Milking the system

Moral: Wherein we promise to use subjects other than Big Ben for awhile as there are other things of more importance.

---

Retirement? What does it mean? Yahoo Finance had an article today (there is a regular series) about 10 issues that need attention. We'll look at a couple of these later on.

---

Mostly, though, let's look at some of the comments.

In particular, there was this ('pa' denotes new paragraph) that relates to milking the system:

• Yep, I saved nothing. I will be living of the taxes produced from your savings. Your savers are suckers. I got to enjoy my life with my fancy cars, large houses and exotic vacations every year. When I retired at 62 I took my SS and declared bankruptcy. I was able to wipe out nearly 300k of credit card debt and a 550k home loan. (pa) Now I sit here in a nice condo that I bought using credit off the cash advances using a shell company. I paid nothing for my 1 bedroom condo near the beach on Hilton Head, and live very comfortably on my SS check. I sit back and enjoy life and all those goodies I bought on the credit cards that I stored for retirement. I have a 60 inch flat screen tv, surround sound, leather couches, brand new furniture oh and a 2004 BMW all paid for with cash and funneled through the shell company I set up in 1995. It was a long planed out process with lots of credit card shuffling and using all of my income just to pay the minimums. When they raised the minimums I was easily able to file bankruptcy. When the judge asked why I was so irresponsible, I blamed the CC companies for continuing to send me cards. (pa) Play the system people. I now have a fully funded retirement on SS, with no real expenses going out each month I enjoy my life walking the beaches and playing golf with friends. (pa) I have since met a nice lady whom I now live with, between my $1,803 a month and her $2,249 we live a really nice life. She also was one who saved about $100k and so we have a really nice emergency fund. We eat out 3-4 times a week, enjoy movies, golf, and the clubs. It is such a pitty you guys all seemed to struggle and not enjoy your life, only at the end of it to still be suffering due to debt. (pa) My advice to the young. Spend every cent you earn and then work on a plan to expand your Credit. Once you have racked up as much as you can and your income no longer supports the minimum payments, file for bankruptcy and start the process all over again. (pa) Keep on putting some nice purchases in storage for your later years. Then keep it all off the books buy opening up a shell company and hiding from your creditors, as they are too stupid to look much further than your own SS number when filing for Bankruptcy. USE THE SYSTEM TO YOUR ADVANTAGE....

Was that tongue-in-cheek? Wait, before replying, see below.

Makes one think about those who took money out of their houses, in the just past days of malfeasance'd finance (from which we have not recovered), for profligate living. Then, when the houses went underwater, many just walked away leaving a mess for those who had to handle unwinding the mortgage-related paperwork.

---

Ben, tell me, since you sack the savers (your guys are into our pockets deeply), is this the type of economic behavior that you want to reward with your easy money (realize - there are those who put their lives on the line for these types)?

---

Now, the above comment raised some discussion, including a reply from the original commenter.

• You sound like a thief.
• Yes, you sound like a mini-Madoff. Perhaps someone who is in law enforcement will take your logon and start an investigation and you will be living in a one-bedroom 'condo' overlooking the prison yard. And who knows, perhaps someone who really likes you (I mean really, really likes you -- you know - wink, wink) will share your living space and you can flip flop instead of wearing flip flops. But sadly, you will still be living off the taxpayers.
• (original commenter) Nope just somebody who works the system to my advantage. It is totally legal to file bankruptcy... You sound like a jealous person...
• Bay Boomer? Right?
• You took advantage of the system! It's people like you that put us in the debt situation that we are in! Living off the taxpayers. I hope you drop dead!
• Amoral, scum ... and probably also lied in the OP.
• You're obviously a former [snipped slur]
• This guy brags about having no morals whatsoever!! This may be a good reason to reinstate debtors prisons.

It's good to see that most of those who responded noted a problem with this logic.

---

Yet, one has to think that this might very well be what the best-and-brightest are taught (tell me otherwise, Professor).

---

In fact, much management effort is just this: getting something for nothing by sacking the suckers and the doers.

---

Folks, this is one example of why near zero needs to be better understood (yes, even you can learn this lesson, Warren).

Remarks

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

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

05/17/2011 -- Golden sacks, by Rolling Stone.

05/13/2011 -- Yahoo Finance says that the sheriff is back. Good. Too bad that Spitzer had feet of clay.

