Chimera, again

Moral: Wherein we stop to reflect, now that the chimera's sirens are calling again to the hapless to put their money on a shaky foundation since Big Ben continues with his sacking of the savers and with his infatuation with collecting toxic assets (see Remarks, 02/01/2011).

--

As such a move may imply more effort than the mere look back, to wit 7oops7 and truth engineering, which could be claimed to be a space-filler, though we did earlier succumb to the temptation.

--

There have been some recent developments that need to be considered. So, we'll be getting to those. For now, here's a list.

• From a technical sense (read Quants), the SOS approach looks to overcome a whole lot of problems involved with complexity which exacerbate some basic issues. Yet, using an intuitive approach (which is suspect in certain circles), one has to think that projections squish some part of reality (we'll get to how, and why, the best-and-brightests' overlay on the rest of the populace grates) while lifts trample (due to the assumptions that go into such -- oh, by the way, the chimera is an example of a 'lift').
• The FCIC. Oh, much to say about this (see 2008 (4 posts) bullet). Wait, did the committee finger the contributions of King Alan and Big Ben? Too, mania can be used; it was fostered by giddy belief in the gilded wizards of the modern age.
• China will continue to play a large role. The combined count of the impoverished there, and in India, is double the population of the US. Yet, we envy them. Of course, is our house clean (next bullet)?
• In November, the voters went red, again. We are now under the regimes thereby elected. Are any of us angels? On the other hand, does anyone even think about beyond reproach, anymore? This story tells many tales. It is 'nuf just to point to it.
• ...
• See Remarks: Also, the issue of value/worth (and money) is still open (Davidowitz' take). Anyone for culprits? Anything done for the systemic issues?
• ...

Remarks:

10/05/2012 -- Yes, yes, chimera it is.

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.

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

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

03/23/2011 -- The hopes spring, again, forgetting, of course, near-zero, all because of M&M. See the real story. But, Big Ben ought to know better.

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.

02/01/2011 -- Davidowitz says that the Fed is driving people toward the riskier side. We know where that leads, namely bigger fill for the pockets of those who run the game. Granted, these types can then spend, yet with the majority of the populace enslaved by chains of debt (including that yoke which is on the whole country), does that a sustainable economy make?

Modified: 10/05/2012

Recap of sorts

Moral: Wherein we pause to reflect a little since the blog's first year passed without comment.

Well, we're three months behind on that aspect. But, then things are different now than they were just a mere two weeks ago.

In parts of the country, there were very small blue islands within a vast sea of red. Gosh, what does all that mean? In terms of the viewpoint being expressed here, not much.

Let's, for now, just look at a few themes that will continue further.

----

We can use some of the categories as a means to organize the material.

• Ca-pital-sino -- it is obvious that some have taken Adam Smith's ideas too far. This we want to discuss further, as that tendency to the right has no stronger foundational basis than does any of the others. As already said, the gaming aspect needs some conditional limitations imposed. They are not going to be mathematical but will be social in flavor. How can this be?
• Ideology -- it is quite visible that ideological gaming spawned ca-pital-sino. Why? Our intent is to lay out a framework with which to condition the gaming. To date, we have brought forth the reminder that we all have drives which are, for the most part, toward individuation and maturity. That latter means that we don't want meddling in our lives. Yet, we ought not meddle in others' lives either. As well, that the related decisions need to be knowledge based is obvious. Again, how is this to be?
• Numeracy -- it is unfortunate that those who follow, to the limit, what we might learn by mathematization and algorithmization have imposed on the rest a type of bestial system. That this idiocy has gathered such strength is that fat cats have had their pockets filled to the detriment of the commonweal. How was this allowed to happen?
• Underdetermination -- it is the fact that we are serious lapse in what we can and do know. Now, our maturity provides the basis for decisioning under the resulting uncertainty. That the computer has become a major player raises a whole bunch of issues. The main one is that the underlying framework is undecidable. Plenty have danced around this subject, but linear logic allows us to look at the problem more realistically.
• Big Ben -- it is to our consternation that we see real-time, and less than insightful, experimentation with our selves and our monies by a handful of the best and brightest. There is only one thing to say. Sheesh!!! Well, we'll continue to discuss this problem and its potential resolution.
• Jobs -- it is the case that the best and brightest, and the fat cats, have exported work, via out-housing and colonization, to cheaper areas (read, easier to be exploited); the American worker has been short-changed; too, initiatives, such as six sigma (a form of Quant'ification), have resulted in the degradation of the work experience so that everyone is on the proverbial treadmill without any relief in sight. And, those not on the treadmill envy the state of those who are. How did all of this come to be?
• Consumption -- it is seen that without jobs that pay and without means for purchasing the populace must sink into a pit of debt with an unfathomable bottom. Yet, those who model the economy place the role of the consumer as primary, in size and importance. How can we see such continued inconsistency from the best and brightest?

