Indubitably

Moral: Wherein we consider that, in the long run, the little people pay. Has it ever been any different, since those same people seem to have an infinite capacity for victimization? Well, conversely, those who do the victimizing appear to demonstrate that lack of conscience is unfathomable.

---

In terms of a recent series of events, we now see, after a media frenzy and a congressional pummeling, that the focus comes back to the user, in this case, the driver. Of course, the technical issues are not entirely laid to rest, yet. Plenty ask why Toyota thinks that they have 'indubitable' systems.

But, let us return to the macro matters, for which the micro problems are very much an example.

Aside: some are thinking about, and planning for, havoc that will come from solar storms.

You see, with the problems of the smaller domains, like the auto (see discussion about the cyber-physical systems), we can do it right. Mind you, that doesn't reduce error rates to zero, as some would have us believe. But, it would push it to a minimal level with caveats to be careful.

The same type of thinking can help the economy, but we cannot get our hands around the problems. Why? We have been led astray by the best-and-brightest, in many ways. Whereas, the Vienna School is correct to tout undecidability.

You see, the intellectual frameworks on this western side of the pond like to push control, as if quasi-empiricism means nothing and as if we have mathematics and the computational under our thumbs; is it not part of our manifest destiny? But, things are complicated, despite protestations otherwise; what are the protestations? Well, brayings of jackasses who would turn a perfectly expressed operational problem into a game of school boys (pissing contest, in other words - we know the type). They surely like to push blame and to effect punishment without regard to the fact that some things are beyond volition and our control. Okay, we do need accountability - people do play the role of bad guy.

These issues form a conundrum, essentially.

That is, we have the miscreants who use success as a shield (think Made-off, if you need a recent example) and threaten any who want the truth. So many examples could be used.

But, there too, many (ought I say most) want to contribute their part and to not ride on the coattails of others (to wit, not exhibit the lordly prince syndrome as a big factor).

We also have that the little people bail out those who do the jerk (third derivative, folks).

One thing that we need to learn is that even if everyone were perfectly rational and well-behaved (please, apply the most ideal notion that you can think of - but, don't spit out 'utopian' pejoratively - okay? - this is serious business), there would be problems. These problems are the ones that need our attention. Trouble is, the 'noise' from the miscreants keeps us from the proper viewpoint.

And, things get complicated, too, just by the nature of things. We left any idyllic world long ago, if it ever existed. So, we find reasonable people thinking of the issues and desiring to extend some recommendations (as if little Timmy would listen).

Here is an example that we'll be using for several posts.

Remarks:

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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).

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

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.

03/19/2010 -- The little people never experience this: The floors were covered with plush Persian carpets; the walls were done in rich walnut and cherry woods, and hung on many of them were oil paintings; we were served only with sterling silver, and the fixtures were gold. From a recent book about Madoff.

Modified: 02/08/2011

Consumer, auto

Moral: Wherein we consider the current Toyota incidents as a chance to ask: who looks out for the consumer who is, essentially, the sink of the economy?

---

First, we ought to be grateful that it is Toyota who is in the hot seat. They (of course, after we acknowledge Deming) led the quality drive (pun) for a very long time and can regain their reputation.

The auto experience is an example of how big business (auto) and big government (and, in each case the best-and-brightest) tell us what we want. However, there is much more to the growing complexity of the auto than we're allowed to think about.

It is obvious that even the best cannot resolve some issues that underly software and its quirks. The net effect is that people, as drivers, will be central to containing the problems. Of course, we must act intelligently as drivers (for example, texting while driving is not smart).

What we're beginning to learn is that the car is becoming increasingly computerized or is becoming like a computer. Also, auto engineering has grown to cover quite a few intellectual domains.

Yet, we're driving as if we've just got past the horse-less carriage? What is the timeline of the current control systems (wheel, two pedals - some with three)? Are they outdated?

Is it any wonder that people have problems with the intuitive match, since generation by generation, we are becoming increasingly game oriented (which is not a bad thing). Why haven't we adjusted control systems?

Well, that the racing people (Danica, et al) have optimized their handling of the current configuration does lead toward some drivers thinking that being the wheel constitutes that they are in a race. Not so, people. It is transportation, for the most part. There are other enjoyments such as driving in inspiring landscapes, and such. That some drivers divert their attention to other things, and create risks, can be shown as indicative of the problem of the controls not engaging the person.

--- Aside

One question: why is there no user group related to car users? Every modern computational framework has one of these. What does the driver have? Don't say Car Talk, or manufacture brochures, and such. The issue is the state of being a driver and what it means. It is not maintenance, design (though, we need to look at serious modifications at some point), or trade-offs on performance. Those are covered by various interest groups.

Notice that most computer systems now allow some type of personalization? That was a struggle to attain. It did not just happen. The same sort of thing has shown up in the car, to a certain extent. You can set your environment, adjust seats, move the steering wheel, and such.