05/11/2011 -- Insider trading conviction. Some say that this won't hamper anything as the money to 'too big.' Well, how about changing the context, and use, of trading? Matt Nesto somewhat suggests this. We all know that what has evolved is merely ca-pital-sino, essentially. Other panelist (the cynic), Minyanville.

05/10/2011 -- Not picking on Warren, but this is a nice little analysis. One thing to note is that there are other connotations of 'intrinsic' value which we'll have to get to at some point.

05/10/2011 -- As of 1338 EDT, now there's 14 replies to the comment. The reply above, that was snipped, was removed. The overall number of comments is 122 with this comment hitting the button and getting the most replies. Nice little piece of prose, even if fictional.

05/10/2011 -- On milking, is this not what the Street does daily? Are not those who run the system those with their hands deepest into the pot? ... Even if this were fiction, its threads represent real occurrences. That is, an interesting task might be to find events that are similar to what was written. ... But, back to milking, this would be an example of the little guy's take. Our reality is that those who can take do so in very much larger amounts than this story relates.

05/09/2011 -- Out of 15 replies to the comment, as of 6 pm EDT, about four mentioned that this story cannot be true (will the real commenter please stand up). But, this diversion does raise some interesting issues. For one, how illegal is any of the described? How many have seen themselves behind bars (other than Made-off) due their actions over the past 4 years? How many walked away from homes without any lasting mark (what business head saw justice?)? The mention of debtor prison points back to times when morals were supposedly definable and enforceable. Are we not now in an era where anything goes (if you're not caught), since the basis is gaming without much oversight (ruthless winners adored - Warren, et al)? For two, the commenter is bragging about $4k per month with a cushion of about $100. As we all know, a serious medical problem could eat into that cushion quickly. Too, all of the collectibles would require some type of maintenance (or replacement) in the future, causing another set of payouts that could be huge. ... Even if this was sham comment, it was a nice little aside. ... By the way, registering guests is one way to control little fictions such as this one may have been.

Modified: 12/22/2012

Greed vs simple living

Moral: Wherein we look at greed in a framework that ought to be familiar to Big Ben.

---

One question: Is greed mostly a New Testament concept? Well, there are some who use the Torah as the basis for discussing this human trait.

---

This could be considered Some Background II as we look how the smarties have packaged trash with the intent of selling it to us as being of value.

---

Why the question? I heard it said that 'greed' is largely running rampant, thereby causing havoc. I beg to differ, somewhat. Greed is always there.

So, what is different? Besides, of course, the idiocy that claims that 'greed is good' and the best and brightest are allowed to be greedy, without any limit.

---

Let's look at Kaku's opinion on the future. Or, we can discuss the opinions that he collected from talking to a bunch of scientists (see book).

By the way, he's the string theory guy. He makes some broad claims. And, he did this despite knowing how afar from the target have been almost all prognostications since the beginning of time.

---

However, Dr Michio does mention two trends. Now, remember that these are not new, in any sense, except for how we look at them.

There is the trend to peace and health (ergodic theory applies here). Then, there is that which is chaotic (which is behind the risk management mania as well as a new type of engineering).

Now, to use the Biblical thought, would that not be the angelic and demonic principles in their eternal conflict? Is it not nice that one convergence is toward worldviews that show how true are those old concepts?

---

One difference? As mentioned many times, mathematics and computation. And, remember that we have essentially dumbed ourselves down in order for these tools to work.

But, is not the zombie state of those entranced with the LED-lit (or other) screen not unlike some type of state of spiritual rapture? Except, we know how to quiesce this (remove the power from the device enabling the enrapture - yes, as in pull the plug).

----

By the way, Big Ben, all this is because of the season for both (of course, there are more than two) of the major worldviews that revolve around the Bible.

---

We're, today, in day three of the five gaming days. Every week, it continues. Winners and losers. Yes, people, where is the discussion of the basic truth of near zero? In fact, Big Ben's largess to the fat cats which is sacking/soaking the savers is one big example.

---

But, what can Big Ben do? I mentioned before that he's heavy into the equity index game. And, to think that he is expected to be independent in thinking. Anyone remember when he ran scared (yes, 2008/9 time frame) and loosened the book of our beans for the fat cats to feed on without any constraint (or, does anyone even care?).