---

The intent is to continue with the analysis and discussion of things dismal (meaning, of course, economic).

Remarks:

12/05/2010 -- Raj Patel has the proper grasp on the 'financial madness' that is threatening us.

11/26/2010 -- On the Greenspan Put (Rolling Stone).

11/24/2010 -- We need to list trading types that would not be possible without computational support for the associated markets, permissive legal structures, unaware populace, and more: gaming by options, ...

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

11/18/2010 -- We'll be taking a closer look at the numer-ants (my terminology for those who think that numeracy is it, which is about most of the best and brightest in the western world and those of the eastern who are coming over here and eating our lunch) this next year. Why? That the quasi-empirical framework is without due attention is why. Now, numer-ants like systems. What is wrong with the systems view will take a whole lot of attention. How about some convoluted system, such as this one. Ever consider why these come about? It's easier to hide book cooking and its ilk.

Modified: 12/05/2010

The real basis for capitalism, II -- knowledge

Moral: Wherein we continue the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which we all hope is fair, thereby, hoping to honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

This topic will take some time as 'knowledge' includes science and engineering, as we would all expect. Too, there is that which has been seriously misconstrued, namely agents and what they (can, think that they, ...) know. We started to look at some issues related to analytics and will get back to that due to its importance and growing presence (ah, that overlord of the mindful).

However, there is another: philosophy. Ah! In the modern age? Well, consider David Hume who was mentioned before as an example, but we'll get back to him.

---

The New Yorker's review of a book about Adam's work (the review mentions Hume) is worth a read. Notice that Adam knew that 'free markets' lead to the type of state that we see now: a few very large critters owning a very big percentage of the goods (or, in other words, fat cats of small cardinality (LT 0.1%) have their fat hands on the majority of the goods (GT 99.9%) whilst the remainder of us split a very small piece). Adam actually suggested that government has the role of keeping the playing field level.

Free men may gravitate toward markets, yet 'free' markets are not such, for long.

That is, folks, the ca-pital-sino that chases after trains that leave the station is not what we need. Nor is it something that Adam would want us to endure. No, what we see is a gravy train for some.

---

Consider an old Chinese thought that is the inspiration (basis?) for lazy fare that is so appealing to some. How is such a wonderful, and subtle, idea turned into that twisted idea of those libertarians who want to mangle the works for everyone but themselves?

---

One thing of note, that will be discussed in depth, is agent as a member of a system. Now, Adam was right to focus on the roles of the agent. Take his example of the coat and all that went into its creation and use. Namely, he stressed that the 'invisible hand' comes about from the actions of the many, mostly with them following the urges of their own self interest. This is a bottom-up view.

But, as we know from science and engineering (middle out), we need top-down. From whence this? Well, the system provides that. And, just how is this defined? Adam would probably say that it's the government's role (however government is defined).

We already talked about how some capitalists think of Adam as the Prophet of their religion of greed. This, folks, is a degradation of that great mind. Let's set things straight, shall we? The fat cats invisible hand is really in a raking mode, from the hapless who are the many to the pockets of the few.

Who has looked at the 'system' aspect? It'll need metaphysics (yes!) as well as neurophysiology, and we'll get there (in our own time).

Remarks:

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

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

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

01/03/2011 -- Ah, how timely, a Roadmap for Growth. Yes, the golden people demand. Where is our Magna Carta to protect ourselves against these folks?

