend, briefly, the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks. Our goal of honoring Adam Smith and other thinkers will be delayed a little.

---

After all, we have things like the ergodic hypothesis, and a lot more, to discuss.

---

In its current mode, capitalism is for the sackers. And, Big Ben, your sacking of the savers plays right into the pockets of the takers. The consequence is that we have a whole slew of new kings (and royalty) who are more problematic than good.

Then, we have the hapless. Suckers, in other words. Those who are led into indentured servitude for themselves and their families for generations.

---

Wait, is not that what we're doing for the US economy as a whole?

Sackers need an endless supply of suckers to play their game. Why else Wall Street (yes, Ben, and you do know that you play the fiddle for these people?)?

Now, some who were suckered once are really smart and will not allow this again. In the past, cards have generally been stacked for those who are early and get the system made to their liking.

---

Wait, again, isn't the wild web just full of this? Yes, Zuckerberg (Look, guy, you may not want such but give me a bunch of smart people who can take a simple living oath, and we'll set the economy straight, for ourselves, our children, and their offspring) and a whole lot more.

Be that as it may, let's go to the foreclosure issue. Daily Finance lists what could happen from the current mess. It is worth a read.

However, embedded is a link to talk about a middle class revolt. Now, to hear some who argue for capitalism, they want 'free' markets, almost to the point of anarchy. But, no, not quite that far. Just far enough to push things into their favor and their pockets.

To hear the middle class talk of revolt is troublesome as they (not the fat cats) are the basis for the economy, especially the capitalistic variety. Somehow, we have lost the way.

---

Capitalism, people, is the best means for us to have a just economy. But, and I repeat, but, 'capitalism' is still to be defined. That is our task.

The pain with the realizations of late results from the fact that some of us thought that the US would be the best environment for this type of economy to happen. Well, people, interlopers have usurped 'of, by, and for' thereby confusing the issues.

---

A lot of good people have thought about these things and have tried to help matters. But, that we have let the genie out of the bottle with technology needs more attention. Those who are best and brightest, by their nature, want to screw the rest (unless they are simple livers - yes, I can define this). Then, they get the legal eagles on their side, including the courts.

---

Unfortunately, we may find that last year Obama ought to have nationalized the banks, stopped the high bonuses that were paid, halted the markets, did a full audit, ... (a lot more), ..., and then built up to start afresh. Is it too late?

Remarks:

10/15/2017 -- Post hasn't been touched for four years. Lots of water, many ways. The muddy cloud fell to pieces allowing manipulations through ads (run by money hungry souls - and the power seeking), yet the numb nuts keep at it. Why? Stupid mis-interpretation of Adam plus some idea that commercialization (mercantilization) are it. Lots to discuss.

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?

07/31/2013 -- Ben cannot unwind or taper down; he has too many Doves. We'll have to get back to the king thing (yes, the divine rights of the CEO) and dampening of these types by a new outlook (Magna-Carta'ísh).

02/12/2013 -- We ought to have nationalized these guys' playground.

12/22/2012 -- Fair and open actually used in a WSJ article.

11/15/2012 -- SumZero, and more.

09/13/2012 -- Ben, and his cronies, continue to sack the savers. 

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash.

04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back.

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

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

10/28/2010 -- Warning, train wreck ahead. What train, I had asked? Yes, there is already a wreck, despite the inflated market (those who lost big are still behind).

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

10/22/2010 -- We need more Orwells and Tolstoys and Perelmans.

10/15/2010 -- How do we get back the 'of', 'by', and 'for the people' in all ways, including the economic system? Perhaps, if we could get Zuckerberg (Facebook), et al, to agree to 'simple living' and we could place trust (engineered, of course, as necessary), then computational assistance could help us all rise out of the morass (especially, that associated with politicos - those who salivate when a buck is passed beneath their noses - somehow, evolution has selected for these types?). To date, the promise of the cyber-physical, especially that represented by the web, has mostly pulled us further into a worse situation.

Modified: 10/15/2017

Out of control

Moral: Wherein we consider that the big chimera has many underlying problems. That is, the shell game gets out of control, now and then. No wonder the backbone of the economy breaks under such nonsense.