---

Is it not remarkable that in 2011, we're still arguing age-old problems? Well, considering that each generation learns anew (and parents know the travails that can come from their kids -- examples abound -- some kids even exalting in trashing the past -- but, we did that as a country here (in a sense) in the revolutionary times (ah, how many atrocities could be attributed to the patriots), if we only knew?), what else can we do? Now, given the question, we'll now have to venture into these realms. You know? Big Ben does not have to care. Like King Alan, keeping those in power, and in the money, happy is sufficient for the guy.

Remarks:

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

09/19/2013 -- All's not lost. Some accountants see a change that is problematic. But, first, savers are more than just risk averse; they put their actions where their mouth is by being prudent. Now, that was once considered a virtue; in fact, one could argue that it was expected for fiscal responsibility. However, some claim that accounting has removed prudence in lieu of theoretical nonsense leading to annual reports that are incomprehensible. Actually, the computer can make things such, too, so the whole bit that underpins our world seems to have been given a shaky basis (on purpose, to allow rooking the people? - or, through stupidity?). Of course, the side that argues that prudence is quaint (well, it seems to be for quants) is vocal, too. But, we have China asking prudence of Ben and the Fed?

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

10/11/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. Can we only resolve the grabby-ness problem with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude (you sign over your rights when you agree to the onerous nondisclosure rules) in many ways as it is now defined) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about? Why is finance about greed? Rhetorical, in part, but only because those with money have defined the game. We can show how smart/non-greedy peoples can run this show, no matter how complicated some might think that it is. And, it would demonstrate what 'markets' are meant to show.

09/20/2011 -- This will be used in our constructive effort.

05/29/2011 -- Fair dealing, can that be brought back? Was it ever?

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

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/21/2011 -- When 250K isn't enough? Flimflam & swindle.

04/19/2011 -- That systems thinking has led us awry is obvious. Answering why this is so is the task.

04/15/2011 -- Daily Ticker quotes the New Yorker on the wealth gap: the top 1% of Americans own 1/3rd of the country's wealth. That is, 99% share the remainder.

04/15/2011 -- The IEEE Spectrum has an article that talks game theory in an accessible manner. The example starts with the failure of Steve Jobs' demo of the new IPhone, last year, which was attributable to the many mobile hot-spots that were collected in the room. Essentially, selfish action is expected. We see this in finance where the best-and-brightest are allowed a favored spot at the trough with the result that they become fat cats. There will be a post soon on this. As these related blogs have argued for a concept which could be characterized as 'simple living' (which takes note of near zero) as that need to bring the dismal realm of the economy into a more humanly oriented state. Yes, indeed. The antithesis of the fat cat is what we need to run our markets and to care for our beans. And, those who grow to be huge giants ought not, in most ways, be honored or emulated. Lesson: for any of those who have accumulated hugely, how many bodies were left in their wake? Then, is there any amount of retribution that they could offer (yes, the philanthropist's dilemma - recompense) that would account for those who were thusly sacrificed.

04/14/2011 -- Golden sacks. Where to start on these people? 

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.

Modified 07/22/2015

Some background I

Moral: Wherein we go back further than three hundred, or so, years ago, in order to show from whence the residue (apologies to Weierstrass) that keeps bubbles afloat.

---

Earlier, we looked at our-basis and how that affects our economic selves. That is, what ought to be behind how we treat our beans (current and future)? Too, how is it that the best-and-brightest get us into so much trouble? How is it that they chase after a chimera (albeit, for some, there are rewards indeed - as they get to pilfer, essentially)?

Aside: 3+ years ago, there were predictions of looming failure (we were finding the fiction in finance). There were revelations coming about of trashy tranching. We knew that the idiots had leveraged our futures, but we did not know it had been to the hilt. And, no one got slapped or jailed or even reprimanded (beyond the rogue table). Why? We'll explain that. Too, we learned some of the ways that the finance people are not class acts: George's rant, not fair, culprits, dead peasant. What we saw were people playing with our beans without getting fingered as culprits. No, looking at Jamie's attitude now, it was just business as usual.

---

Let's start from a real early time and leap forward. We'll go back and forth like that for a few posts. George Berkeley is the motivation, somewhat.