12/02/2010 -- Banking is a utility (but we also need plumbers - a few, not an army).

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino

?11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging.

11/02/2010 --Ludwig, being a product of his time and locality, seems to have thought that the 'elite' would lead the way. Oh, guy, did you really think that? Do we not see that the best-and-brightest are more couple with perdition than not?

10/29/2010 -- Bookstaber on Reich's book. Wonderful commentary, to boot.

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).

10/27/2010 -- Well, we're not the least corrupt, thanks to the screwed up capitalistic framework that has been imposed over the past half century.

10/26/2010 -- One way to know, the media.

Modified: 09/21/2011

Ergodic hypothesis

Moral: Wherein we start the slow trek toward a defensible position in regard to that which stinks and, thereby, honor Adam Smith and other thinkers.

---

Ah, did we ever say that we have the answers?

Last time, we were looking at a constructive basis for capitalism; that goal is still there. However, a couple of concepts ought to be introduced into the argument. These are the ergodic hypothesis and fixed point issues.

• Ergodic hypothesis -- We mentioned this as a comment earlier, while talking about the problems brought on by misuse of mathematics by the 'quants' view. As the article said, Samuelson noted that bringing in this principle was needed to make economics more scientific. That is, we can solve the game of risk, it is thought.
• Fixed point -- Deep with the thinking that would apply the ergodic principle is some notion about convergence that may be stronger than warranted. In the large, we do not see much that is really divergent. The sun rises. The car runs down the road that is usually passable, without overly large potholes, and so forth. But, in the small, convergence relies on equivalence.

Now, given that we mentioned equivalence, please note that this is not an easy problem. And, I'm not talking about what 'is' is. You see, any equivalence decision will have been set up within a predefined framework supported by axioms, and other assumptions, in an operational sense. Yet, in order to attain an equivalent choice, all sorts of, supposedly, unimportant properties are thrown out or trivialized into a type of norm.

What do I mean when I say that 'equivalence' is hard. Firstly, the problem is NP of some sort. We looked at that earlier. Secondly, there are undecidable issues involved related to the context.

----

The basic problem that needs attention is that concepts, like Arrow-Debreu equilibrium, furthers the delusions brought on by mathematization via computation. But, perhaps, that was inevitable; the latter progresses so the former would try to make use of the new facilities.

In short, though, not only do we not have 20-20 foresight (and hindsight) due to undecidability (and more), some things cannot be computed which begs the question of the Church hypothesis which will have to be addressed, to boot.

Remarks:

02/02/2012 -- This post's subject motivated the Ideology series.

04/02/2011 -- Weierstrass did not banish the motivations behind Berkeley's concerns.

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

10/13/2010 -- We'll get back to our itemization, soon. But, cannot resist mentioning that the foreclosure mess is indicative of the types of problems that 'capitalism' will face, especially as it facilitates movement of money from the pockets of the hapless to that of the fat cats. As well, analysis of Paulson, and how he benefited Goldman Sachs - who were rolling in the dough while others lost their livelihoods -- with his actions, and inactions, pertains to the next Remark.

10/07/2010 -- You know what is funny? Those who tend to ca-pital-sino laugh about State planning, to wit the failure of the USSR, etc. You see, these people claim, models, like the Input-output model, are touted as the means for that type of planning. Who can think of handling all that is necessary? But, then these same people see 'the market' as the means (look at the Arrow-Debreu view) based upon what (as in, what the hell is that? the money-sucking methods of Wall Street?)? The invisible hand?

Wait! What's the answer? Well we're getting there, albeit without any compunction about when.

Modified: 02/02/2012

The real basis for capitalism, I -- imperatives

Moral: Wherein we turn away from belaboring the error of ways and start to honor Adam Smith by having another look at the appeal, of capitalism's message, even to those who, currently, are exploited by the ideas.

---

For one, we all know that top-down does not work. We saw it in the family. How often was your mom or pop able to get your little behind to behave? Always? Oh wait, many were angels from the get-go!

We saw with certain 20th century experiments, that state planning does not work. For the most part. And, many took great pleasure in that. But, hey, capitalists, show me something of yours that has endured, other than exploitation of labor (see Image).