-------------

Or, as Mean Street says, the computers get to 'making ugly, messy love' while our money hangs in the balance. You see, the computers are driving the economy due to its increasing roles, and there will be side-effects not unlike we will continue to see with cars.

That requires a new type of thinking, folks.

Given that the streeters, such as golden sacks, seem to deal with 'truth derivatives' (see cartoon) of their own liking, upon what can we build trust required for a market economy? It seems obvious that ill-begotten gains are the norm as how can large bonuses be so usual without some sort of fiddling?

---

On another note, where does the money go? That is, when things roll downward. Today, many lost, yet others gained. That's called near-zero, folks.

Some argue that we can move away from near-zero, with upbeat outlooks, and such. Yet, there has to be a certain amount of accounting (and accountability) and auditing that stands up to scrutiny. That we're fiat'd in terms of money (aerated by the FED, in other words) sets the stage for all the bad stuff from the beginning.

Yet, even in the gold years, there were issues, as Big Ben can tell us.

It may be that the only way out of the muck is with computer systems and a proper playing field. Somehow, we need to get insights from improvements in engineering, such as cyber-physical notions, involved.

Smith and Samuelson would probably agree.

Remarks:

06/11/2015 -- Computers? Out of control, in more ways than one. Adam rolls over (again and again and ...).

12/22/2014 -- Nice to see the WSJ article use "sandboxed" in relation to the absence of "predict or control" within the context of computation (in a sense, we are already out of control very much in need of an economic sandbox). The issues raised in the article are central to truth engineering's core focus.

08/23/2013 -- Another example. Jon has it right: high-frequency to blame. Of course, there are several reasons for the market being out of control.

06/11/2013 -- CDOs and tranching, once again.

05/30/2013 -- We're being driven by systems and developers into a type of hell.

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

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

01/13/2012 -- We'll be coherent and thorough as we discuss issues (out of control) related to this theme. 

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

03/22/2011 -- It's spring, and the garble uses gambling metaphors.

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

11/02/2010 -- Over a year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. But Big Ben continues in his ways. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

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

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

05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy.

05/14/2010 -- NYT's opinion points toward algorithms which nowadays seem to have a panache that seems to need some scrutiny.

05/13/2010 -- Some of the 'out of control' is intentionally inserted, as that helps some make money. See Time article from 12 years ago in which it is suggested that a lot of 'high' finance is motivated by attempts to circumvent accounting rules. As a reminder, folks, the issue of 'moral hazard' consists of this: playing with other peoples' money (many of which are moms and pops just trying to survive their later years), not handling risk properly (hubris of mathematical prowess), taking off the top (privatization of the profits), expecting bailouts from the general populace (socialization of gain) when things go awry, gloating about being right (again, hubris, but this time it's probably male egotism). It's been said here before: we need people running finance who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose. Now, that set would not be exclusively female.

05/10/2010 -- Commentary, and cartoon, via USA Today is right on.

05/07/2010 -- Another opinion on the influence of computers in the market.

05/07/2010 -- As said before, politocos seem to be those who salivate at the sight of a buck. I should add that the thought of the buck might cause the glands to activate, too. Especially, it seems, according to this report, that it's worse than I could have imagined. Why expect more from these people? That ethics might come into politics approaches zero in likelihood?

05/07/2010 -- Basically, the whole model stinks and is very unstable. How did we get to where our lives are dependent upon this type of thinking? And, this is how 'capital' ought to be handled? On no. Have to consider that Grasso was right. Like they say, right message, wrong messenger.

Modified: 06/11/2015

Golden sacks

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, which might be exemplified by a firm of note, must be resolved so that we can redirect Adam Smith's baby from the shell game'd playground, the unconscionable exploitation via the Ca-pital-sino, and a ponzi'ed framework to something more amenable to the health and welfare of the people, by getting beyond 'cat and mouse' thinking.

---

GS, in other words, who might think that it represents the epitome and who ought to know that the 'real backbone' is far removed from its heighten'd views.

We'll get more into all this, through time. Look at the cartoon on this Tech Ticker page. The Wall Street firms just don't get it.