Ala Robinson and Poincaré, this is an appeal to the intuition. At the same time, we will not be too inconsistent (nod to Emerson). However, as the argument expands, the intent is to approach completeness as much as we can. Yet, science (the enlightened type) says that we cannot; noting, of course, that those with an operational view don't care.

---

By the way, finance professors, where are these types of basics covered? You know, emphasizing greed (unethics, if you would) is not it (examples abound)?

---

Let's go way back to Zeno (love that guy), namely his arrow paradox.

Aside: if philosophical topics are a turn-off, please read on for a just little. Why? We'll only touch on these things briefly.

The key to this notion is that it's age-old, yet the puzzle continues even to the present day. And, we intend to show that financial engineering has not resolved this issue as it ought.

For those who do not understand why all the energy gets put behind arguments of this kind, we all know that the arrow arrives at its point (with intended consequences if it's path is truth - as in, as anticipated by the slinger of the arrow - er, archer). That's taking the operational stance, somewhat. And, it really is how things get done.

Aside: Philosophers and ilk can deal in the abstract, as someone puts food on their tables. The rich can be idle, as the multitude want to, and must work. Finance folks reap ill-begotten gains because they are allowed to, as others do the real work and suffer from want. At the core of the economy are a whole lot of people doing the remarkable, under dire circumstances and straits, on a daily basis. Has any economic/finance hotshot, or system, ever looked out for the people (and, I do not mean any collection of that thing called the corporate entity to which the Court gave personhood)?

---

Except? Notice how things are going toward the benefit of the geeks and wizards? Why? The pervasive use of the growing computational prowess seems to be unlimited.

Yet, know this, please. At the core of computing is something very much akin to vertigo (the really insightful people know this). Too, the resolution of this deep problem rests upon the backs (and, insights, intuition -- albeit trained, and good sense) of people.

Topsy-turvy is how it has been characterized. Quasi-empiricism, by necessity, is not a bad thing to use for this.

Quants, show me any of you who are insightful in this sense. Please.

---

Now, coming forward, the computational progress rests upon the work of a whole lot of mathematicians, scientists, engineers, and experimenters. Tis true even now, to wit, the profusion of apps (and related effort) upon frameworks that have come out of ideas that were outside of corporate mindset (to wit, social media and much more).

It is to the basic, and residual, effects that we are going to put our attention here.

---

But, we have to set the context such that we can build a picture that makes sense and that suggests how to proceed.

Is this not what we see within the economic realm? Things start, bubble, and then collapse (see

George Berkeley - ghost of departed quantities, indeed)

, as we are all so aware of, given the past few years. And, the effects will linger a long time. Does it have to be that way?

---

In order to build the right mindset, we jumped back to Zeno. We'll now jump forward to George Berkeley (mentioned above) who argued the idealist position. Now, don't get upset with George (after all, we have a University, in California, named after him), as I've heard a philosopher of science argue that the table that we were sitting at did not exist. Of course, he was using the modern parlance and talking boundary conditions. Too, I have heard modern versions of Zeno's thinking casted as jokes for engineers.

Where we are going with this is that there is a strong, trainable, human intuition that has been given no (or little) attention in business schools (actually, the western world's view has thrown this out, for the most part -- except that it has not, rather only a few are allowed to dabble -- we'll get into the necessary role of the autodidact, to boot).

Aside: A few years ago, most enrollments were in computer science. Then, it went to finance. Say what? I thought, at the time. What the hell is there in finance that is so intriguing? Oh, I must have been sleeping to miss out on the shenanigans (give me a break; who would have thought that this idiocy would even gain the light of day?). What is the goal of many students? I saw Business Week with a review (only a couple of years ago) that characterized MBA pursuers. Essentially, it said this: CEOs, we're after your jobs; everyone else, we want to make lots of money (implied: get the hell out of the way).

Of course, the argument for those who agree with this is that the high tide lifts all boats (did we not hear that a lot? Simultaneously, the set of enriched grew their assets rapidly whilst the majority sank into poverty and want. The middle class? Squeezed out, for the most part).

The trouble: each of these succeeding cycle is putting us deeper into the crapper. The past 1/2 century has seen effects multiplied on the event of a downturn. Without due attention, it'll only get worse (ah, let the banks self-police, it was said).

---

So, what is behind a lot of belief, and energy, that goes into bubbles (besides, of course, the aeration by the FED and the like)? We'll get back to that next time, after March Madness is over.