You see, the ravages of improper handling of undecidables, plus the fact that decisions are not made EVER with 20-20 foresight (despite the ASSumption by economists of rational (hah!) agents with perfect knowledge; that is beyond words - we cannot fathom such idiotic thinking) makes things fuzzy (at best).

Also, some have taken a firm hold on private property, and individual motivation, to support their laissez faire ideology, but that is not as strong as these think.

Adam and David might have been concerned about motivations (Keynes, I ought to use John to be consistent, used a metaphor of animal spirits). Yet, this, too, can be misconstrued. Perhaps, an update, using modern existential verities, might be a good way to start.

Hence, imperatives. However, we're not starting categorically though, at some point, this may be of interest. Way to go, Immanuel!

---

No, we can start with imperatives in a biological sense, yet with a human orientation. Every live entity subsumes its own piece of space, has its own metabolism, and such. Though, we may come to see parasites as something of interest to the discussion.

So, individuation is one concept that applies within all sorts of contexts. Independent agents, in other words. Yet, how many workers, especially those under the cloud of indentured slavery that is the modern corporate experience, consider themselves independent? Hey, if you take exception to that, look at any non-disclosure agreement forced upon the workforce and tell me that it is otherwise.

----

Yet, there is also the team requirement, in more than the military or athletic context. That is, no one is John Galt or Atlas, for that matter. In other words, the degree of individuation, economically (as in other domains), would be a spectrum. You have those who are bound into some type of group (by the way, how many of those high-class families could provide someone who could endure the enlisted man's burdens?)

Then, there are those who are free. Mind you, we think of this as the monied state in the capitalistic world. Yet, those who live simply are free, to boot.

That is, what is required to meet imperatives? You know, eat, sleep, ... Where in the list does one find this: have a huge mansion, with countless servants, in an area of utmost wealth, and such?

Aside: just as some cried over missed bonus money (even when their actions led others to states of extreme deprivation), all through history, we have had the takers and the doers. We'll be talking more about those on the take and those who actually do useful things.

----

If you had not seen it coming, we contend that capitalism is the way for us to have a more just society. But, not for the reasons put forth by those under the influence of the libertarian world view.

Let's get back to individuation and motivation (from biological imperatives and their social superpositions). You see, the former is one source for the arguments about private property. Oh, yes, accumulation to the max. But, just like the deleterious effects of too much fat on our bodies, there is a bad side of too much accumulation economically (oh? you might ask, why so? - ah, we'll get to that, too). Actually, near-zero is the concept for us to discuss here.

Now, given that property acquisition comes up, is it the key motivator? Well, that may be for some. What about doing a good job (the lowly worker who puts his heart and soul into performing well for a heartless company run by a soulless slob) which can be psychologically pleasant (actually, it's related to neurotransmitters - yet, a simple accomplishment can be as effective, in this manner, as the accumulation of billions of bucks - remember, near-zero)? There are other motivators, including those related to big-T issues.

---

Actually, it looks like accumulation is part of a measuring scheme which itself will bring in some type of palpable benefits. Is accumulation there by necessity? If you look at the majority, in the capitalistic sense, the accruals have some future goal. For many, just simple desires for a healthy and happy retirement.

To wit, though, we have to look at how many of those simple goals were trampled under given our present capitalistic makeup.

----

The following list of future topics is not a complete.

• labor, it's a role, folks, not a class, and consumers must have some resources
• we'll take a re-look at markets, as necessary, unfortunately we have only seen ca-pital-sino, so far -- not what is needed
• private versus public needs some more attention - public goods may be handled by private hands (with caveats and by those who live simply) but ought not be privatized (someone will own the earth? hah! they don't own their own shadow!)

Remarks:

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 and the CEO MVP.

01/03/2011 -- Ah, how timely, a Roadmap for Growth. Yes, the golden people demand. Where is our Magna Carta to protect ourselves against these folks?

11/08/2010 -- Big Ben, the basis that you learned in school, propagated as a professor, and are now trying to demonstrate as a wizard is suspect. You need to know this. Linear logic, et al, can help us discuss the issues. Are you really a proponent of capitalism or ca-pital-sino

11/03/2010 -- A big oops is emerging.