Ever think about what would be an improved driving experience? Let's look at the current configuration. The stop/go is related to the feet. This seems correct, carrying forward our long use of movement by walking. Then, we have the hands to change gears, signal, steer.

What if we steered by our feet? Don't laugh. Do not we balance with our lower appendage? We could signal, too; it wasn't long ago that the bright switch was on the floor. One had to stomp around to find the thing.

Having the switch on the steering wheel was nice, but there was not a standard way to do it. Of course, only the frequent traveler, who had to use different cars, had a problem. There are similar issues with differences that can be problematic.

However, what part of the game control knobs could be used with cars? There is a lot that could be discussed there.

---

And so, it's in the belly of the beast that we need to wake up to, as consumers. How are things communicating? What are the different chips? How are they used? Even this, what algorithms are being used for control?

You know what, people, some of the testing by the industry has been real-time, using drivers as the subjects. Allowing proprietary shields to some of these specifics ought not be the cause of lack of oversight.

Just asking questions here, folks. The fact of the matter is that we see one problem having a succession of possible causes thrown out (mat, pedal, switch, ...), with each cause and fix supposed to quiet the situation, yet the problem continued.

How many issues of this type lurk? You know, there is the concept of systemic which would be industry-wide.

We can say this: with software being a central factor, there are a whole lot of things that will be required to maintain stability of systems.

Anyone looking at those issues? Here, we have the concept of undecidability (dealing with decisions, especially those computational) to discuss.

Remarks:

01/22/2013 -- USA Today story on settlements. From three years ago, lest we forget.

02/08/2011 -- There was a report today concerning a study on the SUA problem that has been going on quietly. More news will be coming later when the report is technically analyzed.

09/28/2010 -- It nice to see the IEEE weigh in. Notice: sensors galore, drive in the loop, ...

04/19/2010 -- Genies, no not genius, indeed!

03/16/2010 -- Response to Toyota by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc. Did Toyota really use 'infallible' in describing their systems? One professor seems to think so.

03/12/2010 -- Toyota's web site that is related to recalls.

03/09/2010 -- Can of worms is what we've gotten from letting the genie out of the bottle.

02/22/2010 -- Business Week uses 'drive-by-wire' in an article about computational driving.

02/10/2010 -- There seems to be a rash of recalls, of late. The problem of value versus quality has been warped by an improper handling of near-zero.

Modified: 01/22/2013

Consumer III

Moral: Wherein the consumer's role, as an economic sink, is not sustainable with endless increases in debt applied toward unlimited accumulation of stuff, a lot of which is of questionable quality. That 'junk' has taken on some panache with the financial folks is problematic; for the consumer, it ought not be at the start of the consumption chain (junk begets junk).

---

This post's contents are partly motivated by articles in an issue of the Atlantic (April 2009) that has been under a 'to read' pile for a few months. In particular, there was cover article, One World, Under God , that appeared to relate to thoughts on globalization. Then, there were articles about China and India who are, and will be, the largest consumer players just from a size of the population perspective.

Why? The consumer set's cardinality is vastly huge. Now, let's recall that the consumer part of the economy is not just about 'stuff' and its accumulation, which is not sustainable. That is, analysis shows that the recent upbeat in consumerism in the US was paid for by borrowing. One large creditor was, and is, China and its population who sacrificed for our sake, albeit not by choice but by government decree.

As Fallows said in his article, same issue: "Two years ago, ..., I described an economic symbiosis in which Chinese workers assembled many of the world’s products—while ... America or other rich countries got the lion’s share of the financial returns. It is the announced policy of the Chinese government, and of many Chinese companies, to keep more of the rewards in China. ... Outsiders can rightly criticize the Chinese government ... no one can criticize its ambition to increase the rewards for its people’s work."

For Americans, there will be one thing that we can learn from watching China over the next few years (decades). What? Given that we've allowed the capitalistic ideology to descend to its lowest level by allowing the best-and-brightest (oh, we're to thank them with bonuses? - rake backs, please) to lead us on the perdition path of casino capitalism.

We must now endure the consequences, part of which will be that another ideology (ah, Marx never left) will have the greater economic hand.

Sheesh. Nixon opened the door. Crazy materialism, and more, took it off the hinge. Get used to it, folks.

We, the populace, can still benefit from the coming changes.

Remarks:

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.

11/16/2010 -- A recap of sorts.

09/26/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

01/07/2010 -- We need to look at capitalism, closely.

12/19/2009 -- We ought to build things to create jobs.

12/10/2009 -- China is big enough to stand on its own consumership.

Modified: 12/13/2011

Consumer II

Moral: Wherein the consumer needs resources to perform the role. From whence comes these? Wages (implies jobs), Returns, Rents, Debts, ...

---

As said before, there's lot to the topic. If people didn't consume, what would drive the economy? Well, we can discuss that at another time (Todo #1). Throughout this post, other topics are identified for further attention.