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

05/03/2011 -- With George B being mentioned several times, we need to address, more fully, the notions of adequality and what it means (Katz & Katz, Robinson) in the context of modern computation and its open problems related to certain types of applications.

04/19/2011 -- Some basics need attention, to boot.

04/04/2011 -- We will get technical with things like linear logic. The numerants (opposites of the innumerants - remember the discussions of innumeracy?) have over-laid upon themselves, and us, a choking cloud of numbers that will strangle out our very human essence if we do not wake up and smell its gaseous emanations.

04/04/2011 -- Gross seems to know the bankers well. Note that Big Ben (from our pockets) gave them (while sacking the savers) oodles of free money.

04/03/2011 -- For preparation, be sure to look at the 5 issues to be addressed.

Modified 09/21/2011

Profits are what? Or, Gravy train II

Moral: Wherein we diverge, a minute, from the slow trek toward a position that is reasonable, and well-founded (knowledge, imperatives) with regard to that which everyone would hope is fair and just, and that honors Adam Smith and other thinkers; we pause just to ponder a few things.

---

Such as profits and other illusions associated with the cap-ital-sino and its gravy trains.

Why ask about profits? A recent Vanity Fair article discussed how the Irish are paying more through the nose than are the Americans (though, it is debatable when you think of the largess of Big Ben to business (hey, guy, some of the supposed little folk are as capable and mindful than are those who are milking the land of honey -- one difference, 'tude!) and of the mountains of debt being pushed out to the future generations), for the dumb (outright stupid, okay?) actions of those who were handling the monies (and who have no sense of 'on the behalf of"). Yet, the Irish are not complaining about their huge burden or about their stalled economy. Well, in the article, some old banker is asking a hot-shot about expected returns which were in the double digits (of course, before the fall and bail out). The old guy said, how is that? Meaning, of course, that long-term, sustained returns for a good bank would be not far above 5%.

Anything above is suspicious, non-sustainable, and downright anti-human. Yes.

---

Gosh, any saver can tell you what it is like to be sacked, thanks to Big Ben.

---

What are reasonable profits? Mind you, before you answer, many occurrences of large returns may be accompanied by luck (hence, not repeatable), malfeasance (Made-off is only one example, cooking the books has many connotations), and other deleterious characteristics. Show me an honest firm, working within the constraints of near-zero, who has sustainable success beyond a mere generation or two?

---

But, other things go into obtaining profits, such as outhousing and the like. Too, we have pushing the boundaries of cutting (see Toyota, as an example) so as to reap returns. Many times, such reduction methods can push toward a serious reduction in quality.

Why is this of interest? Well, a recent experience, involving a Sealy sham, brings this to the fore. Does diminishing of repute mean anything? At some point, one would think that good will would get chewed down to the bone.

It seems that jumping from a defensive mode to that of attacking the consumer is the preferred approach. In a sense, turn a blind eye to problems. At the same time, institute insurmountable obstacles for rectifying failed items.

---

But, as we know, generally, out-sized returns happen daily. From where I sit, many of these are being pulled in by those who run things. Is that not crappy or what? Gravy train? Or, those involved have some special situation (as in, the global elite) that allows the money to flow like a huge river.

Perhaps, some type of balance is obtained if those with the dough turn around and offer a benefactor's hand to the less fortunate. I wonder if Buffett could take time to discuss, and look at, a sustainable economy (I don't mean more for your pocket, Warren)?

---

It is obvious that some type of insight goes along with the luck. Can that be taught? Well, plenty seem to think so (there are many buying the training, many offering the training). Too, the reward may go to the risk, yet there is risk and risk. What we have seen, more than necessary, is risk spilling over to others, of late. In fact, what risks can be associated with our mortgaging the financial lives of those to come?

Remarks:

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

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

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

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.

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

02/16/2011 -- Ah, yes. The morning's paper has a couple of stories that we'll have to expand upon. We did miss the 'nationalization' chance two years ago. Too bad.

• NYSE's moves -- as the thing says, computers run (rule) the realm. Which means, essentially, the fat cats, and their techie wizards, collect their fees (huge sucking machine).
• Golden sacks -- speaking of fees, and windfalls (Gravy train?).
• Middle class -- disappearing act

Both of these are only a small sampling of many things that ought to be looked at.