One theme will be to look a peerage, and royalty, and observe how the 'new royals' (at least, in their own estimation, as money can have its privileges) obtained their status through milking the 'market' situations under the guise of following Adam (poor guy, he's rolling around in his grave).

How do we train our brains to get above that muck generated over the past couple of decades?

One solution, as mentioned before, might be a type of 'national service' experience (for the youngsters) that could work wonders, especially for those who are overly privileged. Mind you, it's not necessary that this be militarily oriented. No, the purpose would be to introduce those from various cultures (yes, American is full of a very many) into a framework of service that has an uplifting theme, hopefully one beyond mere nationalism.

Another aspect would be to isolate various gaming efforts by regulating such to a sandbox. Then, quants would need fencing into the sandbox. You see, numeracy (and computational support thereof) lies behind a bunch of problems (again, we'll continue to get into that).

Something for all of us to note, please: many of these instruments of finance, that purport to be advanced and necessary, are neither. They exploit modern technology and knowledge, sure. But, it's in a blind-folded way. For those that may be necessary, a sandbox would allow a test environment. For the unnecessary, a sandbox would allow ad infinitum play (without the bonuses).

The question? Who owns what and why? Wall Street owns finance? Hah!!

Remarks:

07/22/2015 -- Some of these are, now, poster boys.

08/24/2013 -- Why do I think of golden sacks? Well, they represent the worse of the rogues, though I know that there are some good people working there who are doing the right thing. However, I have personal knowledge of two deals in which they were prime players in the role of experts in the matter. In both cases, workers lost their economic lives, some lost their pensions, both firms struggled. One actually went bankrupt due to the debt left by those golden players as they took off with bulging pockets. The incidents were within the past decade just prior to the downturn. Of course, golden boys/girls couldn't see that things would crash. But, any reasonable stance (based upon integrity, okay?) wold have foreseen that certain types of risks were not adequately handled. But, no, the context of the gaming rushes after reward (greedy accumulation) without proper regard to things related to the reality of near-zero. ... Much more can, and will, be said, in due time. In the meantime, the golden sack'ers (search) are archetypal in the world of economic misdeeds.

06/16/2011 -- Golden sack'd scandals.

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

05/14/2010 -- Oh yes, smartest guys in the economy.

04/27/2010 -- Goldman's young guy as hero? See remarks earlier about fat cats and quants (look, defining these financial instruments and then modeling the payback are quantitatively flavored, through computation and mathematics). Fat cats do not know what the quants are doing and thereby let the young 'uns run amok. Why? 'Conceptual bliss' and 'abstraction' as Tourre suggested. Mainly using mathematics, and its modern selves, to create a whole lot of nothing, to make money doing so, and to then not accept responsibility for the fall out.

04/25/2010 -- Cartoonists ought to be having fun: Regulate the Banks? You'll Spoil the Fun.

04/24/2010 -- If it quacks like a duck, then ... Or, is it, in this case, if it waddles like a fat cat, ...? Those who run finance ought to not love money; that which these bankers are to provide is a utility, pure and simple.

Modified: 07/22/2015

With friends like this ...

Moral: Wherein we consider that the Ca-pital-sino which arose from an unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and which fosters shell games and inflationary schemes, has not done many (most?) people many favors.

---

As the saying goes: who needs enemies with such friends?

Let's try to concoct an answer (750 words or less) to this query: Do the wealthy have an obligation to help the poor?

• We think that we can show that this is so in about any context. Yet, we might consider that that there are definitely some limits to what help can, or ought to, be provided.
  
  First, though, we need to look at the concepts of ‘wealthy’ and ‘poor’ and ‘help’ in order to have this discussion. If we take the usual sense of the concepts, where ‘wealthy’ and ‘poor’ are measured in monetary terms, then these two can be considered at the opposite end of an economic spectrum, such as bank account balance. Along that same economic line, the measurement could be other types, such as those related to employment.
  
  For instance, one with a very rewarding career can be considered to be more ‘wealthy’ than someone suffering a long-term period of under-employment. There are many other variations to this theme. We can even switch to other realms, such as health care, where the richer in health, and knowledge, help those who are poorer in health.
  