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

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

10/14/2010 -- Capitalism, as known now, requires an endless supply of suckers.

10/13/2010 -- A couple of recent items were talked about here several times. For one, foreclosures are under scrutiny, again. Now, that some legal processes were less than sound and true is coming out. Perhaps, 'real capitalism' does not need any legal intervention. (See Remarks) Secondly, Paulson, from Goldman Sachs, helping GS with his decisions. Ah, love it!!

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

Modified: 12/13/2011

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

The new kings

Moral: Wherein we consider that the sirens related to the big chimera do not have hold on all minds and that there is work related to the real backbone of the economy which is both refreshing to behold and necessary for our future.

----

Since so much effort and resource goes into the daily gaming, as the continual onslaught from all media reminds us, one might consider succumbing to the notion that "capital is king" or some such nonsense.

Well, from time to time, we ought to be reminded that not all economics is oriented to that which results in accumulations of most by the few and in the impoverishment of the many. A recent New Yorker article on Professor Duflo was one such reminder.

The focus is development economics. And, I might add, development of people for more than just making them available to be exploited by the new kings.

Who are this new royalty? Those in power in the multi-national companies who are the supposed epitome of capitalism. Kings in the past were geographically local and were a focal point for power and control. That is, the realm was framed upon portions of the planet and had an emphasis that was political in nature.

The new kings are not tied to any country, have now the global internet as a resource, and enrich a few (even if shareholders are included, their take pales when compared to that grabbed by the stars of the show - CEOs and their ilk).

The new kings are about acquisition: more capital, more glory, ... A recent Supreme Court ruling giving them an unlimited political voice reinforces the company as person myth and leads us to the situation where the largest bank account holder can then bully the rest of the populace.

The new kings are more about entrapment of the work force and customers into continual enslavement than development. The new kings move work to where they can most exploit (colonization). The new kings, and their thinking, have led the supposedly developed nations to a standstill where the developed ones are to buy only (from whence the means? unfathomable debt?) and to sit idly while savings diminish (thanks, Big Ben, saver sacker that you are) to nothing (oh, wait, we could go beyond zero to a negative interest).

We can be thankful that there are people who work on the issues related to economic development, yet the underlying threat is that the main effect will be more resources who can then be seen as fodder for those who are wont to exploit.

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.

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).

03/25/2013 -- The Atlantic had an article about King Abdullah II. Now, he is an example of a doer, from several angles. What I liked when I read it was that while being educated in Massachusetts, he bussed tables. What that means for those who don't know is clean up dirty dishes and such. When I, as a young man, was in the US Army, we had still had KP duty which included such types of things. Another task that ought to be tried once by everyone: cleaning the grease pit.

01/13/2012 -- We'll go more into why the need for the Magna Charta, this year.

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

05/09/2011 -- This needs to be look at in terms of doers.

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

09/25/2010 -- Capitalism was defined within a classist's framework. We can improve on that.

08/21/2010 -- The new kings are not 'royal' by any means; they're mainly takers (exploiters) extra-ordinaire. We need a Magna Carta, for business (local and global) in which rights of the workers (how else a consumer economy?), and more, are addressed. What would this look like?

07/27/2010 -- The Boston Globe had an interesting op-ed, recently, about these types. Of course, there are several types of best and brightest, including the quants. We'll need to address this topic again using what we know of the new kings. Ah, such confidence when underdetermination reigns.

07/21/2010 -- That we let systems run wild says a lot about us. That economics requires systems means that issues of control, truth, and related are of utmost interest to any attempt at founding a better basis. We'll get there, folks, by taming several speculative thrusts that were emboldened by theory, game and otherwise.

07/21/2010 -- Kings of the past had the peerage, in societies that allowed such. Some of these new kings do not have such, with ineffective Boards in some cases. Of interest to this work will be a new look at what roles the peerage had in the US and what this might mean to an improved economic basis.

07/10/2010 -- The machines rule (actually systems going wild). Perhaps, we'll learn from the China experiment.

07/06/2010 -- The real Founders are turning over in their graves.

07/02/2010 -- There are real kings.