Modified: 07/22/2015

The ideological errors of capitalism, VII -- wealth

Moral: Wherein we consider that how 'wealth' is handled can be problematic, yet it will be, by necessity, a very important factor in any attempt to frame a better basis for capitalism.

---

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)

---

What exactly is this 'wealth' that is referenced? Remember the train that was mentioned earlier? Some think that this mythical train carries the wealth. However, near-zero says not.

There may have been a lifting of the markets, in response to the efforts of Big Ben and others to shore up the game. As we all know, the Street was given life support by Main Street and the people (such as, the savers who were sacked, severely).

Now, the merry-go-round is brightly shining again, attracting more money. You know, that fills the pockets of those running the game. Ever heard of the advantage of the house? Somehow, the system, and the thinking, behind the chimera took on the flavor associated with Las Vegas without any peep from the populace (or those who are to be watching out for the populace).

---

Everywhere one looks in the US, debt is stacked up. Except, for those who were able to grab assets. Some of these were just smart and live within their means. Others, the few, gobbled while things were good. The many? It is seriously bad, folks. However, the situation is not without some type of remedy, if proper choices are made. For one, the daily dancing on the merry-go-round needs some serious attention; that is, that which the moneyed do not want is what needs to be looked at closely. How?

---

So, again, what is wealth? It might be time to tackle that subject, but, first, let's review the litany of ideological problems in reverse order of the original posting.

• Classism - There is nothing more autocratic than a large corporation's thinking about its employees (ah? detect some notion of corporate as a being? were we not told that by the Supreme Court?). You see, employees are mere labor. It's the fat cat, with the capital, who is the sum of all things in this paradigm. Of course, those who tout progressive ideas say that everyone (or, anyone), then, ought to own capital. The problem? The takeaway nature of the underlying game is heavily weighted to those who skim off the top.
• Ill cultured-ness - So, not only are workers exploited, many times it is in unconscionable ways. For instance, what cry was raised about conditions that led to I-Phone suicides (mentioned briefly in the New Yorker)? Wait, come to think of it, except for the show about the under-cover boss, who even cares about the daily toils of the multitudes who create the life of ease?
• An abundance of absconders - As mentioned above, plenty do attempt to rise out of their straits yet fail. You see, pilfering (in terms of organized 'ponzi'ed' schemes) abounds. The real grief is that the malfeasance is couched in terms that dishonor mathematics (there are many to blame for this -- essentially, those who are without innumeracy, that is, they of the best and brightest (supposedly) have superpositioned idiocy (this will be explained fully, in time) on the rest of us (let's say, a numerant can understand 'being' which innumerant, okay?) while those who ought to know sat on their hands).
• Prevalence of shell games - Street corner tactics, many of which are illegal (would have the keystone kops after there perpetrators), have been allowed under the guise of business as usual (as if that whole set of darwinian notions was strong -- who is there who is not blinded by the sirens of wealth, money, etc.?).
• Unconscionable exploitation of Adam Smith - Adam knew the failings of 'free markets' quite well. He knew a lot more than that. Ought we to think that those who argue the 'invisible hand' are in mind to simulate that via computation (controlled by themselves - with appropriate skimmings, to boot) and funny money (gab standard and all)?
• Ca-pital-sino - How is it that the guise of business, as usual, has turned to gaming as if this were the epitome of the long trek to civilization for which our ancestors labored so hard?
• Gravy train - The spoils go to those who take risks, we were told, within a framework that allowed essentially silly ideas to be cast forward as brilliant. Yes, bet the dinner, as mommy/daddy will clean up the mess. Did we learn anything from our recent exposure to downturns (bubbles popping)? Well, some things came to fore: privatization of gain/socialization of loss, ...
• ...
• A new game -- this was written on Sept 22, 2007. What was the smell then? Were there early warnings of the downturn? The focus was on using a real project, like a new airplane, to talk about issues of economic systems (those things manipulated by the cream skimmers, okay?) that turn out to be so deleterious to the common man. That type of query, naturally, leads to issues like the cyber-physical. You see, money is more cyber than physical (those bills and coins are mere artifacts, worthless without the underlying system).

---

Albeit, some of the problem is that computation covers a whole lot of mischief. Made-off is our best example of this (how many years did his silly, in retrospect, bluffing win out (we need to get into the psychology of that whole bit of idiocy)?).