  You see, health care is a system in which one main goal is the lessening of poorness in health. Or, is it mainly an employment, and enrichment, scheme?
  
  So, let’s bring ‘system’ into the discussion. The concept of ‘system’ is fairly intuitive to everyone; the economy is a system. In any system, which will have members, the overall goodness of the system will be determined by the weakest of the members. If we look for a metaphor, think of a chain and its links.
  
  Using the chain metaphor, we can see the ‘wealthy’ as being the stronger of the links; of course, that means that being in a ‘poor’ state is being a weaker link. Links that are too strong will cause the weaker links (and the chain) to break, eventually.
  
  Would not that breaking then diminish what the stronger links had, or thought that they had? Let’s be economic for a moment. If we look at the state of the economy, do we not see that, for a decade or so, there was a massive accumulation that happened at one end of a spectrum while the rest lost value. That is, the chain of the economy morphed to a few very strong links with a very large set of weak links.
  
  In monetary terms, we got to where a very small fraction (LT 0.5%) held the majority (GT 90%) of the total economic value. That raises this question: is the current predicament partly the result of the wealthy not helping the poor?
  
  Consider that those who are the ‘wealthy’ make the economic decisions about jobs and pay, for instance. The ‘poor’ would be the working folks who, one might say, would include the middle class, too.
  
  Then, ‘help’ could be efforts and attitudes that are oriented to keeping people in the system employed. The commonly used adage from Henry Ford may apply: working people spend their wages and buy products, hence they need sufficient wages. We could easily argue that what we have seen was an opposite of ‘help’ in that the working people were entrapped into a situation of increasingly negative worth through debt accumulation.
  
  Somehow, the economic system warped into a mirror world where ‘helping’ someone, such as allowing too easy credit, was actually making things worse for them. In this case, would not the poor have been better off by not being ‘helped’ by the wealthier who are really only growing richer?
  
  In part, warping was due to the introduction of a ‘global’ system in which the more local (American economy) system was a part. Too, we had the best-and-brightest, as another type of the wealthy set (aptitude), who engineered changes (via finance) into the economic system. These so-called improvements were, in actuality, beefing up the stronger links to the detriment of the weaker links.
  
  The inevitable happened when things broke down. That the wealthy did not help the poor in proper ways is obvious. Perhaps, those who are looking for corrective actions might benefit from using the question of the topic as the conceptual framework.
  
  That is, how do we get ourselves into the proper mindset to view that what is considered the weaker links are more necessary to continued economic growth than are the stronger? One might even propose that excessive accumulation indicates a type of weakness.

See the Ideological Errors of Capitalism, for further discussion.

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

11/01/2010 -- Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well.

05/07/2010 -- Out of control, essentially, and not healthy for the backbone.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

04/08/2010 -- From the gigantic chimera to ill-begotten gains.

Modified: 12/15/2012

The ideological errors of capitalism IV - Made offs

Moral: Wherein we consider that the ideological problems, namely shell games, unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith, and the Ca-pital-sino, are not sufficient. We need others (as it is of detriment of the people).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

Which are? Let's take just one. That the Madoffs (made-offs), and the Ponzis, are the real representatives of capitalism. They promise riches, exhort us to labor for gains and glories, and pilfer the till.

Of yes, there are others. We get those captains of industry, too, with enormous pockets who seem to be at the edge of legality. Or, if they stay from that edge, they're near some ethical (moral) edge. But, who cares about that?

The underlying nature of the current scheme, especially as exhibited by the equity markets, is taking profit at the top from the loads of money brought in by new suckers. And, this is called 'profit' as if such gains could be considered reward for real effort.

It was interesting to watch the recent inflation of the market. Yes, thanks to Ben, and those he muscled, there was oodles of money allowed via low interest, special loans (oh yes, Ben, like the confessional, never known publicly), purchase of toxic waste from idiots, and more. This money went to the inflation of the market, not to building anything of substance.

At the same time, real prices have been deflating. Businesses couldn't get loans. The jobless remain such. There are a slew of things that aren't right, folks.