06/17/2010 -- Need to collect discussions on development. Trickle down says that letting the big guys grow lifts the waters (hah!). More like the fat arses displace (and, perhaps, squash). What is needed is sustainability (even DAVOS talked this in 2010) that allows the most to reach some sort of potential (unlike the current in which about all is held by the few whilst the rest (most) hold nickles and dimes) .

06/16/2010 --In the past, we had only one king per geographic locale, with numerous henchmen (plus the bullies, would-be kings, that they are). Now, we have a growing set of kings (how many royal arses can we all kiss?) of this ephemeral type (that is, not kings to us in our daily lives, yet they have more than a delusion - just count the benes - boundless inflows of bucks and more). These kings reign in a realm that encompasses an increasingly enervated workforce (which appears to them to be infinite given colonization). Again, the questions arises: whence the means to found a proper economy which does have a large component in the equation, called the consumer? Somehow, we need to get these new kings roped in.

Is the answer a computational framework that replaces these hunks of idiocy with something that we can all appreciate? CEO apps?

Modified 07/25/2015

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

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

Backbone of the economy I

Moral: Wherein we consider that, despite what is the economy, the backbone is the essential friend of the economy, not those who game for the ill-begotten gain.

---

So, banks are making money, paying big bonuses, and screwing their depositors. What else is new?

Ah, how the fat cats love their spread!

And, Wall Street? Rotten to the core (Tech Ticker)!

And, Ben continues to sack the savers while letting those fat cats loll in their monies. Gosh, big guy, when will you awaken? We do NOT need the chimera in its current form!

Well, we'll have to do a series on the real backbone of an economy. IT IS NOT FINANCE (which is not even the heart, in its current form). Of course, many will think that the reference is to labor. Not!

Effectiveness at real solutions is the key. All of this will be addressed.

Example: an oft-overlooked Old Planter who exemplified what became the 'spirit' of the US.

The theme will continue, as the backbone has been broken down by the fat cats, who loll and do not need any bones, through, essentially, use of un-Constitutional practices, such as out-housing and exploitation.

This exploitation include the chimera which is really a giant sucking device. Some gain there; for each of those, a multitude loses. Very much, near-zero, folks.

Remarks:

11/04/2011 -- Tech Ticker asks a good questions about the darker side of Apple. Are any of the other tech companies any better? You know what? Workers always bear more of the load than they ought. Somehow, we've let those who can adopt the old Lord syndrome. This is not necessary to having a sustainable economy.

07/06/2010 -- The real Founders.

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

Modified: 11/04/2011

The Corporation II

Moral: Wherein we look at the recent decision about Corporate person hood and consider the positive angles.

---

It is very interesting, this new twist on Corporate person-hood. Though it may not sit well to accept this (from whence, their soul?), the big legal guys (and gals) have told us what to think, that is, what the 'legal' notion ought to be.

There may be some benefits, if we adopt the proper perspective.

We can now apply moral arguments to Corporations, which means, from our common basis as Americans, more than just mere ethics!! We, the people, have as much constitutional right as do those behemoths (and their executive pilferers - now we can tell it like it is).

Consider: Yes, Corporation, quit being a bully (you see, it applies to them not treating their employees as chattel). Oh, Corporation, did you wash behind your ears (applies to their antics of not realizing their citizen-hood's responsibilities as required of adults)? Oh, stop the tantrum, Corporation (ah, yes, now CEOs can no longer play the role of Lordly Prince, as it's unconstitutional)! Oh, Corporation, gambling again (as a friend, I need to tell you that you're addicted to filthy lucre - and power)?

We ought to love this, folks.

This could turn out well for the working folks. Too, look at the responsibilities of a person: family, civic, their own person hood (cannot have an emaciated workforce), etc. It goes on and on.

The question remains, from whence the soul? Not the CEO from what we've seen!!!!

---

Afterword:

As this news gets further analysis, it does look better. Why? In the ideology of economics, there is a crowd who favors 'lazy fare' and who think that some are allowed more latitude to do what they want than others. They glorify Any Rand's concept behind Galt.

In fact, some go so far as to claim that jungle metaphors are appropriate or that darwinistic insights apply. Well, the legal establishment is saying no, at least a large enough portion to have supported this determination.