Guess what? Computation is the core; unfortunately, that core is more of a utility than has been realized. Right now, it's a pot of gold into which are thrust several hands (yes, goldman, your ilk) daily extracting out mountains of cream for the elite.

• Aside: From 07/31/2009 -- Wait! More exposures: "computers, some housed right next to the machines that drive marketplaces like the New York Stock Exchange, enable high-frequency traders to transmit millions of orders at lightning speed and, their detractors contend, reap billions at everyone else's expense." To anyone who isn't at Goldman Sachs or the like, does that appeal to you as the way that we ought to be handling our beans?

The necessary functions will require the stamina of one who has taken a vow of poverty (let's, for now, use simple living) and who is not seduced by the sirens related to high living (as in all of these financial centers in the world full of those who are not to run the core system).

---

Market holidays, such as today, afford us an opportunity to look at the game for what it is.

Let's put it this way. If we built houses as we allow the market to be built (inflated by air), we would have to re-build quite often. We can attempt to put a timeframe on how long a house stood by looking at the crashes of the past 15 years.

Granted exogenous shocks were a large factor. Yet, it's like the child's story of the wolves blowing down the house.

Since we do know how to engineer, we can apply this knowledge to the economy. However, folks, it would not be 'financial engineering' (not in its current manifestation - sorry, professors, your best-and-brightest are one big problem to the rest of the populace).

Remarks:

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

03/11/2011 -- Wired asks, ought we care?

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

Modified: 01/08/2019

Roadmap for Growth

Moral: Wherein we stop to look at what's being offered by the Business Roundtable in order to better continue discussion of the ideological basis for capitalism and to try to introduce what is necessary - a Magna Carta equivalent to dampen these people's enthusiasm for exploitation.

---

In particular, a good place to start is the recent Roadmap for Growth (see commentary by The Economist). They're actually talking 'better-paying jobs for American workers' as if that is of prime concern to them.

Well, let's see, they do talk ethics (under the guise of Public Trust). A search on the site brought up 100 hits. I'll have to poke around and see if this effort was mostly a 'paper tiger' over the past 3 decades. A whole lot of negative business stuff has passed under the bridges during the their time. I don't recall any hand slaps by these guys/gals (mutual admiration society?) on those who are malfeasant.

Too, these are those who run things (the set that takes oodles of pay as given). But, they do deserve an unbiased reading of their material. Also, they exemplify the top-down view. As we all know, truth is middle-out with a heavy taste of the bottom.

Anyway, it'll be fun to look further at all of this stuff.

---

The Economist says that these are the big boys of the conservative bent. There is the Chamber of Commerce, too, who collects those of the more normal size. We need to consider their take, to boot.

---

Needless to say, the point here is that there are those of sufficient talent, with appropriate aptitudes (and probably better attitude) about simple living, and with deep concerns for business ethics and for the well-being of the planet (and its inhabitants), and so forth who can do as well as (perhaps, even better than) this favored crowd in all matters except for a few. For instance, preening, being catered to, etc. seems to be a necessity for the position. Why (rhetorically presented, of course, as we'll discuss this more fully as things unfold)?

Remarks:

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

01/06/2011 -- It is interesting that Jim M, whose company makes oodles off of the taxpayers' money, would be in the line of those with the gall to tell us, via our representatives, what they think is what we ought to do. Jim M? What were you thinking?

01/03/2011 -- Two years ago, a collective mug shot like on this page was labelled rogue table. What is different now? Oh yes, these are the New Kings. Their reign? Those virtual entities that have no boundaries in the geographic, or traditional, sense. That is why we need the Magna Carta. Their quandary? Within any political bounded state, they are princes (if that) and feel that they need to protect their turfs, and remuneration. What are the rest of us? Mere resources to be exploited. Ah, they ought to consider that many have more brains in one head (sorry, Grigori, only using you as an example and, perhaps, a metaphor that we need to understand) than they have in their collective lot.

01/03/2011 -- When one looks at the tone of the plan given to the government, and the demands, it's like these people forget that their idiocy created the recent downturn (not just the finance people, folks, as many pushed for book cooking, financial wizardry, etc.). Talk lack of humility. Somehow, business is equated with crap; is that what you American companies want? Why don't you lead the world in ethical business practices, being green, etc.?

Modified: 05/17/2011

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

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

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