In the meantime, we can recall Maslov's contribution to the subject, via his hierarchy. The most basic consumption is for health and welfare, including housing, food, and such. Then, all sorts of discretionary things stack up after that.

Which brings up this question, can a subdued consumption pattern sustain a happy life? An associated question is, can one stay within one's means and be happy? Does this not lead to a certain degree of independence? (Todo #2).

Many possible variations exist to the theme of consumption, but, a topic to cover now, since Washington is heavy into these discussions due to the large unemployment rate, concerns jobs. As, without jobs, with what do we consume?

As an aside, wage is generally the major factor for labor and can spawn interminable discussions. However, the model ought to consider, too, 'rent' as it may apply to labor, within the context of a society. Seems that the best-and-brightest have already figured this out. This needs further discussion (Todo #3).

Now, one factor in US job availability is globalization, now the new colonialistic scheme. Recently, PhilG's blog mentioned that even Sikorsky is making things abroad, and they're heavily defense oriented (mind you, paid by taxpayer dollars). That is, the US Defense has farmed out oodles of work. In particular, Sikorsky has producing plant in China.

Looking at the post, and the comments, sort of motivates this post, as the issue of outhousing is still very much open (Todo #4).

There has been a lot of talk about how US consumers have gone too far, to the point of massive debt and to thinking that their houses were ATMs. (We need to look at those who lure the consumer into debt, too -- see this piece found at Philg's.). Okay, we have more savings being reported, now over the past year, which bears some discussion (Todo #5). Yet, it is reported, too, that other countries save more, in particular we hear China and India mentioned.

Well, we must consider that China and India differ from the US in many cultural ways that are very important. For one, neither of these nations can claim a ‘dream’ for its people (no matter how tenuous this might seem in reality for most US citizens). Or, in other words, who is beating down the door to move there in droves? Too, in the case of China, the government is forcing the savings. How many trips have there been to China, on the part of the US, to talk them into letting their people spend?

Oh yes, American business people are beating down the doors. Are these not the new colonialists?

Both countries have cultural and social problems that bear attention. A Business Week article mentions a police officer in India, living under a bridge. He's quoted as saying that a swank hotel won't even let them use the toilet.

The US may not be perfect, however we do have some things going for us. Labor, those who are now without jobs, do have rights such as those mentioned in the Constitution. One problem right now is that the upper classes, supposedly those favored in the Capitalist's view, are very good at diminishing the rights of Labor and, at the same time, in arguing why their take (sometimes, outright thievery) is that which the law condones. (Todo #6).

So, as old man Ford is quoted as saying, we need to pay the workers in order to have them buy stuff. Of course, in his day, 'stuff' was not inferior, throw away, imports (Todo #7).

Remarks:

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.

12/09/2009 -- Cannot sustain the consumer with debt.

12/04/2009 -- Frugality as a way to riches.

Modified: 12/13/2011

Consumer I

Moral: Wherein the consumer is the sink for the economy. It's an important function, release of pressure.

---

Earlier, there was a post on a missing link, namely the financiers. Well, actually, even though labor was mentioned before, we have not addressed the consumer part of the macro equation (notice the 'consumption' line on the bottom of the graph).

For one thing, we'll look at the consumer as part of the GDP equation: GDP = C + Inv + G + (eX - i M) Here, we have the GDP being defined as an expenditure-based function of private consumption, business investment, government spending, and the net of exports and imports.

Before proceeding, we need to consider that the GDP has many downfalls, and other methods have been proposed, such as the Genuine Progress Indicator.

In any case, we know that there are many people (growing population) who consume which has an impact on the economy. For the US the past few years, personal consumption has been the largest part of the GDP with a side-effect of a growing debt basis per capita. It makes sense, since people are abundantly there, that the economy would have a human focus. We can say that without even referring to t-issues. Though, fat cats are antithetical to a proper economic model.

How can there be consumer expenditures without wages and rent? That latter is mentioned in the context of arguments about minimum wage. People are due rent just for being here (hey, hold the mud slinging - Marx did have one thing right -fictitious capital! Indeed!).

We'll have a lot to cover, hence this is Consumer I. Who knows how many post there'll be?

For starters, this little picture of Big Ben and his saver sacking ways is from today's Tech Ticker's talk with Howard Davidowitz. There are several things that old Howard says that are right on.

• Our debt strategy is turning the buck into toilet paper. See image and Tech Ticker discussion. What good is the buck for the consumer if it has no value?
• Davidowitz lists some current issues: houses are not there as ATMs any longer, unemployment is deep, personal bankruptcies are on the rise, and more.

We'll get to those issues and more, including jobs. For that, the issue is really rent (though, we may need another concept - due to the bias of prior use and connotation limits), more so than wage. How was that not every discussed (something to research)?

Remarks:

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

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.

12/09/2009 -- Cannot sustain the consumer with debt.

12/03/2009 -- We'll have a chain of posts related to the Consumer part of the economy.

Modified: 01/27/2012