Now, the whole mechanism (from which comes the mania) is supported by a vast informational framework consisting of analysts, reporters, and naive administrators, like Timothy (little Timmy) and runs for 6 1/2 hours, in the use, on five days a week. Thankfully, we do get a respite from the mania for two days a week, and the occasional holiday. Yet, one could very well imagine that the gaming never ends for some.

No wonder things get frothy (thanks, Minsky, for showing us what Ben ought to look at).

Business Week recently reviewed a book detailed how Markopolos tried to get people to think correctly about Madoff's scheme. The book describes the hubris of expecting something for nothing. In fact, that some notion of in-crowd status (which was one of Madoff's lures) predominated shows just how deeply these pilfering mechanisms are within the capitalistic scheme.

So, 'fat cat' attainment is our primary goal, people?

Plenty have commented to the review. Some of the comments mention that there are plenty of such schemes, namely Ponzi, that we accept as normal.

One example, as we all know, is that Social Security has been taking money from workers for years in the guise of providing retirement funding to these same workers. These monies were then expropriated by the US in exchange for IOUs which are now coming due.

So, who is going to fund the IOUs needed by Social Security to handle the influx of the boomers?

The basic economic issue is that future payments are always expected to be based upon some current set of assumptions and an economic framework to build something that will pay. Then, we expect there to be sufficiently stability for the payout to come to fruition.

But, we've let a whole bit of notions, like leverage, to warp the model. At one time, loans were based upon collateral. If the loan could not be paid, at least, the lender could get something from the collateral. Yet, there is a premise there, to boot, about the collateral being of value sufficient to cover the loan. Leverage can allow speculative malfeasance of sorts.

Operational modes, related to proper valuation, due diligence, and the like, were learned by hard lessons. Yet, these always seem so easily forgotten in the heat of the equity frenzy.

One reason that the equity mania seems to take hold is that the ponzi-like nature is hidden. Rather than this (the market) being a mechanism to build for the future, it becomes a get-rich scheme. That is, we get to the Ponzi-like, almost by necessity.

Many see the problem, but any attempt at rectification gets bogged down in rhetoric which is probably a natural outcome, politically.

Too, there are other types of malefactors (bond big-rigging) out there.

So, what are the guys like Big Ben and Timmy supposed to do? We'll get to that.

Remarks:

01/08/2025 -- It's interesting how the world has morphed due to computational flim flam (thanks, mathematics for letting us down). GenAI as a package for exploiting via shenanigans: Is OpenAI's new model O3 approaching AGI? (link to Quora, Dr. Jo). 

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

02/28/2011 -- Bernie has lessons for us.

04/27/2010 -- Need to add the political set of truths, such as cat and mouse.

04/16/2010 -- Rotten to the core. Does not have to be!!

03/21/2010 -- Read about Timmy: Atlantic ("Would it have been better to have the stock market where it was in March, the economy still falling, and unemployment much higher?” -- huh?), New Yorker, ...

03/20/2010 -- Big Ben says that bailing out the big banks was (or is it is?) 'unconscionable' yet was this not what he did?

Modified: 01/08/2025

The ideological errors of capitalism III - Shell games

Moral: Wherein we look to a drive for high gains (greed) and to lack of oversight of the best and brightest (Lordly Princes) as the basic ideological problem of capitalism whose 'casino' is best evidence that this is not the way of reasonable folks, with all due respect for Adam Smith. Too, we coin the proper descriptive term, Ca-pital-sino (the system migrates to inflationary schemes to the detriment of the people).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

If the Street were playing its games on Main Street, with the usual setup of a card table on a busy corner, and oodles of suckers passing by, they would be arrested for public exploitation and fraudulent activity. That is, shell games are illegal, in most civic situations.

Yet, the Street (Wall, if you must ask) has been playing this type of game for years. How else the huge gains and bonuses? Too, this has been seen as progress. What?

Wait! The government has done the same thing, to wit, the Ponzi-like schemes (12/13/2011 -- do not the new players bear the burden of funding?) behind Social Security, Medicare, and more. These two, the Street (and all of its ilk) and the government (those politicos who salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose, individually and collectively) have led us toward perdition.