So, now, consider that all Corporations are to fall into social and moral good behavior just as we expect from any citizen. Is not that great? Too, we have plenty of experience in handling rule breakers and, even, in defining the rules.

Except, how do we perp walk a Corporation? What about incarceration?

Corporate American, you who have squandered our resources, out-housed our backbone, dissed our people (your fellow citizens - what say you?), it is time that you admit that the game plan of the past 20 or so years is lame and that you need to move on toward an improvement that has been sadly ignored while you filled your fat cat pockets. You need to know that Main Street is your bread and butter, not any colony elsewhere (not until we have a United State of the Earth, or similar -- note, I did not say UN).

Remarks:

12/05/2012 -- Nice to know that Coase's view agrees with mine, somewhat.

11/04/2011 -- Cartoon coincident (Mark Lukovich) in time with this post.

11/01/2011 -- Post the post on 09/21, the OWS popped up (or the awareness of the effort came into the media's focus).

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

Modified: 12/05/2012

Health care

Moral: Wherein we consider an important part of the economy. Might one call some aspects as bait and switch?

---

We've said that various medical metaphors can be used for the economy. Well, let's look at the thing itself.

For one, we have doctors making oodles of money. Okay, they pay good bucks and energy to get to play the role. So, some type of reward is to be expected.

Yet, one retired from being head of an insurance and HMO group with 800M (thereabouts) collected in his coffers. We have the whole gamut of insurance fat cats raking in the dough, many times by not paying claims.

We can use one example, in the bait-and-switch area of Medicare Advantage Plans (MAPs). You see, for those who are not of the age to care, many use what's called a Medigap Plan (MG). These, essentially, make up some of the 20% that Medicare does not pay which, by the way, can amount to a whole lot in certain situations. So, the MG doesn't have frills but can be a life saver. With the MG, the insured pays a separate premium (apart from the Medicare premium).

Sometime in the 00s (aughts), there was a new scheme to allow an insurance company to handle Medicare for an individual, provide a few benes, and then act as the prime insurer. That is, they billed Medicare. The idea was that they could make money, in fact, they could charge more to Medicare than could than those using MG.

Well, an analyst characterized the thing this way: But tens of billions of Medicare dollars funneled through insurers also pay for extras that never reach beneficiaries: multimillion-dollar salaries, executive retreats in Hawaii, Scotland and Cancun, and massive expenditures on marketing to lure more customers to the privately administered Advantage plans that serve as an alternative to government-provided Medicare.

Those going with the MAPs could get things like eyeglasses, dental, exercise plans, and more which are not available to the MG group since these things are not paid by Medicare. But, in many case, when a real need developed for the MAPs, necessary care was not there, similar to those things that we heard could happen with HMOs.

Well, those who could afford the premiums were much better off, medically, with the MG. Now, that, of course, ignores how the doctors, and other providers, feel about the situation. As, along with the MAPs advent came decreases in what Medicare paid doctors, and other providers, for care. Consider that payments were 50% less on the MG side due to cuts in reimbursement for treatment.

So, that brings up another thing to look at. We have a major shift in the country where the future look of health care is being defined and debated. Personally, there is no disagreement with PhilG's notion of health care being a right. Arguments otherwise do not consider near zero. Except, there are issues of costs which would abate if the notions of personal wealth for providers and insurers were less extreme.

Also, many naysayers (con universal health care) seem to not consider human dignity and seem to favor a worldview in which the 'fat cat' and 'best and brightest' (read banker) are some type of epitome of human existence deserving of endless benes from the rest (indentured servants, essentially) of humanity. The favored few, and elite, supported perpetually by the rest.

Naturally, this discussion leads to what government might have in terms of roles.

Remarks:

01/03/2010 -- In the post about Economics and Medicine, please follow link to the Goldhill article at the New Yorker. Insurance is for risk management, not care. Goldhill suggests a different approach (actually, from Herzlinger) that would separate out the insurance aspect and that would allow us to manage our health care, with assistance as required. Was this even looked at in the recent debates about universal health care?

Modified: 01/03/2010

The Econony II

Moral: Wherein we consider several issues related to an economy, now that we know that there is not that which is referred to as 'the' economy.