We can observe that there are mechanisms in place to allow several things. First, no compunction to establish value in a meaningful way due to fiat currency. Second, in-crowd manipulations since there is no insight, or oversight, because money has allowed itself the privilege of opaqueness. Third, gigantic PR spent glorifying the best and brightest and their mathematical malfeasance. Fourth, costs are pushed to other (what else is the motive for out-housing?) pockets including the mortgaging of our own progeny (indentured servancy). Fifth, allow the glory of big-pockets to cover the reality, near-zero, folks.

The people have awakened, with Main Street showing anger. For how long? NYU's Stern wants to move away from a financial focus. What took you so long, fellas? Stiglitz notes that banking is (ought to be) more utilitarian than not. Want to step up to replace Big Ben?

The goal here is to thoroughly deconstruct that which looks so glorious from a distance and to foster a proper description of how it ought to be (imperative for the continuation of the American spirit).

---

Afterword:

Let's see, in the past week, we had several days slide of the Big Chimera. Then, there was an up day, then it started up today, and finally fizzled. Okay. What gives? Well, the Street vernacular talks 'The Market' as if there such a thing. Gosh, isn't that like saying 'The Economy' which we know does not exist?

Then, the uncountable talking heads and, supposedly insightful writers, all dispense their insights about why 'The Market' does this or that. Now, how many times do we have to see this to know that it's a crap shoot? Is this what we're supposed to build our future on?

Notwithstanding that near-zero says that gains in 'The Market' are suspect, we can still, and will, entertain notions about why such silliness has evolved as an epitome of the modern way. We have oodles of peoples every day (the above mentioned talkers and writers) offering their take on the matter. For all that hot air, and wasted ink, what was the contribution?

Yes, that is the question. We know that fiat currency is problematic. We know too, that gaming is not what you do with your grocery money. We know, three, that expecting someone to bail you out after you've gamed away your beans is the height of idiocy (and, generally, not allowed in polite society). We know, four, that the associated stupidities deal with leveraging and tranche-ing, to name only a couple of many. We know a whole lot of other things.

Yet, Big Ben, you seem to think that this is what we need. Wake up, guy. And, Mr President, work to have a closure of the market for a whole week. You have the power. Now, when and how to do that would be defined. During the downtime, there would be major surgery.

If you ask why? Well, why not? What has evolved is a sham on the face of the earth.

The metaphor? Open-heart surgery, of course. We would remove the heart of the beast that has been allowed to put its tentacles everywhere and put in one that is more amenable to advanced society (that is, who the heck needs John Galt?).

If you don't want to do that, nationalize the banks, at least. It's not too late. Which? Those who are deemed too big to fail.

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

10/16/2014 -- Silliness comes to mind.

10/15/2014 -- Today, the markets were down, again, as in, to the point where 2014 is negative in "gains" (I loathe to use that term for the ill-begotten takings). Now, of interest here is that the DOW got up above 17K hitting all sorts of new highs. The elation was continued even with a Fed head change, Ben to Janet. It was like a game, how high can we go? All bolstered by the largess of the Fed. Chimera? Cheshire multiple? Yes, all sorts of problems that are overlooked due to the power of those who run the game. Yet, the problems could be resolved via proper computation (and, by that, I do not mean algorithmic trading). ... I have to admit that I did lose the proper view what with the noise of the partying influencing the brain. But, I did not go in the rush. Nor do I bemoan the fact (as did President Clinton talking about his missing the upturn - actually, Bill, you need to talk to me about how that ca-pital-sino crowd is antithetical to what we need for a sustainable economy - okay?). Just watching was a conscious choice. And, we may have an upturn. What will be needed for that is uncertain? Is it within Janet's power to talk coo-coo, goo-goo to the addicts enough to turn around this thing? At some point, though, the underlying house-of-cards will, again, be problematic. Who will suffer? ... That enumeration is necessary.

08/04/2012 -- I can hear it: with the DOW over 13K, what are you talking about using 'chimera'? Well, look at the dire warnings, for one. Are you looking at FB as a poster boy? We'll get technical and explain the problem. Do we have a solution, at this time? Yes, essentially.

Also, the market pushers say that they need things like program trading, and whole bunch of other stuff that we'll get to. So, the idea is that we need computer-based 'gaming' in order to discover 'price' and to provide liquidity. Liquidity? Yes, like that put into the pockets of Zuck (see 7 points on FB) and his ilk after the IPO. You see, those who made money bailed when the price was high. It is estimated that if they sold now, the take would be 1/2. Notice that I didn't say return (for what? -- 'gains' obtained this way are near-zero). Whose to cheer that a few make some massive amount of bucks (well, beyond those personally involved -- even the bankers who put deals together)? This type of thing is capitalism? If so, do we really need this, folks?

12/13/2011 -- Pavlov and dogs. May seem appropriate, yet dogs eat mostly to live (that is, we're talking about Pavlov frustrating a biological imperative). We, on the other hand, do not need the ca-pital-sino (invisible hand? -- fantasy). -- On the Ponzi-ness: the basis has been spent (some see it as hand-dipping into a well-funded pot) with hopes for future funding; was that not the way? Of course, that brings up the serious issues of how do we ever obtain future payments with some certainty when so many obfuscate in order to rake off the cream (especially, those who run the system)? -- Belated nod to OWS, etc.

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

Heard, from others, that the Wall Streeters jeer: we cannot help that we are good at what we do, find a job you lazy protesters. Oh, yes, Wall Streeters, you are good at what, exactly? Oh, yes, having defined the shell game, then you keep it running so that monies are sucked out of the pockets of the hapless.

08/13/2011 -- Banks still struggling. We could have taken them over.

05/25/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at!

04/03/2011 -- Tis tranche and trash.

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

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

11/22/2010 -- Tranching, under the guise of securitization? Silly games.

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

05/07/2010 -- Out of control, essentially, and not healthy for the backbone.

03/20/2010 -- The basic problem of capitalism is that the Made-offs are its chief representative.

02/01/2010 -- NYTimes reports that AIG's shell game wasn't on the fringe.

Modified: 01/08/2019

Gravy train I

Moral: Wherein we start a series to look at the ideological errors of capitalism as leading to trains that are gravy (for some) and to nowhere (for most).

---

First, let's recall our common basis. Well, the reality shows just how easily duped we can be.

firstbusinessx.com had on the Lehman guy (Lawrence G. McDonald) who wrote the book about the failure of common sense. He reminded us of the 'mark to market' fiasco last year where the Congress capitulated and allowed this to be relaxed.

That is, the politicos, who ,by definition, salivate when a buck is passed beneath their noses, were enticed to do this by the financial (of all types) lobbyists. Yes, indeed. Then, we got the bubble going again, and the best-and-brightest are slobbering at the thought of their fat bonuses.

We would have been better off, folks, if we had just nationalized these people's little (actually, very large) sucking pumps and had another look at the problems.

But, no, we're faced with the 'mass weapons of financial destruction' (thanks, Warren) plus there are many vehicles whose value is not known. We also know that we bailed out the people, then they have the gall to think that we ought to applaud their mania.

The guy mentioned the 'ivory tower' status of the mucky-mucks at Lehman who ruled with an iron fist, and a set of brass knuckles. Gosh, people, we got rid of the king's rule here, with its enclave of hanger ons.

Yet, now we are to allow a new class of supposedly the 'best' rule our beans (actually, eat our beans and return only flatulence)?

Let's see, that great state of Massachusetts gave the 'old Kennedy' seat to a Republican. Not that either party has anything over the other (what? they both listen to lobbyists), yet this result does bring the attention back to our mother state.

Naisbitt's opinion about China ought to give us motivation to re-look at what went down in the 1600s in good old Mass as a means to figure out how to spread the gravy (with lumps, of course) a little better.

Naturally, Harvard (Cambridge College) will have to play heavily in the discussions.

Remarks:

01/13/2012 -- A re-look at this. 

03/16/2011 -- On the rise of the professional politician (will there ever be the citizen polico? that is, those who do not salivate when a buck is passed beneath the nose) toward robber barony. The M & Ms are apropos. As well, need to bring in Schervish's viewpoint.

02/16/2011 -- Gravy train II.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

01/03/2011 -- Ah yes, now there are demands. The question remains: what growth other than the pockets of these types?