---

We all know that there was a recent downturn. It got Ben panicked. He, Timmy, and others have been allowed to experiment like mad this past year. How long will it take to deconstruct and analyze all the madness that resulted thereby?

Even Goldman Sachs seems to have taken notice, especially given the public's reaction to the best-and-brightests' shortfalls, in particular not knowing about several things, such as the concepts of on the behalf of, near zero and much more.

J. Bradford DeLong and Stephen S. Cohen have a book out now that will be of interest (The End of Influence: What Happens When Other Countries Have the Money).

Well, we need to think about how we (some) will need to live in a scaled-down manner. PhilG used $2,000 per day as an example of wealthy living, albeit this was being spent to house (alleged) terrorists. Many survive on pennies. PhilG's view is used here in that he has proposed his economic recovery plan that we'll be using from time to time here in the discussions.

Of course, people have looked at frugality at lot as blog space shows. Actually, many live it. We know that 'fat cat' ville is the exception, not the rule.

Savings are an important part, as Ben needs to learn. Of course, 'what does that say about debt and equity?' is something to discuss.

We'll continue this later but, for now, start to think about a sandbox and a change in worldview that will allow realization of the near zero as the best that we can get. Too, how did the 'hype' related to the house of cards get such traction with economists?

Remarks:

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

01/03/2010 -- More news on Goldman Sachs as the uber example of 'not on the behalf' comes to fore regularly. It'll need to be a separate subject at some point. Thanks to McClatchy: Nov 1, 2009 & Jan 3, 2010 (update). Goldman has to respond, of course.

Modified: 09/27/2010

The Economy I

Moral: Wherein the comment of "it's the economy, stupid" may be seen as stupid in itself. What are those 'things economic' about which we need to speak?

---

As the index in the title implies, this'll take a while, just like with the consumer, as we'll be looking at things in depth and from a first principles perspective. Some of these things will be roles and resources. But, first, a few musings are in order.

Earlier, an issue of The Atlantic offered several gems, one related to China's growing role and the other to Paul as CEO. There are some other articles from that same issue that relate to the theme.

For one, given that we're hearing about fiction in finance in a public forum, we have to give a nod to the old, bearded guy, namely Marx, he who never left. Hitchens, in his article, suggests that Marx did not believe in 'the economy' as an organism. Many might be surprised to note that their own concept assumes such; do we not like to attach human meaning to collectives, beyond that of the players, to wit our legal proclivity to award the corporation with personhood?

So which is it? The abstracted view of game theory or a more biologically oriented metaphor that applies here? Well, we'll be showing that it's a little of each.

Aside: Wiki has a nice overview which we'll be getting back to from time to time. As John Cassidy in the New Yorker wrote, Marx's "books will be worth reading as long as capitalism endures."

As well as look at what this thing is, we'll need to address: whose economy is it? Capitalists (fat cats, etc.)? The best and brightest? Game players? Bankers? Consumer? Oh yes, that final as this class is given a debt load of gigantic proportions and of no generational limit.

So, we can skip 'the economy' and talk things economic, like money and a whole bunch of other things.

Another article is titled Macroegonomics (needs no explanation) with the images of Alan and Big Ben figuring prominently. This is worth the read to get another overview of the recent problem. Of course, remember that instability is not a priori bad. In fact, some types of flight manage to exploit the dynamics. It's the 'ego' in the gab standard that may be the underlying problem.

Then, we have an article that covers developments in a western Indian state, Gujarat. In brief, the Hindu and Muslim interactions (this Hindu temple, rebuilt 7 times) in this western region are of interest as the history can offer insights into 'things economic' far beyond that seen with the western glasses so enamored with its abstracted views which are so easily exploited by capitalists.

Now, we all know that India and China have a larger population than the US. So, expect both to continue to be featured.

Remarks:

09/27/2010 -- Capitalism is for the good of us, let's bring that forward.

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

01/27/2010 -- Yet, the notion persists. What is one to do?

12/24/2009 -- Economy II.

12/15/2009 -- Requiem for the dollar (WSJ) and responses.

Modified: 09/27/2010