11/02/2010 -- Over a year later, the message is the same, except some changes have occurred. But Big Ben continues in his ways. Of real note is that the jobless rate is high; out-housing really set up for that. Also, we need to re-look at that learned from the 'vons' guys, Ludwig and Friedrich. See Near Zero.

09/28/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

01/22/2010 -- We need to balance an awareness of the soup that controls synaptic activity with the fact of the wiring aspect. The use of 'neuropeptidergic' mostly reminds those who may have perfect wiring (or think that they do) that their cognitive function is more than can be be modeled by electrical circuitry.

Modified: 01/13/2012

The ideological errors of capitalism II - Adam Smith redux

Moral: Wherein we extend the look at capitalism and argue that reasonable people need to retake both Adam Smith and David Hume from those who have used the poor souls to found their irrational arguments (jawboning, by necessity - as capitalism fosters shell games and migrates to inflationary schemes to the detriment of the people).

---

Ideological errors:

I - Casino, II - Adam Smith, III - Shell games, IV - Made-offs, V - Culture, VI - Classism, VII - Wealth, VIII - Disingenuity, IX - ... (list does not end)

---

Ah, but reasonable, and irrational, need to be heavily qualified. Hume has had an influence on many sides of arguments, which is interesting in itself. Kant, even, was influenced. Consider, that the casino capitalists, and laissez-faire people, quote Adam makes him turn over in his grave. He bemoans what the best-and-brightest and the fat cats have wrought. We need to give the guy, and his friend Hume, proper rest and honour.

So, how do we do this?

Before we get there, we need to look at how the fat cat perspective came to be. In some cases, it's a modern extension of Lords/Serfs problem. Both of these, naturally, have some sense of entitlement (it's natural). However, the Lords had the power. What you might say is that some haven't attained maturity? Is it not interesting that we can see some many bring their immaturity to the stage so as to begrief others?

Given that in the modern world, another class, namely wizards (oh, they were there before, but of lesser cardinality) can fill their pockets, to boot, does not confound the basic issue.

That an economy, cannot use 'the' economy for several reasons, is a system is obvious. Why else the leaning toward risk management? Yes, that viewpoint (blinders, ought we say?) which two years ago was saying, ah, we have it all in order, never again any downturns.

Oh? It was asked before. That questions remain. Both Hume and Smith will figure strongly, as will others, in the coming discussions.

Now, the scope of the economic system will vary. Now, for the first time, we're verging on some international variety, though there have been fairly large empires before. That is, international on a political scale.

Guess what? The past few decades have seen the emergence of super-dude companies (remember, that we've allowed them personhood) that transcend, in their minds, any political control.

Aside: China, please keep up your ways, as we need to put some of these in their places.

It's time to stop, for now. Let's say this about our friend, Adam. His study was moral philosophy. Any clue to what that is, corporate mucks? Sheesh, Business Week just described the temporary, permanent employee. Ah, so many other things of this nature to describe.

All the while, the best-and-brightest bathe in their tubs of bonus money.

Just like Japan, we stand the chance of having a generation that never gets the opportunity to make traction.

What is all this? Labor gives more value to capitalism than has been allowed. To get away from 'junk' and such, we need to revamp to allow some element of craftsmanship and to recognize that 'touch' is imperative for complicated systems.

Ah, yes, the commentator said, the Street says that their best-and-brightest are their capital. So, they get paid well. Have similar returns ever been applied to any other resource in the past?

Remarks:

01/08/2019 -- Added in the index of posts on this subject.

06/11/2015 -- Computers? Out of control, in more ways than one. Adam rolls over (again and again and ...).

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

12/13/2011 -- Pavlov and dogs. May seem appropriate, yet dogs eat mostly to live (that is, we're talking about Pavlov frustrating a biological imperative). We, on the other hand, do not need the ca-pital-sino (invisible hand? -- fantasy).

09/21/2011 -- On Wealth.

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

03/15/2011 -- The M & Ms are apropos.

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

03/20/2010 -- The basic problem of capitalism is that the Made-offs are its chief representative.

01/19/2010 -- Let's give a toast to JAL! 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.

Modified: 01/08/2019